Judge Joe Brown making fun of this Wedding photographer's kit

swingking

Ok I apologise in advance for linking to this utter trash and probably fake show. But it's funny how he mocks the wedding photographer's kit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs

Corkfeen

She was sort of fecked that Brown knew what he was talking about. Who the hell uses just one body for wedding photography and a 450d at that. Note the lack of a nifty fifty!!!

melekalikimaka

18-55 ha
70-300 ha ha

man i wouldnt photography my friends with that, and i her the canon one is uber crud

Paulw

He knows his gear, which is unfortunate for them.

But, in fairness, it should never be about the kit, it should be about the photos.

melekalikimaka

Paulw wrote: »

He knows his gear, which is unfortunate for them.

But, in fairness, it should never be about the kit, it should be about the photos.

true, but entry dslr and kit lens is unacceptable for a professional service imo

Thecageyone

Nothing wrong so much with the camera, or lenses, if she was putting the effort in and had told the couple that's all the equipment she'd be using beforehand. Though it should be a cheap job. She was charging more than her equipment costs, which is BS. Her attitude stinks too, she was never going to win acting like that.

Paulw

I wouldn't disagree there. An consumer SLR and a kit lens shouldn't be good enough for a professional wedding.

If they didn't get their prints done in Wallmart (or where ever) then they might have been ok.

melekalikimaka

wht was the print size she said 'would be perfect up to' something mental. the woman didnt know her arse from her hand photowise, the fact she went to wallmart hints to that, the fact she didnt know her aperture, and the fact, the other woman seemed to know even less... i really hope this was a staged joke

Thecageyone

It raises a good question though. What is good enough, basically, to do a wedding. I'm not talking high end pro work, but for friends of friends for a few quid.

I've been asked in th past but declined, as I only had a bridge cam and tripod at the time. But now I have a dslr, albeit entry level, and a nifty fifty. if I was ever to agree to do one on the cheap, what else would I require?

I think in the right hands, basic equipment would more than suffice, but the fact yer one in the clip didn't even know the speed of her lenses ...

gman2k

Reminds me of the photographer I used for my wedding 2 1/2 years ago (he's based in Waterford)
Turned up with a 35mm film Canon EOS 500n (basic model film camera - I bought my one back in 1998)
He also had a Finepix S3pro digital camera, which was set to it's lowest resolution - average jpeg file size 600kb.

Borderfox

If I was doing a friends wedding as a guest I would bring the 5d and 50mm f1.4, small and neat and easy for a candid.

melekalikimaka

Thecageyone wrote: »

It raises a good question though. What is good enough, basically, to do a wedding. I'm not talking high end pro work, but for friends of friends for a few quid.

I've been asked in th past but declined, as I only had a bridge cam and tripod at the time. But now I have a dslr, albeit entry level, and a nifty fifty. if I was ever to agree to do one on the cheap, what else would I require?

I think in the right hands, basic equipment would more than suffice, but the fact yer one in the clip didn't even know the speed of her lenses ...

a flash
a wide angel @2.8
a zoom @2.8

adds bout another 3 grand or so...

then reflectors
ladder
maybe another flash or two

DublinWriter

I like this man.

Let's just hope none of us ever have to stand before him - "Now tell me, why were you using that unsupported API and browser-specific functions..."

Paulw

Or "Do you have a license from the IPPA to take wedding photos"??

For weddings, it really depends what size prints you want, and what the conditions are.

Some weddings are really bright, so a slower lens would be ok.

Most weddings in Ireland are in darker churches, so would require fast glass (f/2.8).

All you should really need are a good fast lens (portrait type) and a long lens. A flash would be needed too. Everything else is optional.

humberklog

"Entra level camera...sheeeeeeeeet".

Thecageyone

melekalikimaka wrote: »

a flash
a wide angel @2.8
a zoom @2.8

adds bout another 3 grand or so...

then reflectors
ladder
maybe another flash or two

I said non-pro

Luckily for me, I don't ever intend to do weddings. but, if the price was right y'know. If I was guaranteed a few hundred I'd buy a nice wide angle zoom lens for the job. That'd be payment enough. The rest would be shot with the nifty-fifty. I can make even ugly people look good so I know I'd get good results

CabanSail

I think the lack of knowledge is the key factor here. The Judge knew more about her kit than she did. She did not know the speed of her lenses. You sort of know that she was shooting in Auto too.

I actually did a wedding this weekend. It was for a member of the family. I was pushing it with fast glass as the church was not bright & it was dull outside.

sprinkles

Damn, he knows his ****, she should get the judge to do the reshoot

In all fairness though the defendant hadn't even clue about the kit she was using. Amazing! I wonder how common this type of thing is - I'd imagine it'd be easy enough to fool someone who doesn't know the last thing about photography with an entry model DSLR and a few kit lenses.

Dara Robinson

why on earth was she using a 70-300? wtf? Who uses a 70-300 at a wedding? why would you use one? how the hell.... What possible shots could you get with a 70-300?

Freak, glad she lost lol

Thecageyone

Me thinks she just made up a number, probably seen it in a catelogue or something, and only had a kit lens.

Paulw

Dara Robinson wrote: »

why on earth was she using a 70-300? wtf? Who uses a 70-300 at a wedding? why would you use one?

Maybe if she wasn't allowed on/near the alter and had to shoot from distance. I've seen plenty of wedding photographers use long lenses (more usually 70-200mm f/2.8 though).

gbee

I am delighted to see some legal recognition of this issue. Since the digital age arrived 'professional' photographers have been coming out of the woodwork.

In the old days I'd use a Hassledblad or a Bronica in a tripod ~ it was used for several reasons, to command the situation and capture the best original quality.

Today, ironically, SOME phone cameras produce better tonal range from their tiny, tiny, tiny sensors than the 1DMKIII or 5D will produce unaided ~ you do reach a limit on the printed size.

gbee

Dara Robinson wrote: »

why on earth was she using a 70-300? wtf? l

Actually this is a great lens, light and highly portable ~ it's usefulness can be limited and inside a dimly lit church is one of them for sure.

gbee

Paulw wrote: »

If they didn't get their prints done in Wallmart (or where ever) then they might have been ok.

I don't know what's wrong with wallmart prints, they use the same professional machines as are available to the profession. That is as against the inkjets that one finds in homes and offices [not to be confused with the top end inkjet art machines that would actually be used to make the giant prints anyway].

Paulw

gbee wrote: »

I don't know what's wrong with wallmart prints, they use the same professional machines as are available to the profession.

I agree, but I think it was more due to the client's perception. The "professional" should have had the images printed, and then handed them over but no in a Wallmart pouch/bag. Then the client wouldn't know where the images were printed, and it wouldn't have mattered.

It has a lot to do with perception, and much less to do with the facts.

smelltheglove

Its quite funny that she doesnt know the speed of her lenses. As said above even if she did get walmart prints she didnt need to tell the client she got them, having said that they seem to be a high gloss finish whereas clients would be more inclined to expect a matte finish.

Also with regards to the pastors request for no flash, isnt that what contracts are for??? I take my candid church shots no flash, even the rings no flash unless the church is exceptionally dark as I am not very fond of flash in the church but obviously the walking up the aisle requires flash and if the client wants some family shots in the church flash would be required. I always ensure to read my contract to clients which states I have to abide by the house rules and if these rules mean certain shots cannot be obtained to the usual standards then at least the client is aware of that.

That was some attitude she had all the same!

pete4130

Shooting a wedding isn't just taking some pictures, no matter what kit you have.

There is lots of planning involved and you have to be aware of what the "safe" and necessary shots are going to be. The obvious ones are bride arriving, aisl shots, ring shots etc... but there are so many more shots that have to be taken in a short period of time that are necessaary. It is up to the photographer to take charge and direct people who are distracted by the event on the day.

Knowing what shots are needed, and knowing how to capture those shots is another thing altogether. Direction is the key and I'm sure every photographer has their own slightly unique way of shooting the bride with the brides father, taking into account eh small things like making sure the fathers shoes are under the wedding dress so they don't distract the eye away from the dress.....all these small things that have to be remembered/done on the fly while telling large groups of people what to do while making sure they are looking & smiling at the camera when about 10 other people are hiovering around behind the wedding photographer with P&S's trying to get their attention (which is when the photog needs to politely tell them to F*** off until their job is done).

It's a case of trying to be in 2-3 places at once, anticipating peoples next moves and being there ahead of them and being ready without making mistakes. Factor in rain, Irish winter, dark churches, mixed lighting sources and the ceremony not waiting for the photog to get a 2nd chance its tough, stressful work.

Add to that the candid shots, which is why photogs have 2nd shooters for that.

It doesn't matter if you have the best of the best equipment. If you don't have the experience of shooting weddings and knowing exactly what your doing you aren't going to get good results.

For example, I'd rather a seasoned pro wedding photographer with an entry level camera and kit lens than an inexperienced photog who likes having the biggest and best kit and not knowing how to use it. The seasoned pro will now how to work with what he's got compared to the inexperienced photog fumbling and learning as they go along.

I shot my friends wedding in November as a favour for a friend and I wanted to give him the image as an extra gift. I watched the paid photog work and her 2nd shooter working.
She was definitely put out that my equipment outshone hers and felt a bit intimidated but I told her I wouldn't get in her way, distract anyone at all and would keep my distance as I knew she was getting paid, has a hard enough job as it is and I didn't want my friends wedding pictures to suffer because of me.

I found it really interesting to watch. She knew what shots she needed, and how she wanted to shoot them (so it was formulaic for her to shoot a wedding but she knew what worked for her).

I eventually saw some of her wedding shots and I have to admit, they were pretty sh!t in my opinion. Bland, lacking contrast, engagement and any interest at all.

I'm not saying my images were pro wedding standard. nobody was looking into my camera obviously and I was shooting candids and brought my camera to the reception afterwards and kept shooting.

My friends who got married thanked me for being there and questioned why they even had paid a wedding photog after seeing both sets of photos.
I told him that if I screwed up we probably wouldn't be friends anymore and I was happy he liked my photos.

My whole point being is that I do have the equipment necessary to shoot a wedding but would not even attempt to as I don't have the experience and knowledge to do it confidently. I'd at least want to shoot 15-20 weddings as a 2nd shooter before I'd even consider shooting a small wedding on my own.
I pretty much used a 24-70 2.8 briefly, an 80-200 2.8 and 50mm 1.4 for the majority.

It isn't just about having a camera and pushing a button which I think has been discussed earlier in the thread.

Freddie59

Wow! Scary stuff indeed. That Judge knew his stuff, though! But I'm a little puzzled at some of the comments here. The mantra among some is that 'just because you have plumbing tools doesn't make you a plumber' - extend that into cameras and photography.

This wedding is shot with a 450D (albeit with a fast lens). What's everyone's opinion on the quality?

Surely, if they had bothered to use the right lens(es), they would have produced excllent results - if they had the skills? Would it REALLY have mattered if they had a better camera?

Dara Robinson

I'm not saying its not a great lens. the 70-200 range tend to be great lenses but in a Church for a wedding???????

And Paul, she was the official Photographer. Not allowed near the alter? Very much doubt that. More likely she is trying to make money and has not got a fkin clue what she is doing. Printing in Wallmart for official wedding photographs? They had better be good, something I very much doubt. I get better prices in proper printers than I do in Harvey Normans or some place like that

VisionaryP

pete4130 wrote: »

She was definitely put out that my equipment outshone hers...

I pretty much used a 24-70 2.8 briefly, an 80-200 2.8 and 50mm 1.4 for the majority.

I'm stunned that as a pro, she had lesser lenses than that. Do you mind me asking what equipment she had?

To answer the previous questions about acceptable lenses for weddings... the majority of professional wedding photographers in Ireland shoot with a 24-70 2.8 (for about 80% of the wedding), the 70-200 2.8 IS on the second body, and a couple of 1.2 or 1.4 primes in the bag in case of extreme circumstances such as a candlelit ceremony.

Corkfeen

sprinkles wrote: »

Damn, he knows his ****, she should get the judge to do the reshoot

In all fairness though the defendant hadn't even clue about the kit she was using. Amazing! I wonder how common this type of thing is - I'd imagine it'd be easy enough to fool someone who doesn't know the last thing about photography with an entry model DSLR and a few kit lenses.

I have a 400d and 90% of my mates can't tell the difference between it and an actual pro model.

melekalikimaka

Corkfeen wrote: »

I have a 400d and 90% of my mates can't tell the difference between it and an actual pro model.

in ideal conditions, but in conditions where light is an issue the more expensive gear becomes apparent

Corkfeen

melekalikimaka wrote: »

in ideal conditions, but in conditions where light is an issue the more expensive gear becomes apparent

Ya I know it wouldn't stand a chance against the pro gear. Just pointing out the fact that in general people have issues recognising theres a difference and assume all slrs are pretty much the same. Didn't really make my point clear in previous post. (Blame it on being just back from the pub)

thedarkroom

Dara Robinson wrote: »

I'm not saying its not a great lens. the 70-200 range tend to be great lenses but in a Church for a wedding???????

And Paul, she was the official Photographer. Not allowed near the alter? Very much doubt that. More likely she is trying to make money and has not got a fkin clue what she is doing. Printing in Wallmart for official wedding photographs? They had better be good, something I very much doubt. I get better prices in proper printers than I do in Harvey Normans or some place like that

It does happen. I did a wedding in Trinity College church on St Stephen's Green and the priest wouldn't allow any photographs at all in the church. When the bride and groom told me this I rang the priest to explain how I operate, no flash, discreet, etc and he point blank said no. It would usually be down to the individual priest rather than the church policy.
I did another wedding one time in an old country church in north Wexford, in a lovely Sylvanian setting and it was the bride and groom who didn't want any photos in the church itself.
It happens.

Freddie59

thedarkroom wrote: »

It happens.

It sure does. And all it takes is for one idiot to precipitate it. I was talking to a priest in a local church last year (the church is a modern, hexagonal shape, so the altar is in the centre, with 360 degree seating) who told me that, at a wedding last year - in the middle of the consecration of the Mass - the wedding photographer got UNDER the altar to get a head-on shot of the B & G.:rolleyes: And it went from there.....

Freddie59

melekalikimaka wrote: »

in ideal conditions, but in conditions where light is an issue the more expensive gear becomes apparent

Agreed - but does the average punter notice the difference?

VisionaryP

Freddie59 wrote: »

Agreed - but does the average punter notice the difference?

Yes. Do a search for poor Fenster's unfortunate wedding.

Edit: Here it is: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055697264

Regardless of the flash, he might have been ok if he had a camera with better performance at high ISO, faster lenses, and a bit of know how. So again, yes, the average punter would definitely know the difference between professional grade equipment and hobbyist equipment.

To counter balance that, as someone else already pointed out, all the best gear in the world is still useless if put into the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it.

Fionn

i once attended a wedding where the priest halted the ceremony abruptly and declared that he would not continue until the congregation ceased taking photographs. I wasn't the photographer covering the wedding thankfully

yes + + for the 70 - 200 thats always in my bag and 24 - 70 L or 24 -105 L is good too, oh! and i always pack with a third camera a 35mm 1.4 L - if i had a 85mm II 1.2 i'd say it's the perfect wedding lineup for lenses.

The thing about turning up for something so mission critical such as a wedding with the bare minimum equipment is the danger of a malfunction or poor results especially when printing to higher resolutions. Murphys Law is very prevalent at weddings
These photographers in the vid were chancers!!! and obviously were getting away with it but were finally caught out.
I'd imagine their bookings are way down as a result.

gbee

I've done a stint of some 12 years as a wedding photographer primarily. Part of the sales pitch was the use of 120 equipment, whilst I never joined the IPPA, they had guidelines which I followed and in fact many customers asked about.

So gear is important. Back up gear and redundancy equipment, it was quite acceptable to have a Nikon 35mm back up system. Someone turning up for a wedding with 35mm gear only was not considered professional ... obviously there are a few exceptions and gear is not everything to a skilled and well proven professional ~ but as perception is is reality, the wedding pro had to have a certain level of gear and a formula to work on any given day.

Digital changed all this, at least for a while, I drifted out of weddings as I believed that even the Nikon 1Dx was not of sufficient quality, neither is the 5D or the 1DMKIII that I use today, getting close though ~ but I'd not be happy trying to charge €5K yet for using these under the vast variety of conditions encountered in a wedding service, not any particular wedding, but how do you handle the blinding sun ~

Yes, a good lens is important, vitally important for digital, yes, I think it possible to do a wedding with a Rebel and fixed fast lenses ~ but I'd still agree with the judge in this case that about 11x16 from a raw file would be a realistic limit. But that said, under the blinding sun, that rebel hasn't the dynamic range necessary, and that's an equipment limitation.

Bring back film I say .... Too bright, pop in ASA25 ~ sweet ... but you can't do that with digital.

thedarkroom

Just to add to my post above . . . when I used to do weddings, I would always do my research first to ensure that there were no surprises (in so far as was possible) sprung on me on the day. I would always ring the priest well in advance to see what was or wasn't allowed. I would visit the church on my own to survey the place and pick my photograph points and then again with the couple to confirm with them that they were agreeable with my suggestions. I would visit the hotel to view the layout of the function room, location of the cake and head table and suitability of the gardens, etc. I would look at what locations would be good to use close to the church, hotel or somewhere on route between the two.
By making myself and the couple aware of all location possibilities and expectations there was less chance of getting caught out when something unexpected might happen. I have never called for the bride/groom's parents for a family shot only to find one/both are deceased/divorced/separated/absent or whatever other possibility might be the case.
What would you do on the day if the bride/groom's mother, father and step-father all came forward for the family shot? You need to be prepared for the politics of a situation.
I don't do weddings anymore!!!

Ricky91t

I have a new found respect for this show!

kensutz

Freddie59 wrote: »

It sure does. And all it takes is for one idiot to precipitate it. I was talking to a priest in a local church last year (the church is a modern, hexagonal shape, so the altar is in the centre, with 360 degree seating) who told me that, at a wedding last year - in the middle of the consecration of the Mass - the wedding photographer got UNDER the altar to get a head-on shot of the B & G.:rolleyes: And it went from there.....

Sacred Heart church by any chance?