That photographer just has a bad attitude. And I love that Judge Joe Brown shows off some of his knowledge of photography.

| dav.d | March 3, 2010 at 11:45 am

That’s quite surprising, he was even up on current models such as the 7D. Really though, the XTi is not a bad body, but having crap glass is the real issue. The fact that the photog either didn’t know or didn’t want to admit the speed of the lenses was revealing.

I’d like to see his published photos now.

| Scott McQueen | March 3, 2010 at 3:58 pm

That was awesome…or jawesome as a friend says. My favorite line may have been, “Where’s your 28-70?” The judge is old school. :) Although at points it did seem like the judge was just throwing out terms he remembered from his shooting days. Maybe not. The iPhone line was classic. (even if a bit overstated)

But seriously, the 18-55 kit lens for inside church photography? And she admitted that no-flash is “the current thing” to paraphrase her.

| Duluk | March 3, 2010 at 9:23 pm

Yeah, when the “photographer” did not know what speed her 70-300 was, I about fell out of my chair laughing.

But hearing the judge talk about “soft diffused light” really gave him some bonus points with me. I am not sure what his actual background with photography is, but he seemed to know more than the average person.

| jerry | March 4, 2010 at 9:40 am

You missed it. Can Believe we watched the same thing. You’re all a bunch of Blind Band Wagoneers. See http://www.lighting-essentials.com/throwing-other-photographers-under-the-bus-may-be-great-fun-but-is-it-a-good-thing/

| Neil Hanawalt | March 10, 2010 at 6:04 pm

This is why I did not do my nephews wedding, recommended other photographers and I do not take portraits. I love photography but I know my own limitations. This should be a reminder to all future brides, check their work long before you decide to hire them. Not all people with a professional looking camera are professional nor is the glass and camera used by professionals. I just wish some public venues understood this before they stopped people going into events with a camera like the xti. I guess the photographer did not want the 50 bucks it costs to rent a 1d for a day. I did feel bad realizing I own that same 70-300 lens.

| Ed Devereaux | March 14, 2010 at 5:45 pm

This was definitely entertaining but instead of the photographic pissing contest, Judge Joe should have been trying to determine if the photo results from the wedding matched the portfolio that the client reviewed prior to hiring the photographer. If they matched, it would be the client’s fault.

| James | March 15, 2010 at 2:40 pm

Hey Ed,
Don’t feel bad about owning that 70-300mm lens. David Zizer is a very well known and well respected wedding photographer, instructor, and blogger. He regularly uses the 70-300mm and the 28-105mm. In fact, in most of the training videos I’ve seen, he hasn’t used either fast glass or full-frame cameras — yet he makes fantastic images (using an off-camera flash, in most cases, to add directional light). In the right hands, even slow lenses can make magic.

| Nathan | March 15, 2010 at 4:01 pm

here — over at AGE

http://www.agefotostock.com/age/agewebfotografos.asp?lang=ingles&vertf=0&key1=MCG&key2=Mary+Legg
this is a rebel xTi– I make it work for me.

but the judge is not a judge. It’s hollywood. A judge cannot act like a prosecutor, so the Judge is way out of line there.

the photographer– well, she’s not much of one because if she were competent, she’d have her raw files and know her settings and be able to produce evidence on her own behalf.

However, the judge goes for very cheap shots–
He attacks her for not having a tripod. that’s ridiculous. Lots of photogs don’t use tripods. I don’t use a tripod. Whether or not a person uses a tripod does not define the person’s skill.

He does the photo flashing thing, but what if he’s being selective of only the really disastrous ones and not showing the others that might be decent– so he’s obviously biased and ripping the defendant. That has nothing to do with contracts or law and even less with an unbiased hearing. It’s Hollywood.

It doesn’t excuse the phtoographer, but the other thing is that the photographer hasn’t a chance and maybe she is being smeared. The problem is that she doesn’t remember her lenses, her settings and she’s not organized– What the reality is, we can’t know because the presentation is too obviously biased and dramatized for television.

So
1. never agree to go on television to a tv judge
2. keep a diary or journal and register your daily grind: which camera body, lenses, settings etc that you found good
3. keep the raw and the tiffs– and do the workflow systematically so you can rely on your material and produce in time of need

and be able to answer questions. Flash isn’t everything. I can’t use it. I have problems with seizure, so I had to master low light photography and I do all my work with natural light. No church or museum in Prague allows flash. It’s strictly forbidden. So it’s the true test of the photographer.

You can’t argue your iso, shutter speed, exposure, lens with an end print, but if you have the tiff in hand, you can pretty much prove that some lenses do extremely well in low light. So no, I don’t have a 28-105, but I have the 35-105 (+ 35-135) and it does very nicely in church interiors, especially gilt work in baroque churches, and the 70-300 4.5-5.6 does very nicely too for architectural details inside churches and long shots. And the 24-85 can manage this too.

It’s not just the lens or the tripod or the camera body, but the person’s skill..

But this is nice because now I can give this stupid clip to anyone who hassles me about not doing weddings or portraits. I tell them I don’t have portrait lens–which is true. I have macros.

and yes, I have the 50mm 1.8 which would do well as probably the 100mm 2.8 if I could just stop looking at bugs and stare at people. slap an ext on the 100, reverse the ad infinitum to ad nauseum and it probably does make a very good people shooting lens.

I have one very fine portrait of Ronald McDonald with 100mm 2.8.

but this is why I have no interest in people photography. Bugs do not bring lawsuits into reality tv.

| pogo | March 26, 2010 at 3:40 pm

you’re suckers if you think the judge knows anything about photography.

He’s got assistants who do the cribbing. Sarah Palin probably knows more about Eussia from kitchen window than judge knows about photogaphy. It was a 2hour crib.

go to Getty for list of cameras– rebel was at the bottom.
Check any camera forum for lens reviews and come up with some general terms, like the Alamy QC “soft”

take the worst of the images available and do some flashy melodrama slamming

skim some terminology like “soft”, “diffused and throw in the absolutely essential mention of tripod. You’re not a photog unless you come with tripod. It’s the one comment you can find on any forum as solution to any problem. It’s what people say when they don’t know nuthin”. Use a tripod. Go to any list in any camera or photog forum and “use a tropod ” is always on top 5 essential tips.

so is bogus…

A judge is supposed to review a case, the law regarding the situation, the contract, the fulfillment of terms and specifications of a contract. Did the contract specify the equipment? No. Did it specifically mention she had to have a tripod? no…
etc

so is drama, not legal case… and probably the judge knows nothing about photography outside of what he was cribbed. Maybe he does some causal shooting or looked up some lenses himself– but much more likely, cribbing.He certainly didn’t show any expertise in photography–just the same general stuff that is in all forums.

| pogo | March 26, 2010 at 4:10 pm

The Judge may have had some help, but he might just be an old photographer, as he mentioned. The term ASA was replaced by the term ISO back in 1987. Many of the new crowd may not be aware of this. So just one point that may give a little proof that the judge may have done some photography years ago.

Just my two cents.

| Joe Pitz | May 5, 2010 at 8:52 pm

Judge Joe Brown is not qualified to speak about photographs and proved it during his rant. he pointed to a direct light image and said it was produces by soft subdued light. this is the image of the bride with the bouquets on her dress. the shadow was hard proving the opposite of what his discription was. So what if the lense apeture was slow, a meaningless argument. If the argument was valid why produce a lens with an apeture above f8. This was a wedding not a sporting event. Joe took a photo once and wants to impress the world that he knows photography. All Judge Joe Brown did was to prove he is not qualified to debate photography and that he should be disbarred. Right, drama only.

| Blake Spurlin | July 14, 2010 at 2:52 pm