>But I hate the idea that equipment dictates if you're a pro or not.
>Granted the defendants proved how inedpt they were by not knowing how fast
>their lens was, but the bad photos were the fault of the photographer...
>someone who knew what they were doing could still have produced decent
I agree with you somewhat. True that a pro body does not make one a pro. Any shmoe can order up a 1D/1Ds/5D/7D from B&H and claim to be a pro. They make an $8k camera into no more than a grossly overpriced snapshot cam. And a pro can make a Rebel XT photo tell a story. BUT, having an XT vs. a 1D MKIV can make the difference in an available light venue, such as a dimly lit church wedding. Having the wrong gear can break it. Obviously, those photographers knew nothing about how to properly handle a wedding. They didn't do a site walk to get to know the venue, etc. Even a seasoned pro wouldn't be able to get good quality from available light and (say) a D100 without use of flash and/or fast lens.
>Their other stupid move was telling the plaintiff that the prints were
>developed at wal-mart (not to mention meeting them there). I doubt the
>plaintiff could have told the difference if they would have taken the time
>to package them differently.
I can see doing larger and poster prints at Wal-Mart. Let's face it, not all of us can afford wide carriage poster printers. When I need quick prints, I go to Costco, as I see many photogs do too. The plaintiff wouldn't see the difference because the lack of quality was due to the image quality, not the print. Whether she was aware of that or not (before Judge Brown mentioned it) is open to the peanut gallery, hehe.
>What's scarier is that these people have shot multiple weddings. I see
>posts in photography forums all the time about people with one camera
>body, no clue how to use it shooting weddings (without a backup body)...
>or how they accidentally left their CF/SD at home (who has just one?).
That is scary. Even with simple shoots, I carry 3 bodies. I have moved my 5DII up to primary, 1DII as backup (since the batteries are unpredictable now and I really can't justify $120 per battery on such an old body) and my XT as a safety net. I think we all here have our stash of cards as well. If we had a buck for everytime we sent out "Hey I found a CF for $80" or whatever, we would be rich. :o)
>Makes me want to rush down to the DMV and offer all new drivers a job as
I guess that's better than offering the Asian female drivers those jobs lol. I can say that since I come from an asian family lol. My sister and cousins are horrible drivers! Well my sister not so much now, after numerous accidents.
>> The defendants were lying, they were hoping that saying "we didn't meet
>> her at a wedding show" would be enough to break the plaintiff's case.
>> Problem is, some people are just plain naive and take verbal promises of
>> "you will get professional prints" as that. As the old addage goes, "you
>> get what you paid for."
>> "How fast is your lens? You are using a Rebel XT, and you are a pro?
>> Where's your 1-series, 7D, 5D, hell 10D? The Xt is your base model!
>> Where's your 28-70? How can you get a decent photo with such a slow lens,
>> the cheapest you can buy!" LMAO, I loved it!
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: Mark Stein
>>>Sent: Jan 3, 2011 5:39 PM
>>>Subject: [nikonf4] Re: Wedding photography
>>>Nice to see bad pros slapped down, but the plaintiff made her own
>>>Why was there no mention of a contract, which should have listed what
>>>the deliverables were? If she didn't meet them at a wedding show, then
>>>did she really see samples of their work?
>>>On 1/3/2011 11:15 AM, Frank Armstrong wrote: