[nikonf4] Re: Wedding photography
- From: WiltW@xxxxxxx
- To: nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, f4@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:36:04 EST
Digital cameras, with the immediate chimping confirmation LCD, have made is
so much easier for those who know little to get thru a wedding
--wilt
In a message dated 1/4/2011 9:21:11 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
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
results.
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.
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?).
Makes me want to rush down to the DMV and offer all new drivers a job as
taxi drivers.
> 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 <mjstein63@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Jan 3, 2011 5:39 PM
>>To: nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [nikonf4] Re: Wedding photography
>>
>>Nice to see bad pros slapped down, but the plaintiff made her own
>>mistakes...
>>
>>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:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIiH9uxdE5M
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
