Cheap Wedding Photographers

Cheap Wedding Photographers

This video has been passed around the net now quite vigorously. The majority of the reaction to this video seems to side with Judge Brown's ruling. One popular reaction I have read seems to be the opposite of that reaction:

http://www.lighting-essentials.com/category/daily-posts-about-the-things-that-interest-me-photography-and-design-issues/

I am not even remotely a professional photographer. I have never shot a wedding. Had I shot a wedding, I certainly would not have been doing so with the Sam's Club kit lenses this woman was. Assuming the scenario portrayed in this video is a real one, my reaction would be somewhere over towards Judge Brown's side but with the need for more information than what was given in this 10 minute clip.

Judge Brown is clearly in control of his own show and dictates the pace and the treatment of the complainant and defendant. He didn't let the defendant get a word in edge wise. It would appear that Judge Brown has a decent knowledge of photography and showed enough to be able to bully the defendant and allow the uneducated audience to think he was an expert. He by no means showed me anything that would get me to believe he was an expert. He threw around some buzz words and regurgitated the first few chapters worth of knowledge from any basic photography book. He certainly seemed to be more knowledgeable than the defendant.

The defendant in my mind is clearly not in a position where she should be offering her services as a professional photographer. A professional should be aware ahead of time the restrictions in the upcoming shoot and prepare accordingly. To go into a church like setting without a 70-200 f/2.8 type lens or at least a 50mm F/1.8 to me is absurd.

I have some major concerns with drawing any conclusions from this video. It would appear that the plaintiff was in error (or lied) in stating where she met the photographer. The viewer never really learned where they met or what type of portfolio was shown to her when they decided on the specified rate of $1300. If the plaintiff did not meet her at a bridal show, but rather out of a penny saver, that would change the story quite a bit. If the defendant is advertising her services at a wedding show based on what I heard from her in this video, that is a problem. I also could not get an exact representation of the photos that were shown in the video. From what I could see in the video, I have seen wedding photos taken that looked a lot worse, were taken by people that were probably paid more, and that made the bride and groom happy!

The biggest defenders of the photographers seem to want to point out, that the camera doesn't make the photographer and that you can shoot a wedding just fine with a canon Rebel. I do not doubt there is absolute truth to that (I have never shot with a Canon Rebel). Put a Canon Rebel in the hands of Joe McNally and he could certainly shoot a good wedding. However, Joe McNally would never shoot a wedding with a Canon Rebel (or a Nikon D3000). There is a reason professionals use professional equipment. Besides portraying professionalism, better equipment allows true professionals to do the job better and more efficiency. In this case, the photographers choice of equipment seems to correspond with their skill level and low level of professionalism.

Unfortunately, based on some of the comments I have read, it would seem that if the defendant looked more like the plaintiff and the plaintiff more like the defendant, opinions may have been more favorable towards the photographers.