Fauxtographers in Court

[creyes8519]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lz-07D5KoE
Video was kinda funny, but for me this was very serious.  The bride was very kind considering…

[nairbynairb]

Lol, that was funny. Their photography was so bad! I wouldn’t have charged for that at all, let alone $1300

[stef]

The judge is a fauxtographer himself, acting as his own “expert” witness. He’s a know-nothing, but because he has a camera, he thinks he’s an expert.

 

[cameraclicker]

The judge had a better grasp of hardware than the defendant.

The defendant’s FB page is here:  http://www.facebook.com/damaris.geese.  Their business page seems to be gone.

[fstopper89]

The judge did say that he has published photography so he must know something at least. Any “professional” photographer should be very familiar with the fact that flash photography is not allowed in most churches at a wedding. That’s why you need the proper equipment- a body that can handle high ISO and a very fast lens. I mean come on, she didn’t even know the speed of her lens! And she’s charging $1300 using an old (maybe not old at the time) entry-level camera and the cheapest kit lens? And prints from Walmart? I mean come on. That lady is a joke. Glad the clients got awarded more, but I think they should have been more picky about who they hired in the first place, though we didn’t see the prior examples that they supposedly saw. Who’s to say they weren’t stealing someone else’s images to show in their portfolio anyway?

[creyes8519]

Judge seems like a photographer to me.  Obviously it’s been a while (using old-school terms like “ASA” lol), but it’s obvious he knows what he is talking about.   In the beginning he gave the fauxtog the benefit of the doubt, saying that perhaps she was getting the proofs from Walmart.  Judge didn’t saying anything “fauxtog-ish” lol.. he asked legitimate questions, where’s the full-frame camera?  Where’s the fast lens?  The client was VERY forgiving and only asked for $1000 and considered the fauxtog’s time (which doesn’t account for the fact that this woman RUINED a very special part of the couple’s wedding).
Had the judge not had any knowledge what-so-ever about photography, the fauxtog might have convinced him about the “no flash photography” thing and perhaps the plaintiff would have had a more difficult time.

 

 

[stef]

I saw this a while back (1-2 years ago), rewatching it now…

 

Judge Brown is giving the fauxtog crap for not using a tripod in low light, which doesn’t make a ton of sense when the subjects are moving. I never see anyone use a tripod in a church except for posed formals, if that. But after a few of his comments, he asked about a 7D so that does mean using an XTi is a pretty old camera. Still, the 18-55 has IS and can shoot a still subject handheld to 1/8 without much issue, and 1/15 easily which is plenty of light even with a kit lens. Hell, I don’t know the speed of my 70-300… I think it’s 4-5.6, but I’m not positive.

Nonetheless, it’s hard to remain a fauxtog after shooting “hundreds of weddings”. 25 a year is a lot of weddings to shoot in a year, so that’d mean she has been shooting for many years. She should’ve had better equipment if she’s shot “hundreds” as she claimed. And based on her bizarre testimony, I think she probably was lying, and I’m leaning towards a deserved judgment.

But I still think the judge didn’t know much about what he was talking about. Who cares if he had a camera 20 years ago… He was just spouting nomenclature. The problem is, he was essentially being an expert witness for the plaintiff, but disallowing cross examination by the defendant. When she tried to ask him questions, he just kept talking over her.

 

Fortunately, this was a TV show. Both the parties get paid for their participation, although I bet the amount awarded meant that the defendant didn’t get anything.

[cameraclicker]

The show seems to be a representation of small claims court which is for relatively small amounts, excludes lawyers and has relaxed rules compared to regular court.  Plaintiff and defendant represent themselves and the judge moderates.  It’s a different format than you see watching Perry Mason.

The basic claim is that the final product was not of the quality expected.  The defendant didn’t seem to have a handle on her own gear and didn’t seem to know what a 1 series camera was.  There was a lot of noise about not being able to use flash in church but the photos I observed were outdoors or at the reception hall and perhaps the one of the dress with all the bridesmaids’ flowers could have been before or after the ceremony.  The outdoor photos showed raccoon eyes, so I guess there was no flash outdoors either.

The bride said contact was made in 2008.  A review I saw of the XTi was uploaded in Sept. 2006.  My EF-S 18-55 lens is about the same, or newer, vintage as the Xti since it came in the box with my 30D, and it does not have IS.  The IS version was introduced much later.

Curiously the judge mentions ASA but the sequence seems to be clipped and is in response to another comment.  I wonder if he said ASAP and the ‘P’ was cut off.  Being photographers, we know what ASA is and are jumping to an incorrect conclusion.

Also, he mentions a 28-70 lens.  Mine is 24-70.  Canon says:  “The Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 USM L is a discontinued lens introduced back in late 1993. The lens has been replaced by the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L (see separate review) in late 2002.”  His list of bodies is strange too since he talks about “7D, 5D, 10D and 1 series”.  By 2008 or 2009, I would have expected at least 20D and more probably 30D or 40D instead of 10D.

In any case, his main points were that the photographer was using entry level gear, at a time when there was a large discrepancy between what entry level gear and pro level gear, or even enthusiast level gear was producing.  The photographer did not scout the church ahead of time and take action to avoid problems caused by not having flash available in church.  Prints were done at Walmart.  And, image quality was not very good.

[fstopper89]

An 18-55 lens, at least the Canon ones that we’re familiar with, have a maximum aperture of 3.5, and that’s barely suitable for low light. You would not want to be shooting a wedding at 1/15 in a dim church with moving people.

The professional photog should basically assume they can’t use flash in the church if they’ve done that many weddings. Plus, flash can be a little harsh and in a wedding ceremony, it just doesn’t look good, in my opinion. Reception photos typically are done with some kind of flash or light assistance but that is expected as many receptions are in banquet halls.

[stef]

You would not want to be shooting a wedding at 1/15 in a dim church with moving people.

Therefore, the judge hassling the defendant about not using a tripod merely exposes his misunderstanding of photography and the gear.

 

That was my point. The defendant, while probably a fauxtog, was screwed anyway because she couldn’t deal with this judge who (like every idiot who’s ever held a camera) was a self-appointed expert.

[Gerbles]

Stef- I think the fact that the judge asked about tripod usage is just indicating he was curious to see if the photographer tried ANYTHING (even in vain) to help minimize motion blur- I think he probably knew the BEST way to handle that was with fast glass and a body with high ISO capabilities, but since he asked and the photographer didn’t know what these things were, much less own them, he wanted to see if she made an attempt to get sharper photos. As an aside, I think you may be able to get decently sharp photos on a tripod in the back of the church shooting at a wider focal length during the ceremony when everyone is standing still, depending on the shutter speed needed. It would at least be something I would try in an emergency.

[scee]

They were definitely “professional fauxtogs” – I see that junk all the time on facebook.  The spot color and the collage of the hollowed out bouquet with the couples face stuck in the middle was the kicker for me.   Just wondering who’s portfolio they actually showed at the bridal show in order to book clients.  Printing at Walmart is another clue.  Consumer level equipment with a kit lens, probably just used a pop-up flash too.  Regardless of the judge’s lack of expertise, they are fauxtogs who should not be charging ANYONE for their work.  A real professional wedding photographer finds out ahead of time if flash photography is permitted in the church, and if not they bring a camera that has an ISO that can handle it.  They got what they deserved…pity their clients probably never do.

[Notaphotographer]

The problem was not the xti. It is the lens. I would take a Rebel with a “L” lens any day over a 1D with a cheap lens. Glass is where you put your money first. Both of those lenses are JUNK that she used. Better than nothing but not much.

[Thom]

Great video. This illustrates another HUGE problem with fauxtographers – that really chip-on-the-shoulder defensiveness. If the customer wasn’t happy…shouldn’t a business do whatever it can to fix the problem? Wedding shoots are mostly word of mouth.

[Author]

Posts