| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/03/2010 01:45:41 AM · #51 |
Agree that was funny. The photographers attitude was horrible.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2010 02:38:35 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by TonyT:
Originally posted by PGerst:
Man, can you imagine what this place would be like if Judge Brown was a member on DPC.... |
'
He might be a member!
Joe Brown |
|
LOL - no posts, no challenges, but look at his fav's... |
|
|
|
03/03/2010 06:51:45 AM · #53 |
haha Judge Brown you dirty dirty man you...
Message edited by author 2010-03-03 06:52:14.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2010 11:22:04 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
haha Judge Brown you dirty dirty man you... |
LOL Im guessing that they are not worksafe so Ill refrain from clicking the link ;) |
|
|
|
03/03/2010 11:33:44 AM · #55 |
I agree that for $1300 those pictures were crappy. They look like something done by someone who is just starting out in wedding photography and doing a wedding for something like $300 for practice.
But... I also know some very good photographers (on this site even) who use Rebels. They like the fact that they're smaller/lighter than the 1D, 5D, 7D, etc - and Joe Brown even mentioned a 10D. IMHO a new Rebel is a damnsight better than a 6.1 MP 10D. I think the issue is not the body of her camera - but the fact that she used craptastic lenses. |
|
|
|
03/03/2010 11:41:17 AM · #56 |
and didn't really know anything about them.
i kinda felt sorry for them until one of them said, "She's gonna start crying now." Then, I thought, you really aren't all there are you.
I guess the possibility exists that the bride was lying and the photogs were the victims, but they didn't do a whole lot to help their case -- they just didn't sound really "with it"
|
|
|
|
03/03/2010 12:16:16 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
- but the fact that she used craptastic lenses. |
and made craptastic pictures with them.
Let's face it; if the photog had made great images of the wedding, no one would care what lens/camera or whatever she was using. |
|
|
|
03/03/2010 12:28:39 PM · #58 |
| Kinda hard to make great images with substandard lenses. |
|
|
|
03/03/2010 12:39:33 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
Kinda hard to make great images with substandard lenses. |
but not impossible. |
|
|
|
03/03/2010 03:23:26 PM · #60 |
That was certainly an amusing clip to watch! I will have to admit that the defendants were right... a lot of preachers DO ask that you don't use flash during the service. I never use flash during the service, personally... given the number of shots I take during the ceremony, it would easily become a distraction.
But I also have the right glass, and cameras that do well at higher ISOs, for the job. Their "70-300" was undoubtedly a 3.5-5.6, which would not cut the mustard in low light. They clearly didn't have the equipment for the job, nor did they scout anything ahead of time to make sure they were prepared. I mean, $1,300 could have bought the entirety of their photography equipment, by the sounds of things. |
|
|
|
03/03/2010 03:36:46 PM · #61 |
I'm not impressed with a photographer doing indoor weddings that have no clue what lens they have. Somehow I don't think they have any idea what they're doing.
plus, since when can you blow up a photo taken on a rebel to 26x32?
|
|
|
|
03/03/2010 03:44:44 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
plus, since when can you blow up a photo taken on a rebel to 26x32? |
My Rebel T1i takes higher res photos than my 50D and I've blown up photos that big from a Rebel 300D.
That's not an issue. The issue is as many have pointed out - the lenses in low light and their lack of preparation. |
|
|
|
03/03/2010 03:50:49 PM · #63 |
really? I'm impressed. I'm not questioning the rebel, I just didn't think that any of the digitals could really do 26x32. I'm told that my 40D can really only do 12x18 well.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2010 04:59:31 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
My question is what wedding photog in their right mind would agree to go on reality TV to settle this type of dispute?? One that doesn't want to ever be a wedding photog, that's who. |
Her spin: My photography has been featured on a popular TV program. |
|
|
|
03/03/2010 05:19:16 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
really? I'm impressed. I'm not questioning the rebel, I just didn't think that any of the digitals could really do 26x32. I'm told that my 40D can really only do 12x18 well. |
I think you'd be surprised. At 32 inches wide, the Rebel XTi (uncropped) will be printing at 121.5 DPI. That's plenty for normal viewing distances for a print that size, but of course not optimal if folks scrutinize the print from inches away. Still, you'd be surprised how good a print can look at as little as 100 DPI. |
|
|
|
03/03/2010 06:41:09 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by vawendy:
really? I'm impressed. I'm not questioning the rebel, I just didn't think that any of the digitals could really do 26x32. I'm told that my 40D can really only do 12x18 well. |
I think you'd be surprised. At 32 inches wide, the Rebel XTi (uncropped) will be printing at 121.5 DPI. That's plenty for normal viewing distances for a print that size, but of course not optimal if folks scrutinize the print from inches away. Still, you'd be surprised how good a print can look at as little as 100 DPI. |
ah yes, I was told to print at a much higher resolution. Although, come to think of it, I printed out a slide about 14 years ago at 24"x36" and was incredibly disappointed at how grainy and fuzzy it was. Until I hung it on the wall and stepped back. Looks fine from a distance.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2010 06:44:08 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by vawendy:
plus, since when can you blow up a photo taken on a rebel to 26x32? |
My Rebel T1i takes higher res photos than my 50D and I've blown up photos that big from a Rebel 300D.
That's not an issue. The issue is as many have pointed out - the lenses in low light and their lack of preparation. |
The guys at the local camera shop told me the Rebel that is just coming out has the same sensor as the 7D, and if I were going to choose between the 50D and the Rebel T2i that I should probably get the Rebel. That was in response to my question of why would I pay $800 for a Rebel when for $100 more I could have a 50D. |
|
|
|
03/03/2010 07:53:53 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by lynnesite:
this kind of says it all, from the YOuTube comments. JPG medium res, saved over the originals?! Epic FAIL, amateur hour and she is lucky to get away with $2500.
>>veeringoff (7 hours ago)
I work at a professional studio in the city where the plaintiff lives. she brought us the photographs to see if there was any way to fix them. after looking at the EXIF data on the JPEGS that she had, we found that the defendant photographed in JPEG, medium resolution, ISO 1600, Srgb colorspace. Upon doing her edits the defendant used a free online editing program and saved over the originals. The color of the 4x6's from WalMart were horrendous with virtually no shadow detail and color casting<< |
OMG you should have been called as a professional!
Message edited by author 2010-03-03 19:54:16. |
|
|
|
03/03/2010 08:31:46 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by lynnesite:
Upon doing her edits the defendant used a free online editing program and saved over the originals. |
And therefore got a DQ for failure to submit a valid original ... ;-) |
|
|
|
03/03/2010 08:44:13 PM · #70 |
See? see? seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee?
DPC IS real life! |
|
|
|
03/03/2010 11:30:00 PM · #71 |
70-300 speed: dumbfounded
JPEG
LOL
DWL
ohh thats jamaican acro for "dead with laugh"
|
|
|
|
03/03/2010 11:44:36 PM · #72 |
Another Perspective
What actually occurred in that segment had little to do with the case and getting to the facts--it turned into Joe Brown Look At Me I Are A Photographer With A Pelican Case Go Bag. If you look at the links earlier in this thread, her posted promotional work is pretty shoddy, low end stuff: if you look at low-end work and decide to hire that photographer, then maybe you did get what you paid for. We never got to see any of that kind of conversation to really see what was shown as product samples compared with delivered work, etc.
What we did get to see was JB being a pompous, arrogant, showboating GWC.
Not saying the photographer did good work or represented herself well at all. Just saying that the show is only ostensibly about finding out the facts and making a determination based upon them. In this instance, nothing objective occurred. It is really about being a good example of the lowest common denominator in today's so-called "reality" entertainment...
|
|
|
|
03/04/2010 12:13:37 AM · #73 |
well the facts were the lady took the shots the client wasn't satisfied with, and her actions were not in fulfillment of her contract. She disputed this with the photographer, who proved herself to be a dick, didn't show any remorse about it, and subsequently got ruled against.
And whilst this show has no legal bearing whatsoever, I thought he handled it pretty well. Although the rather obviously got pissed at the defendant for being such a tool, and a belligerent tool at that.
I would have thrown my gavel at her. |
|
|
|
03/04/2010 12:30:34 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by Tez:
I would have thrown my gavel at her. |
You have a gavel? I don't have a gavel! Should I get a gavel? Are they fun? SMILE!
I loved this episode - how funny that they could not have known he had a bit of knowledge on the subject. There arrogance stunned me. $2500!!! |
|
|
|
03/04/2010 02:10:27 AM · #75 |
For all your gavel needs:
Gavel Factory |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 02:10:56 PM EDT.
