DPreview: Pro photogs should use Canon or Nikon for weddings!

In article , Bill W
wrote:


And at my daughter's wedding (in 1991) the photographer did a lousy job. If
I'd known as much about photography then as I do now, I might have sued
him.

on what basis? that you ****ed up and picked someone incompetent?

I was sitting somewhere in a waiting room, and one of those TV judge
things was on, and this was the exact case that was on. A couple sued
because they didn't like the photos, and it was just the defendants'
luck that the judge was a photo enthusiast who of course knew
everything. So those poor photogs just didn't have gear that was
sufficiently pro, and the judge's critical eye didn't think the photos
were up to snuff, and that was that. Free photos.

did the judge deem it to be fraud?

it's one thing to get ripped off by a scammer. it's another thing to
not like the results because someone didn't do what you hoped.

like everything, some photographers are better than others. the better
ones generally cost more (often a *lot* more) and people tend to cheap
out, especially with wedding photographers, then they wonder why the
results aren't so good.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:


And at my daughter's wedding (in 1991) the photographer did a lousy job.
If
I'd known as much about photography then as I do now, I might have sued
him.

on what basis? that you ****ed up and picked someone incompetent?

I was sitting somewhere in a waiting room, and one of those TV judge
things was on, and this was the exact case that was on. A couple sued
because they didn't like the photos, and it was just the defendants'
luck that the judge was a photo enthusiast who of course knew
everything. So those poor photogs just didn't have gear that was
sufficiently pro, and the judge's critical eye didn't think the photos
were up to snuff, and that was that. Free photos.

did the judge deem it to be fraud?

Those shows are usually arbitrations in court room setting. The parties
have agreed to wave their rights in order to be entertainment for the
masses on the telly and get their fifteen minutes for good or bad...

it's one thing to get ripped off by a scammer. it's another thing to
not like the results because someone didn't do what you hoped.

like everything, some photographers are better than others. the better
ones generally cost more (often a *lot* more) and people tend to cheap
out, especially with wedding photographers, then they wonder why the
results aren't so good.
--
teleportation kills

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 01:51:58 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:


And at my daughter's wedding (in 1991) the photographer did a lousy job. If
I'd known as much about photography then as I do now, I might have sued
him.

on what basis? that you ****ed up and picked someone incompetent?

I was sitting somewhere in a waiting room, and one of those TV judge
things was on, and this was the exact case that was on. A couple sued
because they didn't like the photos, and it was just the defendants'
luck that the judge was a photo enthusiast who of course knew
everything. So those poor photogs just didn't have gear that was
sufficiently pro, and the judge's critical eye didn't think the photos
were up to snuff, and that was that. Free photos.

did the judge deem it to be fraud?

I think that would be a mighty fancy word for that sort of show.

it's one thing to get ripped off by a scammer. it's another thing to
not like the results because someone didn't do what you hoped.

Which is what it appeared to be.

like everything, some photographers are better than others. the better
ones generally cost more (often a *lot* more) and people tend to cheap
out, especially with wedding photographers, then they wonder why the
results aren't so good.

Probably exactly what happened, and it was a wedding. Flake judges are
everywhere, and not just on TV. That's probably why the trial lawyer
doesn't exist who can predict trial outcomes better than about 50% of
the time. Might as well flip coins. I do believe that my memory is
correct, and the outcome was merely free photos. Whatever, right? No
one died.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 09:33:52 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 21:13:34 -0800, Bill W
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 23:31:51 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: But DPReview seemed to think that a typo made by the magazine in an
: article never intended to be offering advice to wedding photographers
: was a conspiracy.
:
: The quote seem to be a suggestion for step one on how to weed out
: wannabe pros when looking to hire an event photog. True pros usually use
: FF Canon or occasionally Nikon...
:
: Some have been known to use a Graflex or Speed Graphic.

Truthfully, I don't remember what our wedding photographer used (in 1966).
What I do know is that the pictures are badly faded now, which might not have
mattered if they had been digital.

had they been digital, you'd have perfect copies.

And at my daughter's wedding (in 1991) the photographer did a lousy job. If
I'd known as much about photography then as I do now, I might have sued him.

on what basis? that you ****ed up and picked someone incompetent?

I was sitting somewhere in a waiting room, and one of those TV judge
things was on, and this was the exact case that was on. A couple sued
because they didn't like the photos, and it was just the defendants'
luck that the judge was a photo enthusiast who of course knew
everything. So those poor photogs just didn't have gear that was
sufficiently pro, and the judge's critical eye didn't think the photos
were up to snuff, and that was that. Free photos.

That guy probably also sits on the 9th circuit.

No competent judge would rule that the plaintiffs pay nothing for the
photographs. The legal doctrine of quantum meruit requires that the
photographer be compensated for his effort even if the effort did not
produce satisfactory results. The judge could adjust the price paid,
but the photographer has to be compensated.

However, most of those judge shows are arbitration, not court cases.
The rules for arbitration are different. And, in some of those judge
shows both parties are compensated by the production company and the
ruling determines only the disbursement of the compensation.

I doubt that those judges are chosen for their competence. All they
need to be is entertaining. And I assume it's a form of binding
arbitration, but without any legal consequences outside of the written
contract with the show's producers.

On 1/4/2017 12:13 AM, Bill W wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 23:31:51 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: But DPReview seemed to think that a typo made by the magazine in an
: article never intended to be offering advice to wedding photographers
: was a conspiracy.
:
: The quote seem to be a suggestion for step one on how to weed out
: wannabe pros when looking to hire an event photog. True pros usually use
: FF Canon or occasionally Nikon...
:
: Some have been known to use a Graflex or Speed Graphic.

Truthfully, I don't remember what our wedding photographer used (in 1966).
What I do know is that the pictures are badly faded now, which might not have
mattered if they had been digital.
had they been digital, you'd have perfect copies.

And at my daughter's wedding (in 1991) the photographer did a lousy job. If
I'd known as much about photography then as I do now, I might have sued him.
on what basis? that you ****ed up and picked someone incompetent?
I was sitting somewhere in a waiting room, and one of those TV judge
things was on, and this was the exact case that was on. A couple sued
because they didn't like the photos, and it was just the defendants'
luck that the judge was a photo enthusiast who of course knew
everything. So those poor photogs just didn't have gear that was
sufficiently pro, and the judge's critical eye didn't think the photos
were up to snuff, and that was that. Free photos.

That guy probably also sits on the 9th circuit.

Here it is:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/a-...rown/82631836/

On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 11:57:11 -0500, PAS wrote:

On 1/4/2017 12:13 AM, Bill W wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 23:31:51 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: But DPReview seemed to think that a typo made by the magazine in an
: article never intended to be offering advice to wedding photographers
: was a conspiracy.
:
: The quote seem to be a suggestion for step one on how to weed out
: wannabe pros when looking to hire an event photog. True pros usually use
: FF Canon or occasionally Nikon...
:
: Some have been known to use a Graflex or Speed Graphic.

Truthfully, I don't remember what our wedding photographer used (in 1966).
What I do know is that the pictures are badly faded now, which might not have
mattered if they had been digital.
had they been digital, you'd have perfect copies.

And at my daughter's wedding (in 1991) the photographer did a lousy job. If
I'd known as much about photography then as I do now, I might have sued him.
on what basis? that you ****ed up and picked someone incompetent?
I was sitting somewhere in a waiting room, and one of those TV judge
things was on, and this was the exact case that was on. A couple sued
because they didn't like the photos, and it was just the defendants'
luck that the judge was a photo enthusiast who of course knew
everything. So those poor photogs just didn't have gear that was
sufficiently pro, and the judge's critical eye didn't think the photos
were up to snuff, and that was that. Free photos.

That guy probably also sits on the 9th circuit.

Here it is:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/a-...rown/82631836/

That's the one. Is the full version somewhere that you know of? I am
curious if I remembered the outcome correctly.

In article , Bill W
wrote:


http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/a-...d-words-judge-
joe-brown/82631836/

That's the one. Is the full version somewhere that you know of? I am
curious if I remembered the outcome correctly.

try youtube

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 14:17:19 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:


http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/a-...d-words-judge-
joe-brown/82631836/

That's the one. Is the full version somewhere that you know of? I am
curious if I remembered the outcome correctly.

try youtube

I did, but everywhere I end up the video was taken down. Some
copyright nonsense, it seems.

In article , Bill W
wrote:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/a-...ousand-words-j
udge-
joe-brown/82631836/

That's the one. Is the full version somewhere that you know of? I am
curious if I remembered the outcome correctly.

try youtube

I did, but everywhere I end up the video was taken down. Some
copyright nonsense, it seems.

those pesky lawyers.

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 23:31:51 -0500, nospam wrote:
: In article , Robert Coe
: wrote:
:
: : But DPReview seemed to think that a typo made by the magazine in an
: : article never intended to be offering advice to wedding photographers
: : was a conspiracy.
: :
: : The quote seem to be a suggestion for step one on how to weed out
: : wannabe pros when looking to hire an event photog. True pros usually use
: : FF Canon or occasionally Nikon...
: :
: : Some have been known to use a Graflex or Speed Graphic.
:
: Truthfully, I don't remember what our wedding photographer used (in 1966).
: What I do know is that the pictures are badly faded now, which might not have
: mattered if they had been digital.
:
: had they been digital, you'd have perfect copies.

That was sort of my point. The rezason I said "might" instead of "would" is
that even now I doubt that all wedding photographers will give you the digital
files. I'd have had to make sure that they were included in the price.

: And at my daughter's wedding (in 1991) the photographer did a lousy job. If
: I'd known as much about photography then as I do now, I might have sued him.
:
: on what basis? that you ****ed up and picked someone incompetent?

Don't worry; it wasn't you. At least I don't think it was.

Bob