Cheap Wedding Photographer Part II Judge Joe Brown

little laker · 03-12-2010, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by res3567

Oh Frank......I am so overwelmed with emotion......

excuse me while I GO CRY.....SNIFF......SNIFF......BOOO HOOOO!!!!!!

That wounds like something a web-bot would say

justinr · 03-12-2010, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

When I was doing wedding photography it was with a Pentax 6x7. It wouldn't surprise me if a kit lens is as sharp as some of my old 6x7 Takumars, but then, I also wasn't magnifying the images anywhere near as much with the 6x7 negative as I am with the junior sized DLSR image.

An 8x10 from the 6x7 is a 4x enlargement, the same size print from an APS-C camera is just over a 13x magnification.
I'd hope the lenses for the DSLR are better, they are being worked a lot harder to do the same job.

It would also help if you would read what you are responding to before you interject a red herring.
If you go back and read what you replied to, you will find that I said that a Canon Rebel wass a good enough camera body for shooting weddings, so I really don't know where you figure I was saying anything about having to have a top end "Pencanikon" (whatever the heck that is).

Whoa, steady there.

We are running up against the old problem of the WWW in that because we are dismembered voices emanating from an unfathomable vastness, no more than cyberspace personalities as rightly pointed out by GoremanX, we lose all the secondary avenues of communication that suggest, reinforce or otherwise modify what words are saying.

Basically my point is that to have a 'trial' hinge on whether a photographer can be considered a 'pro' simply by judging them on the lens they choose to use is utterly nonsensical, a notion that tends to suggest that we may in fact hold common ground in judging photography by the results rather than the kit used. I know that such thoughts are an anathema to the manufacturers who have grown stout by convincing people otherwise but the uncomfortable truth remains.

So there you go, I've probably upset a whole host of other good folks now!

Mike Cash · 03-12-2010, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

It would also help if you would read what you are responding to before you interject a red herring.

He couldn't be bothered to actually watch the video before rendering uninformed chuckleheaded opinions about it. Shirley you didn't expect him to bother reading (and understanding) posts before replying, did you?

justinr · 03-12-2010, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

He couldn't be bothered to actually watch the video before rendering uninformed chuckleheaded opinions about it. Shirley you didn't expect him to bother reading (and understanding) posts before replying, did you?

No, it's not that I couldn't be bothered, I just hate the telly and find reading (y'know, books and things) so much more informative than the superficial and rather linear box.

Try it sometime, then you might be better able to pick up on my last post.

I wrote-

I know that such thoughts are an anathema to the manufacturers who have grown stout by convincing people otherwise but the uncomfortable truth remains.

So there you go, I've probably upset a whole host of other good folks now!

Let the backlash and character assassination commence!!

Last edited by justinr; 03-12-2010 at 04:06 AM.

Wheatfield · 03-12-2010, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by justinr

Basically my point is that to have a 'trial' hinge on whether a photographer can be considered a 'pro' simply by judging them on the lens they choose to use is utterly nonsensical, a notion that tends to suggest that we may in fact hold common ground in judging photography by the results rather than the kit used. I know that such thoughts are an anathema to the manufacturers who have grown stout by convincing people otherwise but the uncomfortable truth remains.

So there you go, I've probably upset a whole host of other good folks now!

Actually, they were judged based on a complete lack of technical knowledge.
If they had known what they were doing, they would have had equipment suited to what they were doing.
The kit lens thing was a symptom, and was used as an example to prove they were photographic whack jobs.

Judging people as pros based on their choosing appropriate equipment for the job, while not the only criteria, is a pretty important one.
Would you trust a brain surgeon who chose to use a Swiss Army Knife and a hockey stick as his surgery tools?

Mike Cash · 03-12-2010, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by justinr

No, it's not that I couldn't be bothered, I just hate the telly and find reading (y'know, books and things) so much more informative than the superficial and rather linear box.

Try it sometime, then you might be better able to pick up on my last post.

I am also a tremendous non-fan of the idiot box. And my critical reading skills are just fine, thank you very much.

Quote:

Let the backlash and character assassination commence!!

It isn't character assassination to point out that you offered an opinion on the content of a bit of video without having watched the video.

Seeing what gear you have listed in your profile and taking a stroll through your website provided a useful insight into the basis of your (blissfully uninformed) opinion, though. (If you're going to offer web design services, you may wish to get your web design service site itself ship shape and Bristol fashion first, by the way).

justinr · 03-12-2010, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

I am also a tremendous non-fan of the idiot box. And my critical reading skills are just fine, thank you very much.

It isn't character assassination to point out that you offered an opinion on the content of a bit of video without having watched the video.

Seeing what gear you have listed in your profile and taking a stroll through your website provided a useful insight into the basis of your (blissfully uninformed) opinion, though. (If you're going to offer web design services, you may wish to get your web design service site itself ship shape and Bristol fashion first, by the way).

Oooohh Bitchy!!

Any more crap? You're postings are becoming a bit of a spectator sport and I'd hate to see them finish so soon. You really don't know how silly you make yourself look.

As I said, let the character assassination begin, but you really need to show a little more subtly to be truly effective.

I might have a chance to continue with my own site when I've cleared the backlog of those I'm doing for others, including this BTW-

Tipp Rally

But I'm doing it for free, so don't worry, nobody's getting robbed.

Mike Cash · 03-12-2010, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by justinr

Oooohh Bitchy!!

Any more crap? You're postings are becoming a bit of a spectator sport and I'd hate to see them finish so soon. You really don't know how silly you make yourself look.

Be careful what you wish for.

Quote:

As I said, let the character assassination begin, but you really need to show a little more subtly to be truly effective.

What's the source of your fondness for the phrase "character assassination"? I'm not aware of a blessed thing about your character, nor do I have the slightest interest in "assassinating" it. Rest assured that if I ever do develop such an interest I will be about as subtle as a circus poster. ("Subtly" is an adverb. Perhaps you meant "subtlety"?)

Quote:

I might have a chance to continue with my own site when I've cleared the backlog of those I'm doing for others, including this BTW-

Tipp Rally

But I'm doing it for free, so don't worry, nobody's getting robbed.

I regret that the point whooshed past too far above your head for you to grasp it.

But to make some slight attempt at reining in thread drift......Do you shoot weddings with your Pentax 18-55 kit lens?

justinr · 03-12-2010, 06:54 AM

This from Wikipedia-

Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. It may involve exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument.

True, I got the wrong subtlety, which no doubt renders me worthless beyond redemption. Oh well, such is life.

Whoooosh?

If funny noises keep you happy then fair enough, shame that you can't be a little less vague in your implied assertions, well I think you are trying to imply something anyway.

As for weddings I don't really do them since we moved over here but I have a Mamiya with ZD back for my studio and editorial work whilst the recently acquired K10 replaces the Canon 30D for website and event photos. The 18-55 lens is as good as the Sigma EX lenses I had for the Canon and I'd be quite happy to use it for weddings alongside the Mamiya. The photo's here were taken with it on a ist which convinced me that Pentax was the way to go.- Tipp Vet No doubt other members of this forum will be delighted to learn that their 'kit' lens is not that good after all.

Happy now? Whoops,* stupid question since you are so determined not to be.

* I like silly noises as well.

GoremanX · 03-12-2010, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

Do you shoot weddings with your Pentax 18-55 kit lens?

I think the real question here is; would any professional photographer dare charge $1300 to do a wedding with a kit lens in this day and age? To be more specific, a Canon XTi kit lens, of all things? It's not the body that matters much in this case, but that particular kit lens is beyond woeful. It doesn't hold a candle to a Pentax DA kit lens, and I don't think even that would be appropriate.

joakimfors · 03-12-2010, 07:24 AM

GoremanX · 03-12-2010, 07:47 AM

now, now... as entertaining as this cat fight is, I don't think we should be encouraging it.

justinr, you're being way too sensitive over silly comments. You're the only one who's being negatively affected by these weak "attacks" (I don't even see them as attacks from my point of view). There's no "character assassination" going on here except in your own head.

Mike Cash, if I was the recipient of those comments, I think I'd feel somewhat miffed and would react similarly (if not quite so offended) as justinr. But since I am not the recipient, I don't really know for sure. So please try me

justinr · 03-12-2010, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by GoremanX

now, now... as entertaining as this cat fight is, I don't think we should be encouraging it.

justinr, you're being way too sensitive over silly comments. You're the only one who's being negatively affected by these weak "attacks" (I don't even see them as attacks from my point of view). There's no "character assassination" going on here except in your own head.

Mike Cash, if I was the recipient of those comments, I think I'd feel somewhat miffed and would react similarly (if not quite so offended) as justinr. But since I am not the recipient, I don't really know for sure. So please try me

You may have a point in that arrows always appear sharper when pointed at you. I've seen it happen many time elsewhere but I wasn't the one sneering at another's work.

Still, I think the lady chewing the popcorn is hilarious. Gave me a good laugh anyway.

GoremanX · 03-12-2010, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by justinr

You may have a point in that arrows always appear sharper when pointed at you. I've seen it happen many time elsewhere.

hah! I'd never fall victim to such a thing!

(looking away from Wheatfield while whistling nonchalantly)

res3567 · 03-12-2010, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by justinr

You may have a point in that arrows always appear sharper when pointed at you. I've seen it happen many time elsewhere but I wasn't the one sneering at another's work.

Still, I think the lady chewing the popcorn is hilarious. Gave me a good laugh anyway.

Lady? Huh? You joking right? You simply have to be............

03-12-2010, 06:54 AM	#39
justinr Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Tipperary Photos: Gallery Posts: 394	This from Wikipedia- Character assassination is an attempt to tarnish a person's reputation. It may involve exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person. It is a form of defamation and can be a form of ad hominem argument. True, I got the wrong subtlety, which no doubt renders me worthless beyond redemption. Oh well, such is life. Whoooosh? If funny noises keep you happy then fair enough, shame that you can't be a little less vague in your implied assertions, well I think you are trying to imply something anyway. As for weddings I don't really do them since we moved over here but I have a Mamiya with ZD back for my studio and editorial work whilst the recently acquired K10 replaces the Canon 30D for website and event photos. The 18-55 lens is as good as the Sigma EX lenses I had for the Canon and I'd be quite happy to use it for weddings alongside the Mamiya. The photo's here were taken with it on a ist which convinced me that Pentax was the way to go.- Tipp Vet No doubt other members of this forum will be delighted to learn that their 'kit' lens is not that good after all. Happy now? Whoops,* stupid question since you are so determined not to be. * I like silly noises as well. Last edited by justinr; 03-12-2010 at 07:01 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Cheap wedding photographer	Pablom	General Talk	3	04-11-2010 10:38 AM
How to judge your wedding photographer?	dragonfly	Photographic Industry and Professionals	25	03-08-2010 08:53 AM
Judge Joe Brown - Cheap wedding photographer	sebberry	General Talk	1	03-07-2010 11:21 PM
wedding photographer	hll	Photographic Technique	6	04-08-2008 03:17 PM

03-12-2010, 12:04 AM	#31
little laker Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,697	Originally posted by res3567 Oh Frank......I am so overwelmed with emotion...... excuse me while I GO CRY.....SNIFF......SNIFF......BOOO HOOOO!!!!!! That wounds like something a web-bot would say

03-12-2010, 01:02 AM	#32
justinr Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Tipperary Photos: Gallery Posts: 394	Originally posted by Wheatfield When I was doing wedding photography it was with a Pentax 6x7. It wouldn't surprise me if a kit lens is as sharp as some of my old 6x7 Takumars, but then, I also wasn't magnifying the images anywhere near as much with the 6x7 negative as I am with the junior sized DLSR image. An 8x10 from the 6x7 is a 4x enlargement, the same size print from an APS-C camera is just over a 13x magnification. I'd hope the lenses for the DSLR are better, they are being worked a lot harder to do the same job. It would also help if you would read what you are responding to before you interject a red herring. If you go back and read what you replied to, you will find that I said that a Canon Rebel wass a good enough camera body for shooting weddings, so I really don't know where you figure I was saying anything about having to have a top end "Pencanikon" (whatever the heck that is). Whoa, steady there. We are running up against the old problem of the WWW in that because we are dismembered voices emanating from an unfathomable vastness, no more than cyberspace personalities as rightly pointed out by GoremanX, we lose all the secondary avenues of communication that suggest, reinforce or otherwise modify what words are saying. Basically my point is that to have a 'trial' hinge on whether a photographer can be considered a 'pro' simply by judging them on the lens they choose to use is utterly nonsensical, a notion that tends to suggest that we may in fact hold common ground in judging photography by the results rather than the kit used. I know that such thoughts are an anathema to the manufacturers who have grown stout by convincing people otherwise but the uncomfortable truth remains. So there you go, I've probably upset a whole host of other good folks now!

03-12-2010, 03:50 AM	#33
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by Wheatfield It would also help if you would read what you are responding to before you interject a red herring. He couldn't be bothered to actually watch the video before rendering uninformed chuckleheaded opinions about it. Shirley you didn't expect him to bother reading (and understanding) posts before replying, did you?

03-12-2010, 03:58 AM	#34
justinr Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Tipperary Photos: Gallery Posts: 394	Originally posted by Mike Cash He couldn't be bothered to actually watch the video before rendering uninformed chuckleheaded opinions about it. Shirley you didn't expect him to bother reading (and understanding) posts before replying, did you? No, it's not that I couldn't be bothered, I just hate the telly and find reading (y'know, books and things) so much more informative than the superficial and rather linear box. Try it sometime, then you might be better able to pick up on my last post. I wrote- I know that such thoughts are an anathema to the manufacturers who have grown stout by convincing people otherwise but the uncomfortable truth remains. So there you go, I've probably upset a whole host of other good folks now! Let the backlash and character assassination commence!! Last edited by justinr; 03-12-2010 at 04:06 AM.

03-12-2010, 05:17 AM	#35
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by justinr Basically my point is that to have a 'trial' hinge on whether a photographer can be considered a 'pro' simply by judging them on the lens they choose to use is utterly nonsensical, a notion that tends to suggest that we may in fact hold common ground in judging photography by the results rather than the kit used. I know that such thoughts are an anathema to the manufacturers who have grown stout by convincing people otherwise but the uncomfortable truth remains. So there you go, I've probably upset a whole host of other good folks now! Actually, they were judged based on a complete lack of technical knowledge. If they had known what they were doing, they would have had equipment suited to what they were doing. The kit lens thing was a symptom, and was used as an example to prove they were photographic whack jobs. Judging people as pros based on their choosing appropriate equipment for the job, while not the only criteria, is a pretty important one. Would you trust a brain surgeon who chose to use a Swiss Army Knife and a hockey stick as his surgery tools?

03-12-2010, 05:33 AM	#36
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by justinr No, it's not that I couldn't be bothered, I just hate the telly and find reading (y'know, books and things) so much more informative than the superficial and rather linear box. Try it sometime, then you might be better able to pick up on my last post. I am also a tremendous non-fan of the idiot box. And my critical reading skills are just fine, thank you very much. Quote: Let the backlash and character assassination commence!! It isn't character assassination to point out that you offered an opinion on the content of a bit of video without having watched the video. Seeing what gear you have listed in your profile and taking a stroll through your website provided a useful insight into the basis of your (blissfully uninformed) opinion, though. (If you're going to offer web design services, you may wish to get your web design service site itself ship shape and Bristol fashion first, by the way).

03-12-2010, 05:48 AM	#37
justinr Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Tipperary Photos: Gallery Posts: 394	Originally posted by Mike Cash I am also a tremendous non-fan of the idiot box. And my critical reading skills are just fine, thank you very much. It isn't character assassination to point out that you offered an opinion on the content of a bit of video without having watched the video. Seeing what gear you have listed in your profile and taking a stroll through your website provided a useful insight into the basis of your (blissfully uninformed) opinion, though. (If you're going to offer web design services, you may wish to get your web design service site itself ship shape and Bristol fashion first, by the way). Oooohh Bitchy!! Any more crap? You're postings are becoming a bit of a spectator sport and I'd hate to see them finish so soon. You really don't know how silly you make yourself look. As I said, let the character assassination begin, but you really need to show a little more subtly to be truly effective. I might have a chance to continue with my own site when I've cleared the backlog of those I'm doing for others, including this BTW- Tipp Rally But I'm doing it for free, so don't worry, nobody's getting robbed.

03-12-2010, 06:21 AM	#38
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by justinr Oooohh Bitchy!! Any more crap? You're postings are becoming a bit of a spectator sport and I'd hate to see them finish so soon. You really don't know how silly you make yourself look. Be careful what you wish for. Quote: As I said, let the character assassination begin, but you really need to show a little more subtly to be truly effective. What's the source of your fondness for the phrase "character assassination"? I'm not aware of a blessed thing about your character, nor do I have the slightest interest in "assassinating" it. Rest assured that if I ever do develop such an interest I will be about as subtle as a circus poster. ("Subtly" is an adverb. Perhaps you meant "subtlety"?) Quote: I might have a chance to continue with my own site when I've cleared the backlog of those I'm doing for others, including this BTW- Tipp Rally But I'm doing it for free, so don't worry, nobody's getting robbed. I regret that the point whooshed past too far above your head for you to grasp it. But to make some slight attempt at reining in thread drift......Do you shoot weddings with your Pentax 18-55 kit lens?

03-12-2010, 06:57 AM	#40
GoremanX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Georgia, VT Photos: Albums Posts: 1,657	Originally posted by Mike Cash Do you shoot weddings with your Pentax 18-55 kit lens? I think the real question here is; would any professional photographer dare charge $1300 to do a wedding with a kit lens in this day and age? To be more specific, a Canon XTi kit lens, of all things? It's not the body that matters much in this case, but that particular kit lens is beyond woeful. It doesn't hold a candle to a Pentax DA kit lens, and I don't think even that would be appropriate.

03-12-2010, 07:24 AM	#41
joakimfors Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Lund, Sweden Posts: 237

03-12-2010, 07:47 AM	#42
GoremanX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Georgia, VT Photos: Albums Posts: 1,657	now, now... as entertaining as this cat fight is, I don't think we should be encouraging it. justinr, you're being way too sensitive over silly comments. You're the only one who's being negatively affected by these weak "attacks" (I don't even see them as attacks from my point of view). There's no "character assassination" going on here except in your own head. Mike Cash, if I was the recipient of those comments, I think I'd feel somewhat miffed and would react similarly (if not quite so offended) as justinr. But since I am not the recipient, I don't really know for sure. So please try me

03-12-2010, 07:51 AM	#43
justinr Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Tipperary Photos: Gallery Posts: 394	Originally posted by GoremanX now, now... as entertaining as this cat fight is, I don't think we should be encouraging it. justinr, you're being way too sensitive over silly comments. You're the only one who's being negatively affected by these weak "attacks" (I don't even see them as attacks from my point of view). There's no "character assassination" going on here except in your own head. Mike Cash, if I was the recipient of those comments, I think I'd feel somewhat miffed and would react similarly (if not quite so offended) as justinr. But since I am not the recipient, I don't really know for sure. So please try me You may have a point in that arrows always appear sharper when pointed at you. I've seen it happen many time elsewhere but I wasn't the one sneering at another's work. Still, I think the lady chewing the popcorn is hilarious. Gave me a good laugh anyway.

03-12-2010, 07:54 AM	#44
GoremanX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Georgia, VT Photos: Albums Posts: 1,657	Originally posted by justinr You may have a point in that arrows always appear sharper when pointed at you. I've seen it happen many time elsewhere. hah! I'd never fall victim to such a thing! (looking away from Wheatfield while whistling nonchalantly)

03-12-2010, 08:20 AM	#45
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by justinr You may have a point in that arrows always appear sharper when pointed at you. I've seen it happen many time elsewhere but I wasn't the one sneering at another's work. Still, I think the lady chewing the popcorn is hilarious. Gave me a good laugh anyway. Lady? Huh? You joking right? You simply have to be............