SportsShooter.com - YouTube - Judge Joe Brown

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:

Contests:

Newsletter:

Members:

About Us:

Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

YouTube - Judge Joe Brown - Cheap wedding photographer

Jesse Beals, Photographer

	Tracyton \| WA \| USA \| Posted: 4:01 PM on 03.02.10
	->> This is great. YouTube - Judge Joe Brown - Cheap wedding photographer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs

Eric Canha, Photographer

Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 4:20 PM on 03.02.10

->> Jesse please send me a new keyboard. Address is on my member page.

That beats EVERY OTHER video on the subject of hiring professional photographers.... EVER!!!

And to think that this...... ahem.... professional..... was willing to get in front of a NATIONAL audience. Priceless....

At the same time to the bride..... you went out and booked a photographer for $1300 for the day. Karma does bite. You'll get posed and faked photos that will never come close to capturing the spirit of your wedding. I really can't seem to find pity for you. The money will compensate you for the money lost but never for the pain of knowing what could have been.

Jason Joseph, Photographer

	Dublin \| OH \| USA \| Posted: 5:03 PM on 03.02.10
	->> That was AWESOME!!!!!! Maybe Judge Joe Brown can be the next member of the NPPA Board of Directors

Jason Heffran, Photographer

	Natrona Heights \| PA \| USA \| Posted: 5:06 PM on 03.02.10
	->> This is priceless...

Mike Huffstatler, Photographer, Assistant

	Rancho Cucamonga \| Ca \| United States \| Posted: 5:12 PM on 03.02.10
	->> Love it! This will be a great tool. did you catch the line where the photographer (sic!) said "we've done thousands of weddings with this". !! too funny.

Thomas B. Shea, Photographer

	Pearland/Houston \| TX \| USA \| Posted: 5:29 PM on 03.02.10
	->> I love that the judge gave her 2500 instead of a 1000. But when you pay for 1000 photography you are going to get 1000 dollar photography.

Nick Doan, Photographer, Assistant

	Scottsdale \| AZ \| USA \| Posted: 5:58 PM on 03.02.10
	->> Wow, these women were actually paid $1300 to photograph a wedding. I'm thinking I might need to pursue a new line of revenue...

Jason Heffran, Photographer

	Natrona Heights \| PA \| USA \| Posted: 6:57 PM on 03.02.10
	->> I agree with the "get what you pay for" angle. I'm really mad at myself. Here I am spending all this money on cameras, remotes, lenses, etc and all I needed was a Walmart camera with a kit lens to shoot thousands of weddings. What was I thinking?

Josh Thompson, Photographer

	Ontario \| California \| USA \| Posted: 7:10 PM on 03.02.10
	->> They claim to have shot "thousands" of weddings, and are charging $1,300. With just 2,000 weddings, that's $2.6 million they've made!!! With that kind of dough, they should have better equipment for those "low light" situations that come up.

Michael Chansley, Photographer, Assistant

	Tucson \| AZ \| USA \| Posted: 7:27 PM on 03.02.10
	->> I love how she didn't even know how fast her lens was. Probably just shot in auto mode the entire time.

Michael Pina, Photographer

	SF Bay Area \| ca \| usa \| Posted: 7:47 PM on 03.02.10
	->> This is so perfect for this business. A side from letting any uncle henry shoot their memorable day, we need to protect our interest that puts the bread on the table. Thank you Judge Joe Brown you ROCK!

Brad Barr, Photographer

Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 7:52 PM on 03.02.10

->> Funny thing was..the only pix shown were fine....the judge was a dick and wouldnt let the photog say anything....I could easily shoot a wedding with a rebel and kit lens and produce good results......thats not the point. The judge didnt rule on the actual merit of the case...thats just wrong. TV or not it was wrong. He ruled based on misguided views of equipment and misguided views on processing....nevermind the fact that walmart print on Fuji Frontiers the same as are in major pro labs....nevermind the pix shown were fine...what a load of crap.

Andrew Villa, Student/Intern, Assistant

	San Jose \| CA \| United States \| Posted: 7:54 PM on 03.02.10
	->> Its funny because the photographer just keeps digging their grave. That and that Judge Joe Brown knows more about photography than they do. Hilarious thanks for this.

Daniel Berman, Student/Intern, Photographer

Seattle | WA | US | Posted: 7:58 PM on 03.02.10

->> The fact of the matter is that $1300 is a lot of money to most people, and almost any member of this website could have delivered a better-quality product with better gear -- and a better attitude about the importance of this event to the couple. I am shocked though that anyone would attempt to shoot indoors with the kit lenses, especially that 70-300, yuck. Frankly, I don't understand the argument that the couple got what they deserved for paying that amount -- I know that I have done much better work than that for a fraction of the amount, but then again, I have not been in this business long.

Brad Barr, Photographer

Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 8:06 PM on 03.02.10

->> how do you know Daniel...you didnt actually get to see any images that were poor...only those same 4-5 shots that actually were fine. That teh problem with this ....sure a pro "should" have better gear...but its not the gear its the shooter. Any of us here could take a rebel and those 2 lenses and do an acceptable job. We wouldnt like to be constrained by those choices, but we could do it.

You might think just how easy any of us could find ourselved in front of a judge that wont let you finish a sentence and "thinks" he knows more about photography than you do.....thats a scenario noone wants to find themselves in.

The judge knew just enough to be dangerous. Did the photographer? We simply dont know. We were not shown enough to make that judgment. She should have been better prepared certainly. Her work might be quite good. Who knows. I've seen students turn in some exemplary stuff using equipment no better than this....

Daniel Berman, Student/Intern, Photographer

	Seattle \| WA \| US \| Posted: 8:15 PM on 03.02.10
	->> Fair enough Brad, those are valid points.

Heston Quan, Photographer

Orange County | CA | | Posted: 8:26 PM on 03.02.10

Paul Alesse, Photographer

	Centereach \| NY \| USA \| Posted: 8:39 PM on 03.02.10
	->> Wow, Judge Joe Brown is a photographer. You don't get the normal run of the mill from a judge with, "Where was your 1D series." He has to know photography to say that. Next thing you know, he'll be on the board of NPPA along with Drew Carey.

Brad Barr, Photographer

Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 8:46 PM on 03.02.10

->> Photog lost credibility for sure by not knowing the speed of her lens...but she was clearly flustered by the judge

Judge lost credibility for being a photographer by not knowing some churches have restrictions....duh...

Any idea how many canon based wedding photographers dont use a one series camera?? That was just a cheap shot meant to belittle the defendant.....not the job of a judge by any means...

Kevin Clifford, Photographer

	Reno \| NV \| United States \| Posted: 8:47 PM on 03.02.10
	->> "What speed was your lens?"- Judge Brown "I shot with a tripod." -Defendant buhahahahhaha

Jeff Barrie, Photographer

Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 9:22 PM on 03.02.10

->> LOL If I did weddings the first thing I would do is post that link about every other day or so on Craig's list.
If she doesn't know the speed of her lens then to me that shows a very basic lack of knowledege.
I agree tho that it would be possible to get good shots with that kit that could produce some large prints. 20x30? I don't know about that big but, how many people have a 20 x 30, or something that close of their wedding hanging around the house?
I also found it amusing that both said they met in different locations. I mean if you found this gal at a Wedding Show you would think she has something on the ball.
Can you imagine what would have happened if she tried it with film and not being able to chimp to dial it in?

Mark Peters, Photographer

	Highland \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 9:28 PM on 03.02.10
	->> I found it interesting that the only real complaint that I heard was that the prints were made at wal-mart, yet that was never mentioned again. Brown came off as arrogant, overbearing and self-righteous - pure theatre. He was more interested in trying to prove to the audience his grand knowledge of the craft that he sort of forgot that whole objective arbiter role he's supposed to fulfill.

Heston Quan, Photographer

	Orange County \| CA \| \| Posted: 9:36 PM on 03.02.10
	->> Well, in the news this past week, JJB is being sued for "defaming" a plaintiff. Not to turn this into a debate on who's the best or worst TV Judge, but I think Judge Judy was more diplomatic and knowledgable in handling this case, particularily in her opening line of questioning to the defendant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFljB-iiSFw

Paul Alesse, Photographer

	Centereach \| NY \| USA \| Posted: 9:54 PM on 03.02.10
	->> Let me tell you though, all kidding aside, my lens can run the 40 in about 4.4

Jeff Martin, Photographer

	wellington \| OH \| usa \| Posted: 10:10 PM on 03.02.10
	->> " pure theatre" Exactly what it is. That's what both sides signed up for.

Kevin Seale, Photographer

	Crawfordsville \| IN \| United States \| Posted: 11:30 PM on 03.02.10
	->> Don't forget that JJB, like President O, uses a teleprompter. As long as he can read, he does not need to know anything about photography.

Mike Huffstatler, Photographer, Assistant

Rancho Cucamonga | Ca | United States | Posted: 11:37 PM on 03.02.10

->> first of all, I am in the camp of it being 100% theater. It's all about the $$$...getting viewers, selling commercial space. Both plaintiff and defendant are paid for their participation, so I don't think anyone really loses here. Except in this case, this defendant is likely done as a wedding photographer.

I just saw this on another forum I check once in a while. This video is certainly making the rounds. I have no way of verifying if this statement is true. I'm simply passing along what I just read...right or wrong.

----------------------------
Quote:
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
---------------------

Mike Shepherd, Photographer

	Wichita \| KS \| USA \| Posted: 12:11 AM on 03.03.10
	->> My wedding studio gets a lot of inquiries that end with "we love your work but we just can't afford it." Whether they can't or won't, the unfortunate part here is that most brides never learn the lesson until it's too late. From what I can tell, this couple got $1,300 worth of wedding photography -- amateur gear, pedestrian images and lousy customer service.

James Broome, Photographer

Tampa | FL | US | Posted: 9:16 AM on 03.03.10

->> Mark Peters nailed it. Judge Brown sat up there and rambled about his supposed knowledge. It didn't serve any purpose other than to throw off the defendant.

Regardless, his ruling was correct - the wedding photographers were ignorant of their craft and equipment. I wish we would have been shown the problematic images instead of the shots done outdoors. The whole basis for the complaint was that the indoor shots sucked. Where were they? How come they didn't get shown?

Rene Mireles, Photographer

	Holland \| MI \| USA \| Posted: 9:24 AM on 03.03.10
	->> Great Vid. Looks to be a Michigan Photographer, great shes not in my area lol http://www.photographypros.com/portrait/midland_mi/index.php http://www.photographypros.com/midland_mi/index.php

Vasiliy Baziuk, Photographer

	Rochester \| NY \| USA \| Posted: 9:34 AM on 03.03.10
	->> you can hire a professional with two assistants and pay $3000-$4000 and still not get what you want.

Anantachai Brown, Photographer

	Jacksonville \| FL \| \| Posted: 9:46 AM on 03.03.10
	->> some furnny stuff right thar...

Jason Heffran, Photographer

Natrona Heights | PA | USA | Posted: 10:05 AM on 03.03.10

->> Even thought at first glance my reaction was that it was a bit hilarious and over the top, I have a slightly different take on the whole thing after reading everyone's responses.

I watched the Judge Judy video of a similar situation and she focused on what the contract said. There was no mention of the agreement whatsoever that I saw in the JJB footage.

I wondered about the scripting of his response since he went from a 10D up to a 1D when asking the defendant where her "pro gear" was. I have a friend who may be in the top 25 wedding photographers in the U.S. He works for some very big names and charges as such.

But, you are getting a value even with his pricing. Multiple shooters, extensive editing and awesome customer service with a staff that ensures that all aspects of the contract are agreed to and rock solid. A very professional operation and priced as such. I have assisted him on weddings topping $15,000.

Funny thing that never crossed my mind. Until I bought his 50D for my backup camera, he worked primarily with it and loved it. Never invested in any 1D series body. His investments have been in fast glass.

I guess I am starting to think that the "theatre" aspect of this may have been over the top. He probably put this lady out of business. I have a hard time seeing where that is beneficial.

But, as another photog friend of mine said, you get what you pay for. For $1,300 she should have just given the plaintiff a 4-hour shoot & burn. Then, ironically, the plaintiff would have gone straight to Walmart to create her prints and albums.

But, if you are going ot be defending yourself on what you know is a national stage, you might want to dress a little more professional (looks like she didn't even dry her hair) and conduct yourself in a less abrasive manner.

Glad I shoot sports... all I can say. If I ever do weddings - it's usually for a colleague or a friend. And, I still charge them. AND, there is an agreement - even in those situations.

Just my two cents. I think it is awesome that the discussions on this board can really serve to broaden what was a very narrow opinion I had. Glad to be a member.

Chuck Liddy, Photographer

Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 11:09 AM on 03.03.10

->> Sorry, I watched four minutes of that and had to turn it off. That JJB guy is an asshole. He's supposed to be a judge? What a joke he was testifying for the complainant the whole time. He's nothing but a bully with a limited knowledge of something (photography) THAT he ATTEMPTED to interject into the situation. "I can tell you didn't use a tripod." WTF!?!
How does he know that? I would have loved to see someone who wouldn't get flustered and had a better idea of what they were doing get in front of that fraud. That's a reason I never wath these shows...having covered my share of court cases over the years I can safely say that any of these idiots on these shows (these purported 'judges') would be disbarred and thrown off rhe bench if they acted like they do on these shows. They are one step above the Jerry Springer Show or Cheaters.

Kevin Seale, Photographer

Crawfordsville | IN | United States | Posted: 11:31 AM on 03.03.10

->> For those who gave me a 'huh' for my earlier post, you do realize this is a TV show with a main character and has very little to do with reality or the legal process?

JJB, like most TV show characters, gets a lot of information and cues via a teleprompter. Since he has info fed to him, he does not have to know anything about what he is babbling. He just has to spit it out in the normal condescending, I know everything style that defines his show.

Maybe he is a photographic God, but based on some of the silly things he said, I file it under the category of TV fiction with a bad script writing.

Steven E. Frischling, Photographer

| | | Posted: 11:33 AM on 03.03.10

->> Jason,

The discussion of camera bodies as you mentioned is not relevant...but comes up often.

Back when the 10D was new I showed up at a corporate shoot with a set of 1D bodies and a 10D. I set up four Lumedyne Lights, with packs, pocket wizards, softboxes, all "L" glass and started the shoot with the 10D rather than the two 1D bodies.

The company Corporate Comm Manager stopped me and told me to use the 1D. I told her the 10D was a better choice for their end needs and she cut me off by saying "We're paying you for the 1D, even I own a 10D"

Of course the question she would not answer was did she have the lights, soft boxes, pocket wizards, glass & experience to pull off the shoot they had hired me for.

...oh yea, and I shot a photo that ran a full page in Life Magazine's Year in Pictures with a Nikon CoolPix 950 because both my Nikon D1 bodies failed simultaneously in 2000 ... should the photo not have been used because it was shot on a CoolPix not a D1?

On the other hand, how many photogs don't know the apertures of their lenses? How could someone not know their glass? If you don't know your glass you probably shouldn't be a shooter.

Eric Isaacs, Photographer

Santa Barbara | CA | USA | Posted: 11:45 AM on 03.03.10

->> "The Judge was off base in his disbelief in flash photography not being allowed"

My disbelief is that the photographer didn't do any recon with the church and find out any such limitations before showing up on wedding day. I mean really? Not even a quick walk through to see what conditions she would be working under to know what equipment to bring?

I agree that Brown came across as a bully to some degree but with the time constraints of a tv show you also can't expect to view a full disclosure of facts and statements from both sides. Hopefully that stuff was done by either Brown or his production staff and then boiled down to a ten minute segment.

It would have been nice to see examples of the terrible pictures rather than the outside shot that honestly, looked pretty nice. I love the youtube comment under the video stating, "It's amateur. Anyone who has studied photography even briefly can tell, but to an untrained eye it might look fine." I guess I need to study photography more briefly so I can properly evaluate a photo flashed on a screen for a few seconds, then captured from said television and then reduced and replayed on youtube.

"Are you gonna cry now?" That's a fun way to deal with unhappy customers...

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor

	San Jose \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 1:17 PM on 03.03.10
	->> Geez Louise folks, this is an entertainment TV show -- not a courtroom. Joe Brown's job is to be as entertaining as possible while maintaining the cosmetic appearance of the legal process. --Mark

Carl Auer, Photographer

Eagle River | AK | USA | Posted: 2:30 PM on 03.03.10

->> Being a preachers kid does not make me an expert on what rules every church has for photography. That being said I have assisted with a few weddings, know a lot of pastors from various denominations, and when I considered doing weddings, talked with these churches about wedding photography. Some churches today have no problem with flash photography during the service, some allow only the wedding photographer to use flash, some do not allow anyone to use flash and a few do not want photography during the service (unless you have a blimp). But for the photos of the bride and groom and wedding parties, not one church or pastor I have ever talked to has said that flash or strobes are not allowed. The few weddings I have done on my own, and the handful I have assisted on, we were there at the wedding rehearsal to find out from the pastor where we could be, what we could do during the service, etc, etc, with the bride and groom there so they knew what was going on and would be on the same page. In my personal opinion, it does not matter if you are doing the wedding for free or charging $100,000, meeting with the bride and groom at the church with the pastor or a wedding coordinator just makes sense.

That being said, the photos that Judge Joe showed, specifically the one of the bride in shade, is the one photo I had an issue with. The photog did right in moving the bride into shade, but should have used some sort of fill. An off camera flash, portable strobe, reflector, shoot, I have used a car sunshade for a reflector before. Anything to fill in the shot some was obviously needed.

Jamey Price, Student/Intern, Photographer

	Charlotte \| NC \| USA \| Posted: 4:05 PM on 03.03.10
	->> "It's like walking into the chapel and takin pictures on an iphone and calling yourself a professional." I. LOVE. IT. This is the greatest cable tv advertisement ever showing reasons to hire one of us.

Dave Breen, Photographer

	Somerset \| PA \| USA \| Posted: 4:10 PM on 03.03.10
	->> Fish, It was OK Life used the photo, but you should not have been paid nearly as much for shooting it with a CoolPix.

Christopher Kays, Photographer

	Benton \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 4:33 PM on 03.03.10
	->> Judge Joe Brown knows his camera gear. I have new found respect for this guy!

George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor

Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 4:53 PM on 03.03.10

->> What I find funny about this is some years ago I was called by a PR firm to shoot a reception of Brown on Capitol Hill in DC.

'm sure he had nothing to do with the hiring or pricing so I won't blame him.

All had been agreed to but as I was walking to the reception I got a call from the PR folks saying they thought the price was too high and wanted to know if I would cut my fee. My response was "I'm outside the building and you signed the estimate so either I shoot for that fee or I don't shoot." They paid the fee.

Phil Hawkins, Photographer

Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 6:14 PM on 03.03.10

->> "That JJB guy is an asshole." AMEN Chuck.

the photographer was never allowed to even finish a sentence. She was never allowed to defend herself. I would have gone off too. $1,300 is cheap and the bride got what she paid for. THIS is what happens when brides chisel and beat down price. Yet another reason why I don't do many weddings. Certainly the bride knew she was getting a good price but had no clue that you get what you pay for in this world.

Hal Smith, Photographer

	Sedalia \| MO \| USA \| Posted: 1:16 PM on 03.04.10
	->> Geez, It's not the camera that makes the photographer.

Return to --> Message Board Main Index