this made me laugh...

ShawWellPete

ShawWellPete

Messages
3,699
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
[YOUTUBE]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/js7RzcdDcMs&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/js7RzcdDcMs&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
 
Watched it ! The Judge was having none of it. What lens did you use? what F.stop indoors ? She was speechless. So funny when he uped the judgment for the palintiff.

He knew more bout togging than she did. Well done judge.
 
Normally I would say its not what hammer you own, its how you use it.

The fact that she was blissfully ignorant to even the most basic of controls let her down here. That and what an attitude! really made a rod for her own back when the claimer only wanted part of what she paid back.

The one statement that nobody has mentioned is:

They Dont Know About Cameras, To Them Its Just A Black Box!
 
MagicMynx said:
To be fair though, the average person knows nowt about photography, the settings, lenses, f stops, aperture etc etc, so he is right.
Click to expand...

Yup,

just though I should make a point, see if anyone noticed ;)

Before now on an occasion like this I see comments saying how daft the clients were not to hire a pro with all the kit yada yada.

Quite simply how do they know the difference?

saw someone in a shopping centre the other weekend (or was it mid week? was spare of the moment shopping) advertising photography, and ironically had a Canon 350 (U.S: Rebel) on the desk claiming they were a pro.

no one except me and maybe a few other camera knowledgeable people who may have passed knew any different, and probably accidentally showed it by poorly trying to conceal laughter. :lol:

that and a glance at the banner made me choke at the quality issues :eek:

but someone will have still hired them. no getting away from it.
 
MagicMynx said:
To be fair though, the average person knows nowt about photography, the settings, lenses, f stops, aperture etc etc, so he is right.
Click to expand...

So true ! I've been into DSLR photography since christmas and still knows nowt :)
 
saw someone in a shopping centre the other weekend (or was it mid week? was spare of the moment shopping) advertising photography, and ironically had a Canon 350 (U.S: Rebel) on the desk claiming they were a pro.

no one except me and maybe a few other camera knowledgeable people who may have passed knew any different, and probably accidentally showed it by poorly trying to conceal laughter.
Click to expand...

Thing is though surely you could get some pretty professional looking results with a camera like that if you know what you are doing. There are lots of people out there with pro kit making fairly ropey stuff.

The fact that the banner looked rubbish should be the only thing that matters really.
 
grum said:
Thing is though surely you could get some pretty professional looking results with a camera like that if you know what you are doing. There are lots of people out there with pro kit making fairly ropey stuff.

The fact that the banner looked rubbish should be the only thing that matters really.
Click to expand...

Well said. Its not the equipment, its how you use it. The judge was correct with the ruling but giving the impression that a Canon 1D series would have rescued the day is misleading. Poor results can be had with any camera and lens combination.
 
King_Boru said:
Well said. Its not the equipment, its how you use it. The judge was correct with the ruling but giving the impression that a Canon 1D series would have rescued the day is misleading. Poor results can be had with any camera and lens combination.
Click to expand...

I felt that he was saying more along the lines of, you say you're professional, you should have 'professional' equipment.

But regardless, that made me smile!
 
I think the Judge was merely trying to ascertain how familiar the photographer was with her equipment - not knowing the maximum aperture of one of her lenses for example - if she'd come back with something along the lines of "...the Digital Rebel XT uses the same sensor and processing algorithms as more expensive bodies and is perfectly adequate for our needs in low-light environments such as wedding chapels where the use of higher iso's is required..." might have asssured the Judge that even though she was using budget equipment, she knew how to get the best from it.
As soon as he demonstrated a reasonable knowledge of photography, she should have known she wouldn't be able to bluff her case.
Not a good idea to present lo-res glossies as evidence either - should have done some re-prints from the RAW files...

But maybe she accccidentally shot on JPEG-low?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top