Judge Joe Brown Knows His Photography LOL

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Nomen Nescio, Mar 5, 2010.

  1. Nomen Nescio

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    Here's a portion of the Judge Joe Brown episode that aired Monday in the US.
    The case involved a woman who felt cheated when the wedding photographer she
    hired delivered poor results after using a Canon Rebel XTi, 18-55mm kit
    lens, and a 70-300mm. What's interesting is how Judge Joe Brown actually
    seems to know a thing or two about photography.

    It's funny how the defendant shot "hundreds of weddings" without knowing
    what the speed of her 70-300mm lens is.

    http://www.petapixel.com/2010/03/03/judge-joe-brown-knows-his-photography
     
    Nomen Nescio, Mar 5, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Nomen Nescio

    MikeWhy Guest

    Illustrating only that television's first and only priority is
    entertainment. Third party mediation presumes a qualified, impartial
    mediator. Here, we have a self annointed "judge" playing dress up and
    rendering his own "expert" testimony on behalf of the plaintiff. And, no, he
    demonstrated no more knowledge of photography than he did about legal
    proceedings. It's a complete farce, if you needed someone to point that out.
    You may as well ask the Tom & Jerry animators about quadriped anatomy.
     
    MikeWhy, Mar 5, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Nomen Nescio

    J. Clarke Guest

    He's not exactly "self-anointed"--he was a judge at one time. But he
    supposedly got himself removed from a major trial by doing exactly what
    he did here, testifying from the bench.
     
    J. Clarke, Mar 5, 2010
    #3
  4. I couldn't understand the question. Lenses don't have speed! Speed of
    focusing? But I googled it and discovered that some people call
    aperture speed, I suppose by analogy from such phrases as "fast
    glass".
     
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 5, 2010
    #4
  5. Nomen Nescio

    MikeWhy Guest

    It's all good, then. He can tell me all about photography according to Garp,
    while I lecture from the pulpit on the finer points of contract law,
    courtroom procedure, and Constitutional separation of legislative power from
    judicial. What a circus.
     
    MikeWhy, Mar 5, 2010
    #5
  6. Nomen Nescio

    SMS Guest

    Well duh, of course it's just entertainment. In real life, any judge
    that actually was testifying like that would be thrown off the bench and
    maybe jailed. The participants know going in that it's not a real trial,
    more like an arbitration dressed up to look like a trial.

    I guess some people use "speed" as a synonym for aperture.

    In any case, the defendant was using the lowest end kit lens on a
    consumer level camera body and represented herself as a professional. At
    least a better lens on that body would have given better results.

    The judge should have thrown her in prison for using a Canon 18-55 EF-s
    lens to shoot a wedding.
     
    SMS, Mar 5, 2010
    #6
  7. Nomen Nescio

    SMS Guest

    He's an entertainer. He says what he says because he's being paid to do so.
     
    SMS, Mar 5, 2010
    #7
  8. Yeah, shoulda used a 3.3 MP compact, esp. employing the built in flash.
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 5, 2010
    #8
  9. Nomen Nescio

    stephe_k Guest


    At least he knew what she was using was not "Pro" level gear and from
    the judgment of $2500, she SHOULD been a court for using such low end
    equipment charging those kinds of prices. He even stated the camera
    might have been OK with better glass.

    He also knew enough to know that showing a thumbnail of a shot doesn't
    prove it's high enough quality to enlarge. And that the one sample print
    they brought of a diffused lighting outdoor shot (perfect lighting)
    wasn't proof that the indoor, low light level shots would also be good.

    Maybe he doesn't know enough about correct terms to be teaching a
    class but he knew enough about the subject to make an informed decision.
    Clearly the defendant knew she was "busted" for using a bottom tier lens
    as "pro" gear and the results she produced were sub standard for a
    professional photographer.

    Stephanie
     
    stephe_k, Mar 5, 2010
    #9
  10. Nomen Nescio

    MikeWhy Guest

    Well! Aren't we're the bunch of know-it-all busy bodies? Frankly, it isn't
    my place or yours to say whether the gear was adequate for the job. It
    wasn't His Honor Judy Brown's place to pontificate on his limited knowledge,
    nor was it his place to set a standard of care on the fly after the fact.
    What is his place is to interpret the law as it applies to their respective
    obligations written into the contract. It's certain that the contract did
    NOT stipulate that proofs were to be on museum rag. What strikes me is that
    the poor sod she married will find that she'll honor her wedding vows and
    obligations in the same manner she did with the wedding photographers. Woe
    be he should the toilet seat be left in the upright and vertical position
    when he finishes, especially during certain portions of the lunar cycle.
    Stay tuned for Brown's berating sermons on the evils of toilet seat
    slackards.
     
    MikeWhy, Mar 5, 2010
    #10
  11. Nomen Nescio

    MikeWhy Guest

    Now you're just teasing. Nobody who can tie their own shoes is that dense.
    The fact of the matter is, forgetting about the farce of a television show
    for the moment, the photographer presumably had a contractual obligation to
    provide certain services. The presumed conflict apparently comes from some
    key shots being missed, those in the chapel when the vows were exchanged. It
    has nothing to do with the equipment used or not used. It doesn't matter if
    the photographer is an unskilled amateur or wizened veteran. The only
    actionable claim was that the job was incomplete, and the missed shots are
    irreplaceable, and can be assigned a dollar value. Judgement of $1000
    against her for the muff up seems reasonable. The berating and self serving
    speeches is just cheap theater. That's what you folks are getting all worked
    up over: cheap theater, bad actors, and the worst kind of television.
     
    MikeWhy, Mar 5, 2010
    #11
  12. Nomen Nescio

    J. Clarke Guest

    Which particular 18-55 was it? The current one is one of Canon's
    sharper lenses--where it falls down is in aperture and build quality.

    Within certain limits skill counts for more than equipment. The big
    problem that these particular bimbos had was that they clearly were
    unskilled in available-light photography--criticizing their equipment
    was missing the point.
     
    J. Clarke, Mar 5, 2010
    #12
  13. Nomen Nescio

    J. Clarke Guest

    No, actually he's not, but he plays one on TV.

    He _used_ to be a judge until he stepped on his dick.
     
    J. Clarke, Mar 5, 2010
    #13
  14. Nomen Nescio

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    Yes but they chose to go to Judge Joe Brown, Judge Judy or The People's
    Court, because it's TV and they don't have to pay the judgement from their
    own pocket. If it went to a real Small Claims Court, she still may have won
    over un-professional quality. Tougher in the real world, aside of any
    contractual items.
     
    Nomen Nescio, Mar 5, 2010
    #14
  15. Nomen Nescio

    ken d Guest

    I guess some pretend-photographer trolls with no real-life experience don't
    realize that the terms "fast glass" and "fast lenses" used to, and
    sometimes still does, refer to aperture. Just because you've never
    encountered this from your computer-monitor-only basement-life experience
    doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the world of real photographers.
     
    ken d, Mar 5, 2010
    #15
  16. Nomen Nescio

    Peter Guest


    In any legal proceeding the fact finder of necessity brings his life
    experiences and common sense into play. Joe Brown is both the fact finder
    and the person who applies the law to the facts. I have sat as an arbitrator
    in small claims court, which is similar in concept to the above. The purpose
    of a small claims court is to do substantial substantial justice. IOW you do
    what you think is right. The formal rules of evidence need not be followed,
    but a reasonable approximation of them will usually be. For example, if
    someone came and claimed that a particular shot was made in low light at
    1/1,000 sec at f11, ISO 100, I certainly would not believe what he said. If
    he lies about one thing, I would view the rest of his statements as tainted.
     
    Peter, Mar 6, 2010
    #16
  17. Nomen Nescio

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : : > Amazing who they'll let occupy the Bench in the U.S. Frigging TV
    : > buffoons.
    : >
    : Judges in the USA are elected,

    Some are; most are not. In many (most?) states none are, nor are any Federal
    judges elected. The latter are appointed by the President and approved by the
    Senate. Most state court judges are appointed by their state's Governor, often
    from a list of qualified candidates submitted by the state's Bar Association.

    : Judge Joe Brown is a retired judge of some
    : reknown, typical RichA to open his mouth before engaging his brain;

    If the shoe fits, wear it.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 6, 2010
    #17
  18. Nomen Nescio

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 10-03-05 6:32 , Chris Malcolm wrote:
    : >> Here's a portion of the Judge Joe Brown episode that aired Monday in the US.
    : >> The case involved a woman who felt cheated when the wedding photographer she
    : >> hired delivered poor results after using a Canon Rebel XTi, 18-55mm kit
    : >> lens, and a 70-300mm. What's interesting is how Judge Joe Brown actually
    : >> seems to know a thing or two about photography.
    : >
    : >> It's funny how the defendant shot "hundreds of weddings" without knowing
    : >> what the speed of her 70-300mm lens is.
    : >
    : >> http://www.petapixel.com/2010/03/03/judge-joe-brown-knows-his-photography
    : >
    : > I couldn't understand the question. Lenses don't have speed! Speed of
    : > focusing? But I googled it and discovered that some people call
    : > aperture speed, I suppose by analogy from such phrases as "fast
    : > glass".
    :
    : Always been called 'fast glass' or 'high speed lens' in my experience
    : (since the 80's).

    My experience goes back to the 50s, and it was the same then.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 6, 2010
    #18
  19. Nomen Nescio

    Robert Coe Guest

    : Bob G wrote:
    : > The judge's a fool.
    :
    :
    : At least he knew what she was using was not "Pro" level gear and from
    : the judgment of $2500, she SHOULD been a court for using such low end
    : equipment charging those kinds of prices. He even stated the camera
    : might have been OK with better glass.

    The XTi (my wife and I each have one) is a very decent outdoor camera, but
    mediocre indoors. (You don't really want to go above ISO 800.) My 50D is
    considerably better; but even with that, the only lenses I'll use indoors
    without flash are an f/1.4 prime and a couple of constant-aperture f/2.8
    zooms.

    : He also knew enough to know that showing a thumbnail of a shot doesn't
    : prove it's high enough quality to enlarge. And that the one sample print
    : they brought of a diffused lighting outdoor shot (perfect lighting)
    : wasn't proof that the indoor, low light level shots would also be good.
    :
    : Maybe he doesn't know enough about correct terms to be teaching a
    : class but he knew enough about the subject to make an informed decision.
    : Clearly the defendant knew she was "busted" for using a bottom tier lens
    : as "pro" gear and the results she produced were sub standard for a
    : professional photographer.

    She had to be either an amateur posing as a professional or an idiot (or both)
    not to be using better equipment. FWIW, of the last two wedding photographers
    I've seen at work, one used a 5D and the other a 50D. The "judge" hinted that
    the photographer should have used a 1D, but that's an awfully big and heavy
    camera for event photography. (Sporting events are an exception, I guess,
    presumably because the lenses used are so big and heavy that the size and
    weight of the camera are immaterial.)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 6, 2010
    #19
  20. Nomen Nescio

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Get back to us when you're appointed world dictator. Your whining
    might have some relevance to the real world then.
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 7, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.