Originally Posted by
agaace
I kind of feel bad about the photographer - she tries to start in the business, probably make money on weddings to learn and buy more expensive gear. It's just her arrogance, lack of preparation (didn't even ask the priest in advance if flash was allowed!), and lack of knowledge were just annoying.
Tough to say the real quality of the pictures just from the youtube video. Maybe they were really really bad (and seriously couldn't be printed bigger size), but still the argument of the judge that she used 'cheap' equipment doesn't convince me. I think, unless the contract said anything about the gear, the judge shouldn't be taking into account the equipment, JUST the results. The artistic value cannot be judged, so the only arguments should be final resolution, focus point, some basic composition and light aspects (like cut off heads, big white spot instead of a forehead etc), sharpness (how to measure this? and how to say it wasn't an artistic effect?) etc. I think a contract like this should cover technical aspects like resoultion of the pictures, maybe amount and which moments of the ceremony have to be covered. If these are delivered - there's no space for argument. The rest depends on the brand of the photographer and the customer should first study the portfolio before signing the contract and trusting the photographer. Also, I think the customer should have right to purchase only the shots they like. Not satisfied? Pay only for photographer's time.