Judge Joe Brown knows his canon gear...

El Cabong

macrumors 6502a
Dec 1, 2008
"So how are you gonna take adequate photos with a lens this slow?"

"Where is your 28-70?"

"What happened to your 1-series?"

"I'm looking at about the cheapest lens you can get by with on a Canon system."

Love it.


macrumors 68000
Sep 21, 2008
Georgia, USA
That has to be the funniest episode I've seen. I'll bet those "photographers" had no idea about what they were walking into. Who would have thought Brown knew photography like that?


macrumors 65816
Jul 13, 2009
Epic. I love how they never answered what f-stop they used, most likely because they didn't know what it was :D


macrumors 6502
Jan 28, 2008
I love how they couldn't answer a single question regarding their lens speed or regarding the f-stop they used!! God, it's like they just shot in auto and passed themselves off as "pros".


macrumors regular
Jun 21, 2006
Toronto, Ontario!
Typical Craigslist Photographer: 0
Judge Joe Brown: 1

That rocked!
I hired an awesome photographer off CL a few years ago when my youngest child was born! :D
I watched that episode and while the judge is knowledgeable I seriously doubt the show is "real" I think its mostly for shock value.


Moderator emeritus
Jul 19, 2002
None of this matters because I just use my iPhone for professional wedding pictures. :p :D

F-stop. Shutter speed. ISO setting. Lens types/quality.

I'm an amateur and I know these things. What were these folks thinking?

adn rcd dly

macrumors 6502
Nov 23, 2004
Salt Lake City, UT
gotta say, I am not a Judge Joe Brown fan or any courtroom TV program fan for that matter. But this was amazing! Working as a wedding videographer I certainly saw some cheap photographers. Loved this. :)


macrumors 65816
Jan 18, 2004
The ending to the case was the best. These "Professionals" clearly showed that they didn't know what camera equipment they were using - evening admitting to it at one segment of the video - and their attitude was incredibly poor.

Comments like "Oh, you're gonna cry now?" or "Well are you going to give her dad back the money because HE paid for it?" are completely unacceptable and only go to show what type of person she is and the type of business she is running. What a bunch of sleaze-bags.

Judge Joe Brown rocked on this. I only wish he had the same enthusiasm for telling these people off as Judge Judy. Some people don't like her because they think she's too mean, but I think the people she is hard on are the people who deserve it and need a telling off most in this scary world.


macrumors 68030
Jun 25, 2007
St. Paul, Minnesota
Judge shows are real in some way.

Basically the people get paid a couple hundred to go on their show and a free trip to New York where the judge show is located and free nights at the hotel and stuff.

The cases are real cases that are about to go in "real" court, the judges were at one time real judges, and nothing like that is made up.

However, the verdict doesn't actually have any say, it's just the judges opinion and it doesn't have any power. The "real" court's verdict has the final say.

So in a way, judge shows are real, but the final verdict is not.


macrumors 604
Jan 26, 2008
Isla Nublar
I laughed so hard when I watched this.

In the defense of the photogs though their pictures were on par for what I would expect for that price range. You don't get great wedding photos without paying lots of $$$. I can see them appealing to the budget crowd.

It was really bad though that they don't have any decent gear. A 1 series is nice although for weddings I prefer the 5 series. The 5D2 especially. Less noise IMO. (Seriously try it!)

The original 5D is still a great wedding camera and can be had for fairly cheap. That combined with at bare minimum a 16-35 2.8L and a 24 - 70 2.8L wouldn't run too much $$$. She could have even rented them. I rent lenses all the time if its a specialty lens such as a tilt-shift or anything over 70mm since I rarely shoot telephoto.

As for getting prints at walmart...eh...I'll print proofs at home but then send away for high quality prints. Walmart actually isn't too bad with prints from what I've seen but it hardly screams pro. Image is part of the game with wedding photography (pun not intended).

I couldn't be without my primes though :) Oh how I love them, especially my 35 1.4L.


macrumors regular
Jun 21, 2006
Toronto, Ontario!
Real people can be shockingly stupid.
Ha ha! quite true I suppose.

As for getting prints at walmart...eh...I'll print proofs at home but then send away for high quality prints. Walmart actually isn't too bad with prints from what I've seen but it hardly screams pro. Image is part of the game with wedding photography (pun not intended)
I have not seen any Walmart prints, but I do have a pro friend who routinely uses Costco because the lab he used to use had issues with being able to produce his prints in a timely manner. I've seen them! they look awesome.. but he did tell me not all Costco labs are the same.. he drives quite a distance just to use one specific stores lab.


macrumors 65816
Jun 9, 2009
This video came up a little while ago in one of the wedding threads.

It was fun to watch, and I admit I was surprised when Judge Brown started rattling off camera specs.

However, I think the photographers totally got the shaft here. I'm not saying they deserved to win the case, or that the judgement was not fair (Given their behavior in the case I agree with the final ruling), but the whole case was argued on gear specs and only about 1-2 mins -if that- was spent on the actual photos themselves. The photos taken at the wedding were never compared to those displayed on their website/ad as examples of their work. The whole print size argument was pretty wishy-washy too. Did the photographer and client have an agreement beforehand that there would be 16x20 or larger prints? And yes, JJB, you can make prints bigger than 4x6 from the body they used.

A photographer does not need to own a 1-series body to rightfully label themselves as professional. Galen Rowell often took "cheap" light consumer lenses into the field because they were easier to carry on his outings, and we all know how many times we've repeated it here that good gear does not make good photos. According to JJB, apparently nearly every one of the many many posts here who has made posts about shooting a wedding, or starting a business doing portraiture are falsely labeling themselves as "professionals" because I don't recall a lot of talk about 1Ds or D3s in those threads! I remember that thread recently that showed the "life of a photographer" and I think I know where JJB is in his progression :)

The real problem here seems to come from poor communication between the photographers and the venue, and perhaps between the client and the photographer. But what was never asked was if these photos were especially worse than what was shown to the client before hand. If the quality was about the same then it's tough luck on the client because they wanted a cheap price and got the cheap results that go along with it.

BTW, Walmart typically uses the same printing machines as most online photography print shops. Same with Costco. You can look it up typically they will tell you what kind of machine is used (in the case of Costco at least) so that they can provide you with the .icc profiles to soft proof. There is a degree of "knowing how to use it properly" that the print shops probably do better than Walmart, but the plantiff's claims that they were not printed on "professional quality paper from a professional machine" are completely bogus. The cheap "fuji" paper from the Walmart prints was probably Fuji Crystal Archive, which is the standard paper used in the Fuji C47 process- the client wanted that "Professional Kodak" paper most likely would have been Kodak Endura, the equivalent product only made by Kodak. Many photographers actually prefer the Crystal Archive paper to the Endura (although it seems that Endura is more favored for portrait work). Again, lack of professionalism on the photographer's part where she met the client at Walmart to give the photos, but this has nothing to do with the actual product produced.

But in the end I guess a judge yelling at a photographer about 1-series bodies makes for better TV, and that's exactly what happened here. And it's kind of too bad that the audience in the show took it hook, line, and sinker when this could have been a good opportunity to teach a lot of people a little bit about photography. :rolleyes:


P.S. IIRC these cases are real, what happens is that both sides are "paid" some amount of money to appear on the show, so even though you may be on the losing end of the case you will come out better than had you lost in "real" court because you got paid some money to appear. I have even heard there is a common pool of say $5k to put towards the whole case, which is likely why you saw the judge raise the amount of the award which otherwise would be completely nonsensical. The rulings, however, are legally binding and cannot be appealed (if that's even possible in small-claims).