Users who Dugg This
Rajasekaran
657 Followers
Rajasekaran
657 Followers
Jimmysh (Back)
3254 Followers
Jimmysh (Back)
3254 Followers
Jovan Maric
817 Followers
Jovan Maric
817 Followers
Standing My Ground
4862 Followers
Standing My Ground
4862 Followers
freestyleramaJul 7, 2010
Did anyone get a picture of that?
brijazzJul 8, 2010
Obviously, they did.
iambabycakesJul 8, 2010
Such a massive publicity stunt. Insta-fail.
ruretardedJul 8, 2010
/**comment hijacking**/
this one is better,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0DmtmmFEVo
androo002345Jul 9, 2010
Now with 100% more fake!
sjl127Jul 8, 2010
Oh God! I just got sick to my stomach with the amount of money all that camera equipment was worth!
ksong12Jul 9, 2010
It looks like a 1d series... they're water resistant. Provided used with an appropriate lens of course. The one at his side is the 70-200 f/2.8 - and it is weather sealed as well.
Not sure about the flash - if it was a 580EX II, then it is weather sealed as well. So no problems with gear.
noheadhorsemanJul 9, 2010
yea still, it looked like he landed on his lens... idk if my L glass would withstand that type of pressure.
f8pcJul 9, 2010
Neither had the built in grips of the 1D series but most of the top tier EOS cameras are weather sealed (not as well as the 1D series though). That doesn't mean it can be submerged though especially if the camera is on. Most likely the cameras not functioning for the rest of the day (if batteries are removed and they're put in dry heat, they'll likely live though.)
The CF cards are certainly fine though. The lens could get fungus eventually but it's probably good.
aloysiusdiggJul 9, 2010
HAHAHAHA SUC IT you f**king camera guy!!! That was great!! I want more of you f**kers to fall in water!
crphotoshootsJun 14, 2011
Can't see the post!!!
Closed AccountJul 7, 2010
Its sad and funny at the same time how the first guy goes for the camera nearly ripping the photographer's hand off.
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
The photographer was probably only thinking about the Cameras. Those look expensive.
jeffnessJul 8, 2010
they are expensive, that's probably somewhere between 2.5 and 8k of kit. can't tell for sure which canon bodies and lenses they are. if it's all prosumer grade stuff it's on the lower end of 2.5k if it's pro stuff its 6-8k.
reigginJul 9, 2010
There's a lot of L glass there. Not cheap. Not cheap at all.
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
Nikon > Canon
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
No one is even talking about which brand is better. Your comment is irrelevant.
TRPhotographyJul 8, 2010
@jeffness, I Don't know if you're talking euros, pounds, or USD, but the 70-200 F2.8 IS L alone is worth 2k. If he's using a prosumer body like a 7d, that's about 1.5k, and I'm sure that was a 580ex flash, so that's another 400, and I'm assuming either a 16-35 F2.8 L which runs 1k at the least, or a 24-70 F2.8 L which runs 1k. If he's shooting with a 1-d series that's at least 1k for the body, if it's an older one like a 1-d MKII N or something similar, if it's anything else it's upwards of 1.5k +. So it's more like 5k plus, up to about 15k, if he's using two gripped 5d MKII's, or a 1d mkiii, or 1d mkiv.
jwmannJul 8, 2010
Assuming Canon of course..
Could be any other brand.
Although, the 70-200 F2.8 IS L looks like a Canon
etx313Jul 9, 2010
What if it's a 70-200 f4L with no IS?? :O
10lbhammerJul 8, 2010
I have no idea what you're talking about TRP, but damn! I had to digg you up anyway!
smacksawJul 8, 2010
I dunno if I can trust a guy named TRPhotography to talk about this sort of thing...
/s
garay003Jul 8, 2010
Doesnt matter, Im sure all of his stuff in insured. the photos on the other hand...
fukanzenJul 8, 2010
The camera equipment is replaceable, the data on the cards, not so much. That's the important stuff.
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
Not to the photographer.
kingfootJul 8, 2010
If they were 5D MKii or anything past the 50D really, then the water isn't going to hurt them much. All the latest bodies are either waterproof, or water resistant.
maxionJul 8, 2010
Well, yes the photo equipment is insured but if he were me I wouldn't continue using those cameras for that wedding. I'd set them to the side and grab my backup.
However my backup is not the same as my primary and I wouldn't be able to deliver the same quality.
I feel ill watching that :(
non00bJul 8, 2010
if they were 5d's they would be toast, those can break in the cold.
dabekJul 8, 2010
I think everyone would've just used their back-up, but in that case, I'm pretty sure his back-up was slung around his shoulder, and also fell into the water.
liutangJul 8, 2010
@garay003, he should still be able to recover the images from the flash cards. The gear on the other hand is toast.
f8pcJul 9, 2010
TRP, where did you get 15K from? Assuming two 5d mark IIs, the new 70-200mm IS II, and a 24-70mm (that's what it looked like from it's large hood when they removed it from the water), and a 580EXII flash (the other is flashless), I only get 9k.
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/9713/12133421.jpg
That is all new too. He's likely not using the new 70-200mm yet and he doesn't have grips on either. Either way, it's a lot of money and it's real embarrassing.
mattb123Jul 8, 2010
If I were the photographer that is what I'd want people to do too!
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
That's probably true seeing how expensive that equipment is. But it still looks funny.
black27696Jul 8, 2010
Well, the dude in the holy water wasn't going to drown or anything. I'd save the camera first.
insightfulJul 8, 2010
Furthermore, in case if equipment fails and somehow the pictures are lost (unlikely), the photographer would be out the fee ($5,000 +/- a few grands, possible lawsuit/additional compensation to the wedding couple) and the wedding couple would be out of possible priceless memories.
So yeah, I'd save the cameras first as well.
hamiltonbrandJul 9, 2010
Technically, one should read the contracts. Professionals ain't immune to error so it's common practice to list non-liability on them contracts with clear description of intent to do whatever means necessary to deliver on the product. Plus there's always sweet sweet insurance.
digitalpencilJul 8, 2010
Hopefully he's got insurance but that's probably about £8,000 worth of gear there if not more.
They look like L lenses which are pretty water-proof so they'll *probably* be ok as long as he dries them and the CF cards will be fine. The bodies on the other hand.. I'm pretty much immune to shock pics on the internet but watching camera gear submerge into water really makes my face contort into an uncomfortable position.
kingfootJul 8, 2010
Battery and Memory card bays are waterproofed in all Canon bodies since the 30D and Rebel XSI (pro level is almost completely waterproof to begin with). And yeah you're right, his prime and L lenses are waterproof as well. If no water got into the sensor or curtain bay, he is ok.
vatd112Jul 9, 2010
You sure? They kinda look like zxy lenses to me...
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
Photographers and cyclist are similar and that they would rather be injured over their equipment.
fukanzenJul 8, 2010
Bones heal! Camera gear, not so much.
rain12913Jul 8, 2010
That's strange, because this way of looking at it makes more sense to me: cameras and bikes are replaceable; your body is not.
lavarockJul 8, 2010
Takes a few seconds for water to get in there and ruin $10000 worth of cameras along with several grand worth of wedding pictures, takes 10 minutes for the photographer to drown. People are relatively waterproof, cameras are not.
Actually, the flash drives will probably be fine if the cameras won't... good luck photographing the rest of the wedding though.
marciotJul 9, 2010
Well, either he gets his hand nearly ripped off, or he looses a camera which will cost him an arm and a leg. I think nearly loosing a hand wins.
Closed AccountJul 7, 2010
A wedding and a baptism.
robdiggityJul 8, 2010
I give it a week.
Closed AccountJul 9, 2010
Before the photographer renounces Christ or before the couple is divorced?
jcostomJul 8, 2010
Nothing like a good two-fer, eh?
mixeaoJul 8, 2010
and probably a funeral for his camera gear
uv0001Jul 8, 2010
I'm sure if he's running a photography business he has his gear insured.
exypaJul 8, 2010
I suppose a circumcision comes in the next episode.
dralezeroJul 8, 2010
He needed to be saved.
pteddy73Jul 9, 2010
instantrimshot.com
themapleboyJul 9, 2010
Chris is with you
crazystarJul 8, 2010
I was expecting to a see a bunch of wedding picture-fails...
ahfmakJul 8, 2010
So the dude taking the video didn't give the photographer a warning eh? Nice.
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
And deprive the Internet of a good laugh?
oxidaneJul 8, 2010
ya man, f**k their wedding, give 'em 2 years and theyll be ready to divorce anyway. better to laugh at them on the net.
ed4649Jul 8, 2010
Nobody's laughing at the couple, dumbass!
oxidaneJul 8, 2010
talk about sensitivity... sounds like you're going through menopause. at least you won't need tampons anymore.
rain12913Jul 8, 2010
Um, no I'd say you're the one who seems moody here.
oxidaneJul 8, 2010
um, i wasnt calling names, nor did i curse.
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
No cursing huh?
"ya man, f**k their wedding"
Good job there.
shmefJul 9, 2010
I like how he threw "nor" in there, as if that would somehow make his statement valid.
oxidaneJul 11, 2010
Swarley, that wasn't in response to ed4649.
Shmef, how is it not valid? prove it.
orangekid13Jul 8, 2010
and for that, we applaud him
adam07Jul 8, 2010
*and for that, we thank you
swizzcheezJul 8, 2010
The baptismal font was out of frame so, yeah, I can understand why.
toastyxxxJul 8, 2010
I help my bro with filming for his videography company occasionally. A large portion of photographers are assh**es that have no respect for other workers on the day and have no issues with standing directly in front of a set up video camera, right at the most important moments. I would of done exactly the same thing, said nothing and filmed the the resulting hilarity.
path411Jul 8, 2010
Yeah, that will teach that photographer! Give the couple no wedding pictures, ha!
invaderdemJul 9, 2010
I saw a similar thing at a parade. I'm not sure why the people filming have to be right in the action. You can zoom in, snapshot, move to another angle, refocus and shoot again. You don't need to be right in their friggin' face.
capn1timeJul 9, 2010
I too have worked as a wedding videographer and in my experience many of the photographers are rude jackasses who seemingly love getting in the way of everyone else. So yea... f**k that guy.
hamiltonbrandJul 9, 2010
I guess that's true about rudeness. There's a lot of awful photographers who are great businessmen out there.
skinny01Jul 9, 2010
Tripods don't speak very well.
koirakuenJul 8, 2010
if the wedding photos went then where did they go
they dont just disapear
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
I'm assuming those were Digital Cameras. Ever try dipping electronics underwater?
rayskinJul 8, 2010
If they are digital. Memory cards are pretty robust. Let them dry for a week and I'd bet they would be ok.
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
That's true. The memory cards could be saved.. but the cameras were submerged while "on." Doesn't that short them or something?
eihwazJul 8, 2010
The camera should access the card only when it's writing the picture… he could have lost the 1-2 pictures he had in cache, but the rest of them should be ok.
The water takes a little time to get inside. Probably the only camera he'll have to trash is the right one, because it stayed underwater for some seconds. The one on the left should be fine.
mahirhJul 8, 2010
If those were professional level (or even prosumer) cameras (1D/5D2), then that much water would not be enough to damage them.
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
All of these are true, assuming that the guy fell into water.
And not SULPHURIC ACID!
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
also Koirakuen is worthless.
cherbear84Jul 8, 2010
I also like how the newlyweds just laughed and kept on going
serinusJul 8, 2010
They thought about it. Then they thought, "Nope, our wedding."
flatlinedJul 8, 2010
Yep; I would have done the same.
cosmicrJul 9, 2010
me too.
alexandercurtisJul 8, 2010
These comments will suck
chuxedoJul 8, 2010
you have foreseen it? the force is strong with this one.
heystevecoonJul 9, 2010
Starting with yours.
theswashbucklerJul 8, 2010
That was a lot of fairly expensive camera equipment that got soaked...
inactiveuserJul 9, 2010
About $5000 dollars worth at least..
brotherfrancizJul 14, 2010
He's a professional photographer so he must have insurance on all of his equipment right? Right?...
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
That was actually painful to watch... being someone who enjoys photography, I know what a good camera costs.. and he just destroyed two, what looked to be, expensive cameras.
oandaJul 8, 2010
Nah i would say the camera that was pulled out quickly can dry off and still work. the one tht was submjerged for a while is probably a loss. but those are tough cameras.
That 70-200 2.8 lens is a gonner.
notakuJul 8, 2010
That 70-200 may still be good. If he had a filter on the end, it's weather sealed.
kaiosamaJul 8, 2010
Weather sealed =/= water proof.
I think the lenses will survive though... the cameras on the other hand are f**ked.
bieberJul 8, 2010
If anything survives there, it will probably be the 70-200. If the cameras were of the weather-sealed variety, they ought to be alright too. I know weather sealed != water proof and all, but Canon's cameras have been known to stand up to some pretty insane levels of moisture. I've heard of one-series cameras being dropped into the ocean, plucked out, and still working.
jwmannJul 8, 2010
Some high-end cameras are waterproof/resistent.
notakuJul 8, 2010
Truth.
I was on a pier in a really big wind storm with my 40d/50mm f/1.8.
Camera was drenched in water, it was fine after I let it dry.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gelsoft/4590651948/in/set-72157623895779679/
bosskeyJul 8, 2010
Too many people in this thread are saying "oh, that pro gear is waterproofed." Nope. Kaiosama gets it...that gear in in fact "weather sealed" but the only way they are "waterproofed" is when submerged to a depth of 0 meters above the water.
duccodudeJul 9, 2010
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=331236&l=a04df44c5a&id=1696697347
I drenched this sucker in the rain so many times and it still works fine. I'm pretty sure this guy's camera gear still works. If not, then its like $400 per camera in repairs, which isn't that bad if you think about it.
sabinJul 9, 2010
Most L series lenses can be submerged and still work. They are generally well sealed.
ryan0617Jul 8, 2010
Original video-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdX1nCPVPL8
"**POSTSCRIPT: the cameras and all the pics were fine, and the couple were such good sports about it. LMAO!**"
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
good to hear -
xfiedJul 8, 2010
How do you know?
diggimatorJul 9, 2010
Not That Music Again
woofers07Jul 8, 2010
Yeah, I kinda chuckled a bit when he fell, but when I noticed he fell into the fountain I definitely cringed. There's a good chance they lost a portion of their ceremony pics not to mention that equipment. Definitely felt bad for the guy.
doodiehowserJul 8, 2010
if he had the proper warranty then you're golden!
buddyboy101Jul 8, 2010
Dugg for lack of word economy ("apparently" is sufficient").
thatsmyaiboJul 8, 2010
As long as it's only water and is dried off before too much electrical current passes through, it should be fine. Electronics are really good with water as long as there is no electric flow.
tinkafooJul 8, 2010
welp, that's about $15,000 down the drain!
-- including the loss of: equipment, wedding photos, future business, and dignity.
sergeantawesomeJul 8, 2010
That's what insurance is for. Yes, even loss of business insurance.
sebconnJul 8, 2010
You probably could have recovered the Data on the Compact Flash cards. Cameras on the other hand... youch.
navicertsJul 8, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
etx313Jul 8, 2010
The Canon Pro bodies and L series lenses he is using are pretty water resistant. Probably just need a good cleaning.
juankovoJul 8, 2010
It didn't go down the drain, because the drain was closed.
sgerwel1985Jul 8, 2010
Well... I'm getting married next saturday and as bad as this sounds, i'd love to have something like this happen. Would truly be hilarious and make it an unforgettable wedding.
eastshoresJul 8, 2010
If that's all you really want for the occasion might I suggest you post the date, time, and location on 4chan?
sgerwel1985Jul 8, 2010
Not saying that's what i REALLY want. However, that video will be on the internet for... well probably forever. Whereas those photos of the wedding, they get lost and faded over time.
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
I'm sure you'd love to have the photographer break his camera and his backup at your wedding so you have no nice photos taken.... yeah, awesome idea.
kingfootJul 8, 2010
Pro bodies and prime/L lenses are practically waterproof, and all Canon (and Nikon/Olympus/etc. but come on, he was using Canons) have waterproof battery and CF slot compartments.
mattb123Jul 8, 2010
Maybe you can set a trap?
canadianmacfanJul 8, 2010
If it takes something like that to make your wedding unforgettable maybe you should reconsider getting married in the first place?
sgerwel1985Jul 8, 2010
I think you're missing my point. Yeah the wedding itself is an unforgettable moment. However, something like this will forever live on and keep things at a grounded state. What i mean is, you can look back years from now and say "oh wow look at how good we look, how young, how..." But with this you can look back and just laugh at everything. In a good way that is.
1b2aJul 8, 2010
Give me a camera and pay me nicely and I'll take the fall on "accident".
Closed AccountJul 9, 2010
Take the fall! Act hurt! Get indignant!
dilbertJul 8, 2010
Don't get married. You'll regret it.
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
Congratulations!
Enjoy your day :)
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
As a photog myself, I wouldn't even care about the wedding I'd be see pissed about the gear getting wet. Upon exiting the church, "FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU......."
adml_shakeJul 8, 2010
looks like he lost upwards of around 10 grand worth of equipment if he's got the same gear some of the dudes at the weddings I've been to have had.
fukanzenJul 8, 2010
As a wedding photographer you should probably be more concerned about losing the shots than the gear, that in the end could cost you a lot more than a body or two.
s8m3gJul 8, 2010
There is a very good chance his camera equipment survived. Those casings aren't built to be water proof, but they're water resistant and can handle a lot. Not to mention, sure the camera might be fried, but that doesn't mean the cards are.
Stilllll sucks monkey balls though...
bentearwalkingJul 8, 2010
Are you kidding? Canon doesn't use "VR" but that nice $2,000 white lens has IS and just might be water logged. Shootings weddings is TOUGH WORK. I can only hope he had a third camera to use for the reception. And that he had insurance. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elchispitoJul 8, 2010
I bet the CF card is fine and if it was a pro body, the camera might be as well.
sam6644Jul 9, 2010
Looks like he's using 5Ds. Weather proof and waterproof are two very different things.
The one that got dunked is probably ok. The one that was stuck under water for a while is more than like toast.
The CF cards would be fine.
Lenses are probably wrecked as well.
and it's IS, not VR.
tundra721Jul 9, 2010
"The lenses he has sitting on there are much more expensive than the camera."
Not really. Looks like a 70-200mm IS f/2.8L and the other is probably a 24-70mm f/2.8 (typical gear for a wedding photographer). If this were the case - and I'm being generous because the telephoto lens could be a 70-200mm f/4.0 - you're dealing with a $1,900 lens and a $1,400 lens. The camera bodies look like they're Canon 5D Mark II's. That means they run around $2,500 each (not including the battery grips).
Either way, the bodies are probably done for. Even though most Canons can go through hell and back, once you strap a battery grip onto it you open a clear path for water to enter the battery chamber and into the camera.
s8m3gJul 9, 2010
yeah, IS/VR same thing. I hadn't looked at the models before I posted it. Just threw out VR because I shoot Nikon, not canon. I'm not familiar enough with canon lenses to know prices, so I'll take your word for it tundra.
Apparently on the original video the guy said all of the equipment was okay. Great to hear.
rob2oo4Jul 8, 2010
At first I was like: Your flash is pointing the wrong way
Then I was like: Oh
malechiteJul 8, 2010
I'm a photographer, and had my flash set up the same way and someone came up to me and said "you know your flash is pointing the wrong way?" i was like "yeah, thanks"
Its got a diffuser on it, and bounces the light off from behind for a more natural look than the harsh front-facing flash would give you.
digitalpencilJul 8, 2010
i get the same thing.. it's amazing how many people like to critique your gear and technique..
that lens is a little *small* isn't it.. it's a prime lens, judge the photo, leave my womanly 50mm alone!
malechiteJul 8, 2010
I love my 50mm, most of my best photos come from that.
digitalpencilJul 8, 2010
yeah, prime lenses are just lovely. such a shallow DOF you can get amazing clarity and sharpness. Not to mention you can pick up large-aperture, with great glass for markedly less than a telephoto with the same range. just a shame you have to switch out your lens constantly but if i've got the time, i'd much rather shoot on primes.
bosskeyJul 8, 2010
Although if I'm pointing the flash behind me I wouldn't put a diffuser on it...no point. The bounce already diffuses and all the diffuser does there is reduce the effective power. The diffuser only makes sense when pointed up or forward.
malechiteJul 9, 2010
Ture, BossKey, but im guessing he was using it in front and flipped it behind on the fly at different points, and its easier/faster to leave it on than to take it off each time
platysquirrelJul 8, 2010
It's unanimous, everyone cares about the camera gear.
hfactorJul 8, 2010
What else would you care about? It's not like the wedding is null and void because the photographer stumbled.
kaiosamaJul 8, 2010
Let's be honest... it's not like he was in any danger of drowning.
atarioJul 9, 2010
Well...not without some effort.
kennyboy019Jul 9, 2010
And a helping hand.
khoazJul 9, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDP245bQ6Fk#t=1m45s
phyx726Jul 9, 2010
but he sure flopped around like he did
misteratozJul 8, 2010
well what would you care about 15 large or becoming wet and falling down?
theword12Jul 8, 2010
It looks like the photographer survived
tyrghastJul 8, 2010
There is just a large sub-community of camera nerds on digg. We've seen them cry out in pain before now, just this video brought out some of the best ones.
bosskeyJul 8, 2010
Wedding photographers are easy to replace
nard3456Jul 9, 2010
The camera's probably worth more.
bermygoonJul 9, 2010
I don't care
markperiaJul 8, 2010
CF cards are resilient I accidentally put one through a spin cycle and it survived. Someone suggested to put it on a bag of uncooked rice and after about 3 days its dry and it worked fine. If its film, its alright, you'd be washing it anyway, I would just process it immediately in the darkroom.
The lenses are usually airtight but I'd still be pissed if it got wet. Hell I don't even want any type of moisture to get into those things.
trs1138Jul 8, 2010
I have run one of my CF cards through the wash (as well as my ipod) and they both worked fine after spending two weeks in a bag of rice and silica packets from beef jerkey bags.
However, our wedding photographer lost 100+ of our wedding pictures from a corrupted CF card for no reason other than the card was just corrupted. After spending a lot of time and money trying to recover the pictures she offered to completely refund our money, try to retake the pictures or set up an alternative photo session, and give us an additional photo album. She couldn't even talk to my wife on the phone because she would cry whenever she thought about it.
I felt bad for her for what is probably the absolute worst feeling for a professional wedding photographer, but I have the "s**t happens" attitude and calmed my wife down. We met up for a wedding dress session (the pictures lost were all the bride's prep pictures), bought them dinner, paid in full for their amazing service (which it was), and have since gone back twice for pictures of our kids. I'd still recommend them to anyone.
/ripping tale chap
solkreJul 8, 2010
Dugg for being a mature customer and not a "Always yelling at the Wal-Mart Service Counter" douche of human being.
maxionJul 8, 2010
As a photographer I can tell you my worst case scenario is having a card go corrupt on me. I seriously don't know what I'd do :(
uv0001Jul 8, 2010
"but I have the "s**t happens" attitude and calmed my wife down."
Have you by chance worked in a service industry working with customers. I also learned to have that mentality when you've been on the other end and realize that a screaming assh**e of a customer is the last thing a person needs.
trs1138Jul 9, 2010
"Have you by chance worked in a service industry working with customers"
For about 15 years of my life.. good call.
roycinusJul 8, 2010
I am pretty sure the photo is safe. The memory card should be fine. The lens should be fine after some cleaning.
Camera is probably dead if he didn't turn it off right away and pull out the battery.
oandaJul 8, 2010
that 70-200mm lens is gone. compleetely submerged. electronics would be shot.
the camera has weather sealing so the one that was pulled out quickly will probably dry off and stil work. the completely submerged one might be screwed. and obviously the flash is dead.
drycatJul 8, 2010
Ha ha ha! Yeah! FAIL!
*sigh*
I've wasted my life.
oxidaneJul 8, 2010
ya...it happens.
digitalpencilJul 8, 2010
welcome to digg. enjoy your stay.
ankhenJul 9, 2010
I was going to try to comfort you, but then I saw that you have cat in your name. I'm sorry, but you are one of us.
frequentflyerJul 8, 2010
Wow, she was way too tall for him.
spookyturtleJul 9, 2010
Or you know, he seems to be really short compared to everyone in the video.
keggdirdleJul 9, 2010
As a short guy, let me say, f**k you. Thanks for your time.
shadicJul 9, 2010
Get stilts.
oxidaneJul 8, 2010
hehe, dude tries to save the camera while the cord is choking him around his neck...
mikejonzJul 8, 2010
Cameraman has been Baptised
emberryJul 8, 2010
Wow. Poor guy- it took him awhile to get out of that fountain. Hopefully the pictures were able to be saved!
iamghostJul 8, 2010
Was that expensive piece?
smokeydabearJul 8, 2010
Anyone who uses a f**king telephoto lens that huge indoors deserves to f**king fall into a fountain.
bryceman111Jul 8, 2010
Hmm, well, the bigger telephoto lens seemed to be on his second camera. Also, maybe it was like a 70-210 or something like that, which would be sometimes quite useful indoors...
smokeydabearJul 8, 2010
Not if they are allowing him to get super close to the bride and groom, like they were.
bryceman111Jul 8, 2010
It still is helpful. Sometimes you're taking photos of people besides the bride and groom.
seantobinJul 8, 2010
Because everyone knows, telephoto lenses are strictly for outdoor use only.
The 70-200 2.8 is great for low-light situations in say, a church, or something.
If you look at my picture, that was taken by the great Bert Stephani at a bar in Frankfurt, indoors from about 8 feet away - with that very lens. I guess Bert deserves to f**king fall into a fountain.
bryceman111Jul 8, 2010
Awesome, I love Bert Stephani!
seantobinJul 8, 2010
Yeah, he's a cool dude. We had a good time at a meetup in Frankfurt. If interested, check out the video of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFGjHN1oVM8
TRPhotographyJul 8, 2010
Actually, the 70-200 F2.8 IS L is one of the most popular lenses to use while shooting wedding photography. It allows the shooter the get close to the subject, and has F2.8 for low light and IS which helps a ton. I'm assuming he was also shooting with a full frame for 1.3x crop body like a 1-d series or a 1.0x frame like a 5d/ 5dkmii. So it isn't "that big", and he certainly didn't deserve to "fall in a f**king fountain" for knowing the 70-200 F2.8 IS L is one of the three zooms professionals use to shoot weddings, along with the 16-35 F2.8 II L, the 24-70 F2.8 L, the 70-200 F2.8 IS L completes the focal ranges necessary to shoot a wedding.
kaiosamaJul 8, 2010
He was using his secondary camera with a prime lens.
That's why he was moving backwards rather than standing far off with his zoom lens.
dagmar31Jul 8, 2010
I hope he disassembled everything, rinsed everything with 90%+ isopropyl alcohol, and stuck it in rice... (well, except for the lenses...)
d4nie1Jul 8, 2010
rice?
mongolaiJul 8, 2010
Dry white rice, which acts as a desiccant (much like those silica gel packs, only much cheaper) and sucks up moisture.
Closed AccountJul 9, 2010
Yah, you can save a drenched phone that way. Leave it in the rice for a while, and it'll suck all of the water out of it. A lot of restaurants where I live in South Louisiana will even mix uncooked rice into salt shakers to keep the salt from clumping due to our dense humidity.
el_jefeJul 8, 2010
Eh, if was a true professional he had pro cameras that where sealed. Not that it would have saved the cameras, but perhaps gave the memory cards a better than average chance of survival.
Funny though.
chris8535Jul 8, 2010
Yes yes because all true professional come completely waterpoof to a wedding...
digitalpencilJul 8, 2010
CF cards wlll be fine, just don't run a charge through them while they're still wet.
antronoidJul 8, 2010
I expected him to fall over, but then to reveal he had fallen in a water fountain, well lets just say I didn't see that coming, and evidently, nor did he!
jd33Jul 8, 2010
You should write for AFV.
rhydebleJul 8, 2010
I was honestly expecting him to bump into the camera guy.
indubitablyJul 8, 2010
Pffft fake. No one gets married anymore.
mattb123Jul 8, 2010
Hopefully he has his gear insured. Then it's upgrade time!
dougm68Jul 8, 2010
I know the bride. She shouldn't have worn white. All I'm sayin. ;P
biglouJul 8, 2010
No you don't.
dougm68Jul 8, 2010
You're right. I'm thinking of her sister. My bad. ;P
biglouJul 9, 2010
No you don't. I'm beginning to believe you've never actually seen a naked girl before; at least--not in real life.
foxifiednutbarJul 8, 2010
Another reason not to get married...
swordoff8Jul 8, 2010
to hurt people indirectly?
biglouJul 8, 2010
I was totally expecting this to be lame; I thought the guy walking backwards was going to simply run into the video camera... but that was great!
djnackJul 8, 2010
That was an expensive accident.
abortionpotionJul 8, 2010
I'm hoping they have back- up in the photography dept... It be kind of stupid to have just one imbecile taking all the shots and then lands in a fountain of water...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
g8kprJul 8, 2010
Camera men are notoriously stupid when it comes to this stuff. Ours did something similar. We had no pond, but now I wish we did. Instead a family member set up a video camera on at tripod. It was recording the whole time. Our photographer then walks out right in front of it block the entire shot, moves up the aisle to get some pictures of us as we come down, and moves back, moves back, moves back, then rams our video camera with his big fat ass. Next thing the camera is pointing up at some weird angle with a big smear mark across the lens. He could NOT have known he just walked into something, but did he give a sh*t? NOPE!
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
notakuJul 8, 2010
Shouldn't have been there.
He was paid to shoot the wedding, he has a list of shots to get, you were in his way.
The bridge only walks down the aisle once.
soapycubJul 8, 2010
Typo makes proverb!
g8kprJul 8, 2010
I didn't mind him being there, or even being in the way. But he knew the camera was there, and crushed it with his fat ass. That was what annoyed me.
coffeedemonJul 8, 2010
Yet if he gave more space to the camera instead of doing the job you (or your family) paid him to do you'd be here crying about that. I'm getting married in a month and my photographer will have free reign to get in front of anyone who is taking pictures if they need to get the shots that their fee is supposed to be paying for.
ryan0617Jul 8, 2010
Original video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdX1nCPVPL8
"**POSTSCRIPT: the cameras and all the pics were fine, and the couple were such good sports about it. LMAO!**"
Closed AccountJul 8, 2010
how is that the original video?? there is still music being played over it
paperspoonJul 8, 2010
they uploaded it with music in the first place?...
and on a side note, the video posted here uses a much better song.
ryan0617Jul 9, 2010
The video that has been submitted was edited to have non copyrighted music. They did this so they could get money off youtube. Their previous account was banned for copyright infridgement. Hence they made another one and started posted other people's videos again.
jakobrowningJul 9, 2010
Step one, post to youtube,
Step two...
Step three, profit!
warpfieldJul 8, 2010
If he drowned, it would have been a wedding and a funeral.
firstruleJul 8, 2010
"You'll 'Sense' it!"
Bonus points to the person who can tell me where that quote's from, without the help of a search engine!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
reddfoxx1562Jul 9, 2010
It's from a s**tty comment on this website.
firstruleJul 9, 2010
I guess I thought my Seinfeld reference was pretty good. But, thanks for putting me back in place... guess you guys weren't ready for that yet. But, your kids are going to love it.
reddfoxx1562Jul 9, 2010
Douchebag f**k-- don't you ever bring up Seinfeld like that. "You'll sense it," what with being three-and-a-half whole words, has been used in so many situations, contexts, and productions that it's impossible for someone, except for you, to pinpoint exactly what the f**k was on your brain when you thought of the phrase.
By the way, I know just about all there is to know about that show. Do I know all of the scripts verbatim? No. But that doesn't mean I couldn't win a s**tload of money if someone had Seinfeld Trivia Night with cash prizes. Thing is, though, that you were just being a douchebag.
Try this. Where is this quote from?
"Ladies and gentlemen..."
f**king moron.
rblancarteJul 8, 2010
That was classic. And you know what, for the major goof in the wedding, now this couple has something to talk about for the rest of their lives. No one remembers the weddings that go off without a hitch, everyone remembers the ones that had some horrible gaffe or something like this happen.
dontspamjayJul 8, 2010
Not related to the article...
I got married in a church with a similar setup and after the rehearsal a friend of mine quietly told me "the hot tub is kind of cold"... the next day at the wedding, all I could think about is something like what was in the video happening.
tomacco79Jul 8, 2010
The one that got totally dunked looks to be a 5D (or similar) and an L lens. Those are pretty weather sealed, so they should be fine. I'd shut them off and let them dry out thought. Hopefully for the couple, he has a backup.
s8m3gJul 8, 2010
no, I'm not kidding. Ignoring which company he's using, you can pretty much figure out that VR and IS are the same thing... no need to make a fuss.
Yeah shooting weddings is one of the most stressful things I've ever done.
bonestampJul 8, 2010
OMG! His fanny pack got soaked.
iboxJul 8, 2010
I think this should happen to everyone that wears a fanny pack.
adcdigitalcoleJul 8, 2010
Dude was like...in the zone....then he was like...in the water...
mongolaiJul 8, 2010
My brain says that comment shouldn't be so funny, but my laughter says otherwise!
tablatronixJul 8, 2010
Time to commandeer the throwing rice from the guests, dry that s**t out fast!
kimnejudneJul 8, 2010
I bet he didn't get paid
stanfan114Jul 8, 2010
Would not mind seeing that with the original soundtrack. *snap snap* "Yes the camera loves you!" *snap snap* "OO! Make love to the lens!" *snap snap* "Don't stop! Kee..." *SPLASH!!* "And I'm spent"
brainflakesJul 8, 2010
Don't worry, SD cards are waterproof http://www.digicamhelp.com/learn/essays/memory-card-yields-photos-after-year-in-the-ocean/
digitalpencilJul 8, 2010
They'll be CF at this range but again, they'll be fine as long as you dry them before running a charge through it.
wateryouthJul 8, 2010
too bad they have charge running through them when they were dropping into the water.
Most likely they will be ok, but probably a bunch of corrupted files.
matt_rubinJul 11, 2010
i'd Be more worried about that multi thousand dollar lens and SLR.
Closed AccountJul 15, 2010
It's water, not acid. I think glass and mirrors will be fine.