jadot

jadot

Lives in United Kingdom Surrey, United Kingdom
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at www.alexanderleaman.com
Joined on Aug 27, 2010

Comments

Total: 183, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Hands-on with the Nikon D5 (401 comments in total)
In reply to:

mschf: Nikon proves dinosaurs still exist.

keeping with your tired analogy it would be intelligent to remember that Dinosaurs existed on this planet successfully and in one form or another for approximately 165million years.
How long have humans managed to Rule the world by comparison?
One might suggest that the dinosaurs were in fact the more successful and triumphant species, no?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2016 at 10:20 UTC
On article Nikon's New D5 and D500 Push the Boundaries of DSLR (733 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: Unfortunately DSLRs are only really for pros nowadays. Nobody I know wants to lug around a dslr anymore. Even my friend who has been a full time pro photographer for 15 years has switched entirely to Fuji with the x-t1.

@halfwaythere - not every wedding photographer defines themselves or their client's expectations according to what camera(s) they are carrying. e.g I know weddings photographers that use DSLRs, ones that exclusively shoot Fuji, ones that shoot both, and individuals that take a Polaroid SX70 along for the ride.

One could argue that *Not* using whatever the heck you use to render someone's photographs in the best way that you see fit is actually being more elitist photographer and less 'client conscious' as you call it.

The point is; calling out one way of shooting over another or one camera system/brand over another is about as irrelevant as it gets for professionals as far as client satisfaction goes.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 09:42 UTC
On article Behind the Camera: A conversation with Peter Hurley (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

papa natas: Well, I'll get hell back here from the teeming millions on account of what I think, and by the way, I NEVER write OMHO.. I'm not humble.
1- It's stupid to ass-u-me that we ALL have converted to 4K. That goes to whomever had the brilliant idea to post this video in 4K.
2- This Hurley guy, of which I never seen his work, may have or be rough talent. Then, I cannot help but to reminisce the Old talent: those guys such as Hamilton, Adams, Leidmann, Clarke, Newton, and the list goes on, who were issued from the Plastic Arts & Visual Media environment; then came to discover photography with MANUAL cameras.
They had to LEARN the trade the good old way: to master composition, f stop and shutter speed with a narrow window of 36 shots. Nowadays it will be a capital sin not to get a dozen of decent images out of 500 shots. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, mind you.
For these guys Bokeh wasn't an artistic expression.

Wow.

Thanks for that, man. Really special.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 30, 2015 at 14:56 UTC
On article Behind the Camera: A conversation with Peter Hurley (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

papa natas: Well, I'll get hell back here from the teeming millions on account of what I think, and by the way, I NEVER write OMHO.. I'm not humble.
1- It's stupid to ass-u-me that we ALL have converted to 4K. That goes to whomever had the brilliant idea to post this video in 4K.
2- This Hurley guy, of which I never seen his work, may have or be rough talent. Then, I cannot help but to reminisce the Old talent: those guys such as Hamilton, Adams, Leidmann, Clarke, Newton, and the list goes on, who were issued from the Plastic Arts & Visual Media environment; then came to discover photography with MANUAL cameras.
They had to LEARN the trade the good old way: to master composition, f stop and shutter speed with a narrow window of 36 shots. Nowadays it will be a capital sin not to get a dozen of decent images out of 500 shots. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, mind you.
For these guys Bokeh wasn't an artistic expression.

You're what people might call a "hater".
But I suppose you already knew that, huh.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 30, 2015 at 14:36 UTC
In reply to:

henrikbengtsson: WTF - OSX 10.9.5 not supported.

WTF - You're running professional software in 2015/16 but not updating your operating system? (It's free)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2015 at 09:07 UTC
In reply to:

chriscotec: I don't think C1 is quite there yet, in terms of versatility, but I can't wait for any of the "alternative" image editing applications to come of age and knock adobe (lower case intentional ; ) off its ivory tower. I hope it never gets back up when that happens. It would be one less controlling annoyance in a photographer's life.

Exactly. (Though I never actually use them as I've found it's unnecessary).

Direct link | Posted on Dec 1, 2015 at 15:14 UTC
In reply to:

The Photo Ninja: Slow and buggy for large catalogs like always. Thank you, no. I'll stick with Lightroom.

Um, from what I can tell C1-9 is already showing huge speed improvements (I'm running 50K images in my current library).

What are you talking about? Lightroom is waaaaay behind here.
Fanboy much?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 1, 2015 at 14:36 UTC
In reply to:

chriscotec: I don't think C1 is quite there yet, in terms of versatility, but I can't wait for any of the "alternative" image editing applications to come of age and knock adobe (lower case intentional ; ) off its ivory tower. I hope it never gets back up when that happens. It would be one less controlling annoyance in a photographer's life.

It depends on how you look at things I suppose, but C1 can't be considered a product that hasn't matured - it's been around longer than most, including Lightroom and is still the main weapon of choice amongst professionals (especially in a studio environment).

If, however, you're referring to C1's lack of plugin support for hacks like VSCO, then perhaps you're right about versatility although it could justifiably be argued that C1 Pro doesn't need gimmicks and filters bloating it up and instead relies upon the raw power that users have come to rely on.

From a pure image quality and RAW processing power standpoint, Capture One Pro is indeed "quite there yet".

Some users might not have spent enough time with C1 to be able to unlock it's myriad subtleties, but this version adds features, power/speed, better camera support and greater versatility.

When it comes to quality processing of RAW files C1 is really the benchmark.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 1, 2015 at 14:09 UTC
In reply to:

Bas Emmen: Great interview with a good story. I think these interview are great assets for DPR.
But why this awful setting? Almost everything is wrong about that, from audio to lighting, even the chairs decals on the wall.

I agree. Very informative interview in a very distracting presentation.
Constructively : surely DPR have access to better resources? An interview lavelier mic kit? (A handheld mic? really?) Some nicer lighting? A sofa?? A coffee table??

I know constraints are often such that not everything will be possible, but at least some natural light might have helped, maybe.

I'm surprised.

Otherwise a very genuine, sincere interview. i suppose content is king etc...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 30, 2015 at 13:18 UTC

Fair play to manfrotto - this works for me.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2015 at 20:31 UTC as 9th comment
On article Art Wolfe: Swimming with the Humpbacks, Tonga, 2013 (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

lemonadedrinker: What is all the nonsense with the name across the image? Who cares who took them; they're beautiful pictures ruined with the distraction of the name thing at the bottom-saying to all of us Look at me,I'm as important as the whale.
Eugene Smith never put his name on a picture. Nor did Edward Steichen. Nor any other genius of the arcane art of photography.

trialling software and then choosing not to pay for it is not borrowing IP.

If I try someone's software I'm not then re-packaging it and selling it as my own. I didn't create the software, but I'm not using it as a basis for my own software release. i.e I'm not marketing or showing Photoshop to my own clients and telling them that this photo manipulation thing is my idea!

I can choose not to continue using photoshop when the trial ends. Unless you're talking about cracked copies of software, in which case, yes, that is stealing someone else's IP.

"There is nothing that is new that is under the Sun" may well be a very revealing statement, but it doesn't mean that you automatically have the right to abandon your responsibility as an artist to the rest of the artistic community.

Stanchung's "argument" is way off the mark here, but reading back through his/her comments tells me that he's not going to be able to quite grasp this reality.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2015 at 15:42 UTC
On article Art Wolfe: Swimming with the Humpbacks, Tonga, 2013 (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

lemonadedrinker: What is all the nonsense with the name across the image? Who cares who took them; they're beautiful pictures ruined with the distraction of the name thing at the bottom-saying to all of us Look at me,I'm as important as the whale.
Eugene Smith never put his name on a picture. Nor did Edward Steichen. Nor any other genius of the arcane art of photography.

Stanchung : "I Prefer not to pay for something that's ALREADY ON GOOGLE" !!!

Wow. Just think about that for a minute. The old 'it's in the public domain' BS.
Bull. Sh!t.

Unbelievable.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2015 at 17:41 UTC
In reply to:

TriezeA72: Polaroid should redo the SX-70 Land camera, like the original SX-70 it will be an instant film camera, but also a digital camera that works in conjunction with your smartphone, all digital images will be directly stored on your phone and you can mount your phone on an inbuilt retractable craddle and use it as a live view screen.
Hipster or not, these would sell like hot cakes

Sorry TriezeA72 - Polaroid, in it's current form is a bit of a Mirage.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2015 at 15:22 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Just as I've been saying for a while.
Digital sales are slumping, while analog sales are pumping.

I shoot Film, Digital, and illustrate, both digitally and on canvas. Your "clever" repost is moot.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 6, 2015 at 08:57 UTC
In reply to:

TriezeA72: Polaroid should redo the SX-70 Land camera, like the original SX-70 it will be an instant film camera, but also a digital camera that works in conjunction with your smartphone, all digital images will be directly stored on your phone and you can mount your phone on an inbuilt retractable craddle and use it as a live view screen.
Hipster or not, these would sell like hot cakes

I think the "I wish Polaroid would start making polaroids again" discussions were probably concluded a decade or more ago.

Polaroid only exists as a trading name now doesn't it? They certainly don't make cameras any more, do they? They absolutely don't make instant film any more.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2015 at 15:26 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Just as I've been saying for a while.
Digital sales are slumping, while analog sales are pumping.

Perhaps you should have read through the thread Paul? It appears that you're randomly picking up on and reacting to a discussion that you haven't contributed to.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2015 at 15:21 UTC
In reply to:

pacnwhobbyist: Fuji should dump the XA product line altogether and just produce a larger sensor enthusiast compact in to replace both the XA series and the X30.

Or, just buy an Olympus XA and be done with it. ;)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2015 at 11:26 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Just as I've been saying for a while.
Digital sales are slumping, while analog sales are pumping.

What is it with Film photographers (or the elite, as I like to call them) seeming to need digital to fail as a way of justifying their own personal epiphany?

You know the ones - the 'Film is Not Dead" protests are always driven by the pitch that digital is not as real as real film. These are the same people who proclaim that the camera you shoot with isn't important if you're a real photographer, yet secretly covet that Contax 645 with the F2 lens for some creamy organic bokeh, all the while not getting the irony, and never really understanding that an out of focus and out of date polaroid of the corner of the room does not make it a more artistic and better picture than a good picture of the same situation.

The Irony is that whilst Film may not be quite dead yet, these people are the ones who are killing it.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2015 at 11:25 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Just as I've been saying for a while.
Digital sales are slumping, while analog sales are pumping.

People need to get this analogue "resurgence" in perspective. Have a look at this example for Vinyl records for example : http://diffuser.fm/vinyl-sales-chart/ (It's not a big leap in intelligence to imagine the similarities with analogue film).

Film is expensive, at least if one shoots in the same as digital. (Elite film shooters are reminded that yes, you do also have a computer & all the gadgetry usually associated with digital workflow, as well as the extra expense of actually shooting & processing film).

Analogue sales aren't pumping. They're just dying more slowly than most anticipated.

Digital sales, especially in compact cameras but actually across the board into mirrorless & DSLR have been declining for years. I'm not sure that Fuji X cameras have indeed ever made a huge (if any) profit.

The technology has plateaued & people need their photographs to exist in a different way than even 10 years ago. Mobile is the future & IQ gets better and better in the mobile space.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2015 at 10:02 UTC

I had the Pro 1 for a short time and kept the Pro 10. (Hint - Print quality is indistinguishable between the two).

That said, I'd jump at this Prograf 1000 especially if the ink capacity is that much more. The Pro 10 is fairly good per printbut you do notice the smaller tanks.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2015 at 09:37 UTC as 9th comment
Total: 183, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »