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: 163, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Readers' Showcase: Janne Voutilainen article (33 comments in total)

Enjoyed this set - seems to be a side-step away from you're usual landscape stuff.
Nicely done.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 14:02 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

Gmon750: Apple concentrates on the masses, not the 1%. For that, Photos is a great application to have included as part of OSX.

It's unfortunate that Aperture went the way of vine-rot. I was about to purchase it last year, then heard the rumor that Apple was going to axe it. I went with Lightroom and never looked back. Apple announced the discontinuation of Aperture a week later.

Lightroom is not perfect by far, however like Photoshop, it is the standard for RAW photography.

Tord - With respect you keep popping up with your DXO 10 thing, but I've got a feeling that you're the only person who regularly uses it! It's just not viable in the professional space.
Why? It's great at processing (some) RAW files, Right?
Yes, but the workflow is awful, and the interface is clunky. Workflow is king.

Exporting anything from DXO is much like tattooing the soles of one's feet, and the DAM is terrible.

Given the choice, I would choose a dead duck (Aperture) over a lame mule (DXO).

You should stick with it if you like it that much, but I really doubt you'll be convincing any Lightroom user to give it a try. It's pointless.

I'm powering through my workflow in Capture One, and most are locked into Lightroom. DXO is a no, I'm afraid.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 14:36 UTC
In reply to:

Gmon750: Apple concentrates on the masses, not the 1%. For that, Photos is a great application to have included as part of OSX.

It's unfortunate that Aperture went the way of vine-rot. I was about to purchase it last year, then heard the rumor that Apple was going to axe it. I went with Lightroom and never looked back. Apple announced the discontinuation of Aperture a week later.

Lightroom is not perfect by far, however like Photoshop, it is the standard for RAW photography.

Lightroom is now a stupendous piece of software, and has earned it's place in the professional market, but it still hangs behind Capture One Pro when it comes to describing 'The Standard'

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 13:11 UTC
In reply to:

Gmon750: Apple concentrates on the masses, not the 1%. For that, Photos is a great application to have included as part of OSX.

It's unfortunate that Aperture went the way of vine-rot. I was about to purchase it last year, then heard the rumor that Apple was going to axe it. I went with Lightroom and never looked back. Apple announced the discontinuation of Aperture a week later.

Lightroom is not perfect by far, however like Photoshop, it is the standard for RAW photography.

Almost always it will be Capture One Pro, and has been for nearly 15 years. How do I know this? I used to run some of the largest photography studios in London which catered for international clients, and I also used to work as an assistant and digital tech with many different photographers.
There was a time (before Lightroom, and even Aperture) when C1 was the only Capture software on the market that could deal with digital photography in a way that we now take for granted.

The 1Ds Mk 2 was released (2005?) and you could shoot tethered with C1 - Everything went a bit nuts from then on. Capture One could handle the workflow.

When Aperture was released it was a pig. It ate RAM and there was no way it could be used in a professional environment, and the same could be said of the first iterations of Lightroom. Both improved and as the DSLR market picked up so the adoption of Lightroom (more than Aperture) gained momentum.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 13:11 UTC
In reply to:

Gmon750: Apple concentrates on the masses, not the 1%. For that, Photos is a great application to have included as part of OSX.

It's unfortunate that Aperture went the way of vine-rot. I was about to purchase it last year, then heard the rumor that Apple was going to axe it. I went with Lightroom and never looked back. Apple announced the discontinuation of Aperture a week later.

Lightroom is not perfect by far, however like Photoshop, it is the standard for RAW photography.

You might be right in the consumer space, but walk in to any professional hire studio and have a look at what the Digital Tech is operating.

It aint Lightroom.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 09:19 UTC
In reply to:

jadot: Really? This was done last year wasn't it?

Apple politely said that they were EOLing Aperture and opening up Photos for plugins. Everyone who ever used Aperture breathed a sigh of relief (bittersweet) having FINALLY been told what we knew all along.

Adobe stepped in and hacked a solution for migrators. Lightroom users said "Ha - Told you so!"

Photos was never going to get my library of adjusted pictures because it was never meant to be Aperture.

As it happens I moved my workflow over to Capture One Pro about a year before the announcement anyway (because C1 works very well with my Fuji Cameras). Lightroom wasn't an option for me, although it's absolutely fine for the rest of the world.

The "I'll probably just end up using Lightroom' conversation is always presented as if there are no other options. "Oh well, nothing will ever replace Aperture for me, so I'll just use what I consider to be second best, until Apple announce NEW APERTURE - which I secretly hope for forever..."

The truth is that even at it's peak Aperture was good, but it wasn't great. Marred by library failures, lost images, Sssllllllooooo oo ooow workflow, RAM hungry, and crumby interface.

The best thing was always the Structure of the asset management which was pretty much perfect for a heavy workflow.

Easy to replicate in Capture One or Lightroom catalogues now, so not a problem.

Trying photos out for anything other than iPhoto stuff seems like a real pointless endeavour to me. A real foregone conclusion to anyone who knows what they're doing, surely?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2015 at 13:01 UTC

Really? This was done last year wasn't it?

Apple politely said that they were EOLing Aperture and opening up Photos for plugins. Everyone who ever used Aperture breathed a sigh of relief (bittersweet) having FINALLY been told what we knew all along.

Adobe stepped in and hacked a solution for migrators. Lightroom users said "Ha - Told you so!"

Photos was never going to get my library of adjusted pictures because it was never meant to be Aperture.

As it happens I moved my workflow over to Capture One Pro about a year before the announcement anyway (because C1 works very well with my Fuji Cameras). Lightroom wasn't an option for me, although it's absolutely fine for the rest of the world.

The "I'll probably just end up using Lightroom' conversation is always presented as if there are no other options. "Oh well, nothing will ever replace Aperture for me, so I'll just use what I consider to be second best, until Apple announce NEW APERTURE - which I secretly hope for forever..."

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2015 at 12:58 UTC as 35th comment | 2 replies

"Mirrorless who?"

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 09:41 UTC as 84th comment
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (813 comments in total)
In reply to:

jadot: I'm into the psychology of this.

I think that for news reporting and sports there would definitely be a want to see absolutely every frame to get the perfect shot. Why not? I'm not saying that there's not art in Sports photography, only that it's perhaps easy to see the need for that, functionally.

As for what I do, wedding photography, I think there is a great need to NOT capture every Nanosecond. Doing so takes away from moments of serendipity that are due to the photographer's connection to the subject's character. The photographer has control over which story he/she wants to tell - stripping away this opportunity could make the process too mechanical.

The point of capture is what in some ways makes the photographer the artist. Without that, at a wedding he/she is merely an operator. Editing might yield some results, but no vision.

Ha! Sure. But he produced good photography using his method of actually being present when the pictures were taken.

You could leave rolls of film, piles of video, hard drives full of data. Nobody knows when they are going to die - that's at least true for the majority of us.

What's the difference? Winogrand leaves a bunch of unprocessed film, from ongoing street projects, maybe a number of projects he was working on in parallel. I die and leave 2000 hours of unedited high def video that I'd left to run on a tripod.

If Winogrand (he was only a random example, remember) left a box of film AND a box with my hypothetical 2000 hours of video, and you were asked to through the boxes to edit and put together a coherent body of work, which box do you think would be more interesting? Which box might be more revealing about the author's intentions?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 14:16 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (813 comments in total)
In reply to:

jadot: I'm into the psychology of this.

I think that for news reporting and sports there would definitely be a want to see absolutely every frame to get the perfect shot. Why not? I'm not saying that there's not art in Sports photography, only that it's perhaps easy to see the need for that, functionally.

As for what I do, wedding photography, I think there is a great need to NOT capture every Nanosecond. Doing so takes away from moments of serendipity that are due to the photographer's connection to the subject's character. The photographer has control over which story he/she wants to tell - stripping away this opportunity could make the process too mechanical.

The point of capture is what in some ways makes the photographer the artist. Without that, at a wedding he/she is merely an operator. Editing might yield some results, but no vision.

I can't imagine Winograd (for example) scanning his way through stacks of video to hope to discover an image that might work. How would you re-create the attachment one feels at the scene at the time of capture?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 17:10 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (813 comments in total)

I'm into the psychology of this.

I think that for news reporting and sports there would definitely be a want to see absolutely every frame to get the perfect shot. Why not? I'm not saying that there's not art in Sports photography, only that it's perhaps easy to see the need for that, functionally.

As for what I do, wedding photography, I think there is a great need to NOT capture every Nanosecond. Doing so takes away from moments of serendipity that are due to the photographer's connection to the subject's character. The photographer has control over which story he/she wants to tell - stripping away this opportunity could make the process too mechanical.

The point of capture is what in some ways makes the photographer the artist. Without that, at a wedding he/she is merely an operator. Editing might yield some results, but no vision.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 17:10 UTC as 264th comment | 3 replies
On Datacolor offers Spyder5 with redesigned calibrator article (113 comments in total)

Looks good to me - Never had a problem with the Spyder 4 Pro on an iMac and you can't argue with the price.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 08:27 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

RStyga: The US legal system is an overgrown chaotic net of perplexed sophistries that reflects a society in deep trouble. The behavioral regulatory aspects of that system are notoriously indicative of both how troubled Americans are and how inhumanely the country is claiming resolution via civil oppression. It is not an exaggeration, unfortunately, calling the US of 2015 a "police state" of the worst kind in today's western world.

While I agree with you, could you do it with fewer words (or at least without a thesaurus) next time please?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 11:29 UTC
In reply to:

Jason Haven: Most every camera has bugs, or features that lack. Most cameras don't see firmware updates unless it's a game stopping bug. This results in people complaining on DPR.

Fuji provides firmware updates to fix things on their cameras, and bring features here and there.This results in people complaining on DPR.

Welp... ok.

If the Panasonic you owned was light years ahead of the xpro1 why did you buy the xpro1? I mean if the Panasonic was so good why not just stick with that?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2015 at 10:22 UTC

It does appear to have faster AF, at least on the X100T. I can't see in difference yet on the X-T1.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 16:08 UTC as 6th comment
On Nikon D7200 real-world samples gallery posted article (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

jadot: I'm not always that fussed about sample photographs, but it would have been nice to see more low light shots. A daylight shot of some pansies at 3200 doesn't tell me anything about the performance at the same ISO in a tungsten lit room.
I practically never shoot above 6400 anyway, so the 12800 picture seems irrelevant without the support of 1600, 3200, and 6400 to show some progression. (FWIW I think the 12800 shot is disappointing)

A little surprised at the (lack of) range of material here. DPreview?

Sure - I understand that and there's a lot of value in seeing some of the twilight stuff there - I would have just liked to see more indoors, perhaps in more tricky lighting conditions.

It's perhaps because that's where I spend a lot of my time, but I suspect I'm not alone in that!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 1, 2015 at 16:52 UTC
On Nikon D7200 real-world samples gallery posted article (150 comments in total)

I'm not always that fussed about sample photographs, but it would have been nice to see more low light shots. A daylight shot of some pansies at 3200 doesn't tell me anything about the performance at the same ISO in a tungsten lit room.
I practically never shoot above 6400 anyway, so the 12800 picture seems irrelevant without the support of 1600, 3200, and 6400 to show some progression. (FWIW I think the 12800 shot is disappointing)

A little surprised at the (lack of) range of material here. DPreview?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 1, 2015 at 09:52 UTC as 33rd comment | 3 replies
On Phase One's Capture One Pro 8.2 software now available article (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

OBI656: CaptureOne is a great application for pro photographers however to install CaptureOne and specifically do an upgrade it is absolute pain.

I have NOT seen application in history of Mac computer being so terribly difficult to install and upgrade.

Why they are doing this so difficult for end user is beyond to comprehend.

or indeed someone like you responding to it.

ad infinitum.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 1, 2015 at 09:31 UTC
On Phase One's Capture One Pro 8.2 software now available article (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

OBI656: CaptureOne is a great application for pro photographers however to install CaptureOne and specifically do an upgrade it is absolute pain.

I have NOT seen application in history of Mac computer being so terribly difficult to install and upgrade.

Why they are doing this so difficult for end user is beyond to comprehend.

If you've managed to read any of the above and finally found yourself here, well done.

Well done for reading through perhaps one of the most boring forum discussions you might possibly ever come across.
Well Done for caring one way or the other about Updaters, cars, petrol, and entitlement.

While you have been wading your way through this wealth of informative interneteering millions have been born, and millions have died. Wars have been waged, and land has been taken.

And there is a great Possibility that Phase One have introduced Capture One Pro 9 too, perhaps with or without an updater.

Maybe.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 31, 2015 at 09:38 UTC
On Phase One's Capture One Pro 8.2 software now available article (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

OBI656: CaptureOne is a great application for pro photographers however to install CaptureOne and specifically do an upgrade it is absolute pain.

I have NOT seen application in history of Mac computer being so terribly difficult to install and upgrade.

Why they are doing this so difficult for end user is beyond to comprehend.

Meanwhile i've updated, found the time to edit 3 weddings, and baked a cake for my wife's birthday.

I just got on with stuff.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 25, 2015 at 17:54 UTC
Total: 163, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »