jadot

jadot

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

Comments

Total: 101, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Camera from NASA's moon missions sold at auction article (110 comments in total)

Interesting, if only for the fact that I've not seen what the 'space cameras' look like until now. It's be nice to know how the astro's used the equipment, if there were any special considerations with film/radiation or whatever. I don't know a lot about being in space!
Anyone know of a resource where this stuff can be found out?

With regards to the auction, it seems turning a blind eye to some facts is enough to get you a little closer to history. It's a shame if it's not a camera that actually went to the moon, it's not authentic, but there you go.
The buyer must know that it's [story is] not genuine?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2014 at 17:41 UTC as 37th comment | 5 replies
On 900MP portraits show human face in extreme detail article (288 comments in total)

Who the hell's "Andrew?"!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2014 at 22:02 UTC as 23rd comment
On 900MP portraits show human face in extreme detail article (288 comments in total)
In reply to:

jadot: So nobody gets this? Reading the 'reviews' here I guess not.

Anyone thought about the implications of this kind of imaging for the future of photography?
How about in the mid 1800s when sitters had to stay still for periods of time so that a picture wouldn't appear blurred?
Psychologically speaking these studies are no different than those very early attempts and successes at photography portraiture. In fact it's this that makes them so fascinating. It also asks us how we define photography in 2014. Is this photography? Is this art? Is this imaging or science? Is this simply technology, nothing more clever than that (sic)?

To all of you a holes talking about bad lighting, or ugly/miserable subject matter, you need to get a better understanding of the conversation between art, technology, and the human condition.

Who the hell's "Andrew?"!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2014 at 21:58 UTC
On 900MP portraits show human face in extreme detail article (288 comments in total)

So nobody gets this? Reading the 'reviews' here I guess not.

Anyone thought about the implications of this kind of imaging for the future of photography?
How about in the mid 1800s when sitters had to stay still for periods of time so that a picture wouldn't appear blurred?
Psychologically speaking these studies are no different than those very early attempts and successes at photography portraiture. In fact it's this that makes them so fascinating. It also asks us how we define photography in 2014. Is this photography? Is this art? Is this imaging or science? Is this simply technology, nothing more clever than that (sic)?

To all of you a holes talking about bad lighting, or ugly/miserable subject matter, you need to get a better understanding of the conversation between art, technology, and the human condition.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2014 at 18:34 UTC as 64th comment | 9 replies
On 900MP portraits show human face in extreme detail article (288 comments in total)
In reply to:

Teru Kage: I'd rather this technology was used to photo something we'd like to see in fine detail, like insects (most likely specimens, since the subject would need to stay still).

What - you mean like the insects that he photographed in the same way? On the same website? The specimens?

http://www.robophot.com/insects/

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2014 at 18:24 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3: a quick summary article (597 comments in total)

Personally I love the idea of fast, accurate AF, but am in no way interested in FPS. I never have been. Maybe it's just me, and probably because of my preferred style of shooting, but this is why:
Where I come from we call it spray and pray. Simple as that. The hope that just one of a multitude of photographs might actually be "ok" bores the hell out of me. Professional sports shooters don't get award winning photographs by hoping for the best. There's great art in being in the right place and more so at the right time. There's no expression in picking out a picture that you didn't see at the time of capture. Otherwise just get a monkey to do it.
Are you an artist or an operator? Are you a photographer or a monkey?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2014 at 12:07 UTC as 162nd comment | 3 replies
On Nikon launches new series of instructional videos article (33 comments in total)

Nothing wrong with this. McNally has a nice way about him, such that he doesn't patronise with apparently simple lessons. It's also nice to see a simplified approach - anyone can do it kind of thing. No smoke and mirrors.
I may be wrong but Nikon *seem* to be reaching out to their customers and wanting to appear more friendly. It's no bad thing and perhaps a little overdue, and though there is obviously a marketing agenda here it doesn't come across as cynical.
And if you conspiratorially imagine that Nikon are ignoring some sort of pro market by playing out simple technical videos it's probably you who has the issues.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2014 at 21:43 UTC as 21st comment
On Fujifilm UK X Signature service officially launched article (125 comments in total)

I think this is a great idea for Fuji - why not? It shows further commitment to older models in the line as with the continuing firmware updates and gives people the freedom to 'opt in' rather than making these covers standard and pushing the price up when a camera is released.

Personally none of the covers here are to my taste, but the great thing about that is I DON"T HAVE TO BUY ONE.

It's also a great response to other Camera companies 'following' Fuji's success (See Panny's GX7 for example) It's another way of establishing Fuji's excellent photographer-centric designs as modern classics.

With big companies like Nikon (DF) scrambling to match Fuji's cult success, and getting it slightly wrong BTW, it's not hard to imagine that Fuji are getting close to being more mainstream than many of us thought.

X Signature seems to be a well deserved pat on the back to themselves. They're one company that seems to be getting things right so if they want to shout about it, let 'em at it.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2014 at 10:48 UTC as 6th comment
On Two photographers re-imagine city potholes article (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

jadot: This is awful, conceptually, in execution, and technically. The models are terribly bad actors, it seems, and the results are ugly. I read a comment which said: "looks like they had a lot of fun" or some such thing.
So what? How the krap does that make this abysmal "project" have any value at all in the world. All it tells us is that any idiot can take a picture with a camera and call it art or whatever they like because it's in focus. And that's only because it exists.
It's not big and it's not clever, and it's not funny either.

come again?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 14:02 UTC
On Two photographers re-imagine city potholes article (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

jadot: This is awful, conceptually, in execution, and technically. The models are terribly bad actors, it seems, and the results are ugly. I read a comment which said: "looks like they had a lot of fun" or some such thing.
So what? How the krap does that make this abysmal "project" have any value at all in the world. All it tells us is that any idiot can take a picture with a camera and call it art or whatever they like because it's in focus. And that's only because it exists.
It's not big and it's not clever, and it's not funny either.

Sorry, you obviously mistook my reply to your rude comment as that from someone who actually cares what your opinion is. My bad.
And for the record, I have absolutely no interest in 'flattering' myself or pandering to your pathetic opinion, or hearing about your terribly sad life story.
I doubt that I'll see your work one day either. But I will anticipate with bated breath for the industry defining masterpiece that you're apparently putting on hold.
Can't wait...
yawn.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2014 at 13:30 UTC
On Two photographers re-imagine city potholes article (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

dynaxx: "re-imagine" ? I know language has to adapt to new concepts but this mish-mash of mediocre attempts at tromp l'oeil doesn't deserve a new word nor our wasted time in looking at them

dynaxx: Thanks for your reply.
Please refer to my point #3) above.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2014 at 12:13 UTC
On Two photographers re-imagine city potholes article (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

EricAotearoa: All right boys and girls, wipe those smiles off your faces. We are here to be serious. This is no place to have fun or enjoy yourselves. You! that boy over there, wipe that smirk off your face. You, at the back, pull down those colourful photographs. How dare you have a sense of humour. If anyone here thinks they can setup and take photographs outside the square, you are sorely wrong. You, the ugly actors, come over here for six of the best. Now behave yourselves or I'll technically execute you in a conceptually awful way.

Hate to think what some people here would think if they got to listen to The Goon Show, I'm sorry I'll read that again, or Around the Horn, or watch The Goodies, Monty Python, Morecambe and Wise or The Two Ronnies. Just no sense of the absurd. Minds set in straight jackets.

Bad argument. People aren't bemoaning this for it's lack of seriousness. People are simply bemused at why this is so awful and at the same time irrelevant to much of anything at all.
There's a misconception here that because something gets published that it must be of value, and that misconception is really just a link to one's aspirations. Bad art validates bad art.

And another thing: Even John Cleese has gone on record saying that most of Monty Python isn't funny.
They were under a lot of pressure to keep putting out content and a lot of it wasn't finished. And we've come a long way from the Goodies, and this photo project isn't even as good as that.
And just so we can get this straight, are you seriously suggesting that this is even in the same game as M&W or the Two Ronnies?
You say that critics of this dross have "No sense of the absurd" yet you precede that with aligning this set of terrible, embarrassing pictures with such historical comedy genius? baffling...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2014 at 11:24 UTC
On Two photographers re-imagine city potholes article (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

dynaxx: "re-imagine" ? I know language has to adapt to new concepts but this mish-mash of mediocre attempts at tromp l'oeil doesn't deserve a new word nor our wasted time in looking at them

1) it would take the same time to read the right word as it does to read what you think is the wrong word, so how's that a waste of time?
2) Nobody is forcing you to go onto the internet.
3) Who cares?
4) Nothing. Just wasting more of your time there...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2014 at 11:10 UTC
On Two photographers re-imagine city potholes article (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

jadot: This is awful, conceptually, in execution, and technically. The models are terribly bad actors, it seems, and the results are ugly. I read a comment which said: "looks like they had a lot of fun" or some such thing.
So what? How the krap does that make this abysmal "project" have any value at all in the world. All it tells us is that any idiot can take a picture with a camera and call it art or whatever they like because it's in focus. And that's only because it exists.
It's not big and it's not clever, and it's not funny either.

steelski: nice to hear some militant prejudice against a 'wedding photographer'. And here's me thinking we were in the 21st century... All I was doing was criticising awful photography when there are countless other artists out there who deserve the air time more than this trite.
Also impressed with how your profile suggests you work as a 'photographer' yet there's no link to any of your 'work'.

So back yourself up there and take a look at getting your amazing art out there for people to crit before you get on your high horse. I've been doing this dumbasss wedding photography for 15 years and made a lot of people happy with some awesome portrait and documentary photography. I've got a body of work to back that up. I've made a good career out of it, and I'm well known in my field. Who the F**K are you?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2014 at 11:07 UTC
On Two photographers re-imagine city potholes article (147 comments in total)

This is awful, conceptually, in execution, and technically. The models are terribly bad actors, it seems, and the results are ugly. I read a comment which said: "looks like they had a lot of fun" or some such thing.
So what? How the krap does that make this abysmal "project" have any value at all in the world. All it tells us is that any idiot can take a picture with a camera and call it art or whatever they like because it's in focus. And that's only because it exists.
It's not big and it's not clever, and it's not funny either.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2014 at 20:39 UTC as 23rd comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

Stefanie: No perpetual license, no business.
No service, no business.

For me Adobe is no viable business partner for the forseeable future.

Why would I be "ticked off"? (If we for a moment pay lip service to your desperate scenario). I'll just continue to use photoshop if I still need to use photoshop. I'm not likely to stop using the software all of a sudden!!?
Haha - I'm not in this discussion to prove that I'm right and you're wrong, I'm just looking at the most likely route that this is going. Why would I be upset if I CAN STILL USE PHOTOSHOP??!!
This is hilarious! You just said "I told you so" for something that isn't so and is unlikely to be so! Ha haha...
Not a great argument, there.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 23:19 UTC
In reply to:

jadot: Lots of people stamping their feet here. It's easy to see that a percentage of those people are just upset because it's getting harder to keep cracked versions up to date.

The truth is that in a competitive market using the latest software (in this case CC with current updates) can give you a competitive edge.

If you're happy with CS6 or below, then why are you complaining about CC? If it was CS7 you'd complain about the cost of "buying" it and how Adobe force you to buy updates every 18 months. Depending on how you want to use the software, it could actually cost you more to "own" the software every two years. If you don't need the latest features, then you'll probably be alright using Photoshop Express - buy that.

Meanwhile for probably less than what you spend on chocolate in 1 week, professionals are using CC with all the latest updates, spending less time worrying about Adobe's plans for armegeddon, and less time eating chocolate.

Not kidding or working for Adobe, and I think this has already been cracked (I'm sure someone will know yes or no).

My point remains. CC works for me and I use it daily. It's worth the tiny subscription fee.
CC doesn't work for some, and they are apparently seeking alternatives/voting with their protests which is fine too.
I've been using Photoshop for years as a tool for my photography processing, but at no point during that time was I under the illusion that Adobe and I were inseperable, or that our alliegence was infinite. I haven't felt mortally let down, stabbed in the back, betrayed.
Get a grip, people.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 23:05 UTC
In reply to:

Lawrence33: There was an old song that one of my many mentors would sing while shooting.
The 'Opening' line went something like this, " .... park you chewing gum, and razors at the door, drop your ego outside the church 'cause your 'er going to learn some more. .... "
I've been at it for a very long time and have worked with many Hasselblads and all the related equipment.
You, who have never work with the MF cameras or Hasselblad. And are not engineers, should go sit in the corner and chew on your ego.
Go take some pictures. We use to say, years ago, " That's really nice, but what have you done lately ? "

Come again?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2014 at 11:49 UTC
In reply to:

InTheMist: Adobe is dead to me.

bronx...

I really don't care if you are or are not signed up with the CC. I am and I get the same marketing emails. I also get emails from other companies who want me to buy some sh*it from them. It's how emails work. Volume email marketing. Annoying, maybe, but I don't think Adobe are begging you specifically to 'come back - we miss you'.
I wouldn't take it so personally

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2014 at 13:23 UTC
In reply to:

jadot: looks good to me. Yeah yeah I know, Adobe subscriptions etc blah blah. I'll take up to date software over waiting for 2 year product cycles.

There are plenty of free alternatives if you can't afford subscription. get over it.

Glen.

I'm not interested in 3D at the moment, but thanks for asking. However, some are, and if Photoshop isn't the ultimate solution for 3D, it may be the best way of introducing some people to it.

There are other people in the world, you know. i don't think Adobe *only* had you in mind. Or me.

Does the addition of 3D printing stop you from doing whatever it is you need Photoshop for?

Didn't think so.

Michael.
Let me get this straight; CC was supposed to "suppress" software features and add ons, but you would like "So many features" and so on in it's place? Sense of entitlement much?

You don't HAVE to use 3D printing. It won't make photoshop NOT EDIT your photographs.

Man, photoshop is a huge program. If you don't like Adobe, fine, don't subscribe - but you can't honestly believe that additional capability is a bad thing, surely?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 17, 2014 at 13:18 UTC
Total: 101, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »