Jo Lovell

Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Works as a Researcher and photographer just for fun
Joined on Aug 2, 2001

Comments

Total: 8, showing: 1 – 8
On a photo in the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10 Samples Photos sample gallery (2 comments in total)

Does noise reduction 'minus 5' mean noise is reduced more, or less noise reduction is applied? I'm going to guess it means more noise reduction from looking at it.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2016 at 13:27 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
On article Field Test: Wedding Photography with the Fujifilm X-T2 (233 comments in total)

I have no doubt that this is a great little camera and yes the jpeg colours look excellent on the whole.

BUT - I didn't spot a single criticism or caveat about wedding suitability, except perhaps

- battery life (positive spin: "it's great to attach a battery pack to carry around all day!")
- something about changing lenses more than usual (no one wants to carry around more glass than they have to)

The full review clearly states that "Subject tracking, while good, is not dependable enough for professional use". Yet this video implies it is - the camera "didn't miss a beat" as the light went down.

Having shot weddings professionally in the past, battery life, weight, lens versatility (perhaps related to high ISO performance because with great high ISO slower but more versatile zoom lenses become more acceptable) and low light AF are not minor issues.

Recent sponsored content has been good and engaging, but for me this felt uncomfortably close to crossing a line.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 13:02 UTC as 51st comment | 5 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Fujifilm F10 (121 comments in total)

Ahh, back in the day...

Any chance of a TBT on the innovative Nikon Coolpix 990? Quite possibly one of those few compacts (well, compact-ish) that really was a classic I had the pleasure of owning back in 2000. I think it's one of the few, or possibly the only cameras that received an official 'cult status value' score in the DPReview scoring system!

Construction - 9
Features - 9.5
Image quality - 9
Lens / CCD combination - 8
Ease of use - 8
Value for money - 10
Cult status value - 10

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2016 at 11:33 UTC as 7th comment
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art real world sample gallery (217 comments in total)

Excellent all round performance, worthy of the 'Art' line up name. (If you see any corner softness or CA bear in mind you're looking at some huge Megapixel images).

So glad Sigma has taken on the high end of the market and is putting real competitive pressure on others.

Good job with the photos too DPReview - not a plain ol' brick wall in sight!

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2016 at 12:33 UTC as 65th comment
In reply to:

marshwader: Lovely photograph. I admired it when I first saw it a while ago. A well deserved award.
Which camera did he use. It's not specified and would be interesting to know. A "weather resistant camera" with a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. Was it a Canon by any chance?

You're not far from the mark...

I went to the London exhibition, Sony branding was everywhere. But strangely and disappointingly all of the technical info such as camera, lens settings etc was missing from the gallery of entrants - something I had enjoyed pouring over at the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition earlier that day (90% Nikon and Canon). Perhaps Sony just don't care about that sort of thing?

Oh wait, not to worry - as soon as you get to the 'Sony Ambassadors' gallery rooms at the end of the exhibition, low and behold every single image had detailed technical specifications and hardware info supplied - and of course they were all Sony!

They were all excellent - but that's not the point. Gear and settings are of interest to (many) photographers on a technical level ("how did they achieve that amazing shot!?") , but to me censorship of that information smacks of heavy handed editorial control by a sponsor.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2015 at 13:10 UTC
On article App tutorial: Give portraits depth with HDR feel (38 comments in total)
In reply to:

CollBaxter: Ieeeesh this looks like 4 steps form looking normal to homeless.

This is terrible. It was already overexposed, you can see the blown red channel in the histogram. Then the finla result has massively blocked in shaddows. Not HDR whatsoever. If it had been titled 'How to make a generic looking instagram style portrait' it would have been fine. Even then, the shot itself has no redeeming portrait features - nothing can be inferred about the subject whatsoever.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2013 at 10:08 UTC

I just can't believe Adobe would jepodise its brand image by being so completely dishonest about the technology. A company I used to trust just fell to zero in respect terms - lying to an audience of over 1 million people who have watched the clip! Any blur created by software is going to be much easier to correct for than real life motion blur - partly becasue you will able to tell photoshop the exact reverse parameters. Come on Adobe, apologise now. Promising software but this is a dishonest way to preview it.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2011 at 19:04 UTC as 2nd comment
Total: 8, showing: 1 – 8