Jo Lovell

Jo Lovell

Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Works as a Research
Joined on Aug 2, 2001


Total: 19, showing: 1 – 19
On a photo in the iPhone X sample gallery sample gallery (4 comments in total)

Wow, the difference between the RAW conversion and the JPEG is night and day...kind of makes me disappointed in the jpeg though, as that will be what 95% or more of people will be using...

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 10:00 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Review: Rylo is a 360º camera done right (77 comments in total)

Seriously impressed!

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2018 at 14:11 UTC as 40th comment
In reply to:

ttran88: Why is the comment section open for this sponsored content?

But it's a good thing, right? Not wanting to hear debate is not a good sign. They used to all be open in the past, I think, then some starting to be disabled - notably the recent Sony / hot air balloon one.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2017 at 09:38 UTC
On article Sony a7R III sample gallery updated (83 comments in total)

Did someone delete the comment that I think used to be here saying that comments should be enabled on the adjacent sponsored content..?!

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2017 at 13:42 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply

Good shots in good light. But that photo with the flash... ouch.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 16:12 UTC as 72nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Jo Lovell: Not impressed with the 50% off deal I have been offered - it's only a discount on the business plan - the personal plan is not discounted for Crash Plan customers and yet it's the one most Home users will want!

I mean the carbonite discount, it is only on their business plan.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 19:03 UTC

Not impressed with the 50% off deal I have been offered - it's only a discount on the business plan - the personal plan is not discounted for Crash Plan customers and yet it's the one most Home users will want!

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2017 at 18:34 UTC as 26th comment | 3 replies

Not only is this experiment a waste of time, it is a waste of public money to fund and a wasted opportunity.

If they had piloted well and really thought about and defined what it means to 'digitally alter' an image it could have been useful. Make it relevant! E.g research on filters (typically 'vintage' - surely one of the most common 'manipulations') or on skin / body image retouching in the fashion industry. But no, it's pointless mundane and poorly shot images with manipulations that are of no relevance to anyone.

This sadly does nothing to help the serious issues psychology is facing;

8/10 - more luck than judgement, as I'm sure it is for most.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 10:43 UTC as 67th comment | 2 replies
On article Shiftcam for iPhone 7 Plus review (56 comments in total)

So I just upsized the iphone picture to match the 2x lens (in PowerPoint of all things - it's all I have at work) and guess what? It looks pretty indistinguishable. Wide angle and macro of course is another matter and genuinely useful.

I actually miss Pixel Peeping. From tiny sensors it's just Smudge Staring, not a pixel to be seen!

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 15:38 UTC as 26th comment
On article Canon EOS Rebel T7i / EOS 800D Sample Gallery (110 comments in total)

Is it just me or is the ISO 4000 shot (cocktail bar) really rather good in terms of low noise? Would be good to see this in the studio comparison list as there are only a couple of other high ISO samples here.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 11:39 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply
On article OPPO 5x smartphone zoom system sample images (49 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alex Efimoff: That's about what I was expected - crappy quality. Can't see much difference to a digital zoom quality.
Nokia 808 Pureview with its 41-megapixel camera rules. Albeit with a dead OS :(

It's plenty different to digital zoom. A little heavy handed in the noise reduction maybe but that's not the point, there is much more subject detail in the zoomed images than the wide angle, which is never the case with digital zoom.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 09:40 UTC
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 53rd comment | 5 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Fujifilm F10 (123 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 9th comment
On article Sigma 12-24mm F4 DG HSM Art real world sample gallery (216 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: 19, showing: 1 – 19