jadot

jadot

Lives in United Kingdom Surrey, United Kingdom
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at http://jlphotography.co.uk
Joined on Aug 27, 2010
About me:

Professional Photographer - Weddings mostly, Portraits of real people are high on the list.

Comments

Total: 573, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Timo Voivalin: Stability is essential and it was the only reason I chose LR after Aperture died. Is there any software I can trust to serve me year after year - no hoops to jump? Please?!

Capture One Pro? A few glitches on upgrade cycles, but if you wait for the 0.1 update to upgrade you're good to go. Can't speak for windows because I work on a Mac, but no reason to believe it's not the same quality software.

It's fast, accurate, and particularly great for X-Trans files compared to other converters. It's also pretty much what you will find on set on a lot of (majority of?) professional shoots.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 13:44 UTC

A kickstarter campaign that even tells us that they "nearly went bankrupt. Twice" is the kind of thing I like to run away from very fast.

My guess is if you put down 300 smackers on this you'll not be seeing your slider or your money again. Allegedly.

If you want a cinematic experience then $300 buys a lot of cinema tickets...

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 10:25 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Croninfilm: Man there sure are a lot of these kinds of sliders saturating the market right now...

Sliders are the new 'brushless gimbal'

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 10:21 UTC
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (405 comments in total)
In reply to:

randrand: Given its price, it looks like it could be a Fuji X100 killer.

@Sdaniella - This isn't about whether you want the fuji camera or if you like the 35mm Eqv Focal length! It was originally about whether this Canon will be a Fuji X100 'Killer' (which it will not).

As an aside, and in the shadow of the idea of this camera being supposedly a killer of anything at all, is there a case for a camera being a suicide product?

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 11:10 UTC
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (405 comments in total)
In reply to:

randrand: Given its price, it looks like it could be a Fuji X100 killer.

Tapper123 - Wow. Thanks for sharing that - I'm surprised that Canon wanted to show these samples - they don't do their new expensive camera any favours at all. Noise reduction gone crazy. They look like phone pics from 3 years ago. I haven't seen iPhone 8 pictures yet, but my iPhone 7 photos are better than this in good light, and they are only just passable at small print/viewing sizes.

I would have thought that at this price this camera has nothing in common with the Fuji, but more competition from the Sony and Panasonic 1" sensor cameras, and so far both of those cameras are looking like an all round better purchase. The Panasonic looks especially good value next to the canon.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 11:06 UTC
On article What you need to know: Canon G1 X Mark III (405 comments in total)
In reply to:

randrand: Given its price, it looks like it could be a Fuji X100 killer.

Completely different category.
I'll make it easy: Ask any Fuji X100(T or F) owner if they are now thinking of dumping their fixed lens single focal length specialist camera in favour of Canon's new offering with a slower lens and see what they say. Round up the answers and see if the X100 has been 'killed'.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 08:33 UTC
In reply to:

karlx: It boggles my mind why serious photographers go along with instagram.

Editing photos from raw, and then using a phone to upload them, only to see them morphed into crappy low resolution highly compressed images, cropped with forced aspect ratios.

Well, at least now you don't need to use a phone anymore.

They might have come to the conclusion that something like Instagram is in fact the very place where all good photography can be found and followed on a highly energised and personally curated platform of the like that there has never been before.

Photographers and photography has never had it so good. In fact, photographers *not* using the platform are probably simply fearful of how few people will be interested in their work, exposing their old fashioned, old guard elitist point of view, when the big joke is that none of that actually matters to the photographers who know how to use instagram properly.

What was your point again?

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 13:41 UTC
In reply to:

karlx: It boggles my mind why serious photographers go along with instagram.

Editing photos from raw, and then using a phone to upload them, only to see them morphed into crappy low resolution highly compressed images, cropped with forced aspect ratios.

Well, at least now you don't need to use a phone anymore.

You haven't got a point, other than to say you don't like one forum because it's a democratic representation of how (the majority of) people on the internet few and interact with modern photography in 2017 over another type of internet forum that is less representative, less far reaching, and has fewer interactions from a different type of audience, most of whom are possibly more interested in what aperture was used than they are in any semblance of critical repost.

As others have said, and for the last time: Don't follow members who post selfies and pictures of food if that's not what you want to see. If you want to be 'cultured' or Elite about the whole thing, then follow photographers like @nadavkander and countless others. People like that don't need to court publicity, and they likely don't feel like doing it because they should. Hahaha!

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 13:41 UTC
In reply to:

karlx: It boggles my mind why serious photographers go along with instagram.

Editing photos from raw, and then using a phone to upload them, only to see them morphed into crappy low resolution highly compressed images, cropped with forced aspect ratios.

Well, at least now you don't need to use a phone anymore.

...and you think that the DPR galleries are a better representation of high quality photography?

HAhahaha haha ha haaaah!!!

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 13:12 UTC
In reply to:

karlx: It boggles my mind why serious photographers go along with instagram.

Editing photos from raw, and then using a phone to upload them, only to see them morphed into crappy low resolution highly compressed images, cropped with forced aspect ratios.

Well, at least now you don't need to use a phone anymore.

love that - "hundreds of users"!

Out of the 800 million active users per month hundreds of users, whatever they feel they want IG to do isn't going to make a slight bit of difference. Most people who need this desktop functionality probably use one of the other solutions or likely just export their pictures to a shared camera roll folder and post via their phone anyway, So you can probably take your made up statistics, add a few million, take a few away and then times it by ten and you still wouldn't have any facts about something you can't know about! Ha hahaha Haha... hashtag: lol etc.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 12:20 UTC
In reply to:

karlx: It boggles my mind why serious photographers go along with instagram.

Editing photos from raw, and then using a phone to upload them, only to see them morphed into crappy low resolution highly compressed images, cropped with forced aspect ratios.

Well, at least now you don't need to use a phone anymore.

...and there I was - thinking I was the nuts one.
I promised myself I wouldn't get into these things with these people on these forums - "life's too short", I concurred.

Yet here we are.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 17:24 UTC
In reply to:

karlx: It boggles my mind why serious photographers go along with instagram.

Editing photos from raw, and then using a phone to upload them, only to see them morphed into crappy low resolution highly compressed images, cropped with forced aspect ratios.

Well, at least now you don't need to use a phone anymore.

IG doesn't limit you to squares.
You can post landscape orientation or Portrait orientation photographs.
You can crop or mask your photos to 3:2 if you wish by using a letterbox, but you'll not be able to view a wider image due to the format that instagram pictures are displayed.
You can create a business account as well as a personal one for your snapshots if you want. If you don't want to taint your perfect portfolio with your selfies and hot dog pictures you can make your personal account private and only visible to people who you let follow you. Likewise if you don't want to see other people's selfies in your feed you simply don't follow them.
It's all pretty easy really.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 14:52 UTC
In reply to:

karlx: It boggles my mind why serious photographers go along with instagram.

Editing photos from raw, and then using a phone to upload them, only to see them morphed into crappy low resolution highly compressed images, cropped with forced aspect ratios.

Well, at least now you don't need to use a phone anymore.

@karlx

Couple of things -
1) nobody's asking their 'followers' to print out their photographs and put them in a gallery - the image quality only has to be for viewing purposes in a social ap context. It's often a way to say "These are the kinds of pictures I take - check my real stuff out on my website if you like this kind of thing".

2)What's the forced aspect ratio you're talking about?

Instagram is just a (very) good way to get your work, projects, or business, or lifestyle in front of as many relevant (because they have chosen to follow you) people as possible. Sitting back and waiting for people to 'find' your Flickr or 500px is laughable in 2017.

p.s. You can follow me here! @jasonleamanphoto !! (guessing you probably won't)

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 14:28 UTC
In reply to:

karlx: It boggles my mind why serious photographers go along with instagram.

Editing photos from raw, and then using a phone to upload them, only to see them morphed into crappy low resolution highly compressed images, cropped with forced aspect ratios.

Well, at least now you don't need to use a phone anymore.

@cosinaphile - any opinions of your own? You do realise that posting internet articles written by someone with an opinion against something on the internet to express your own argument about something you don't understand on the internet is ironic?

You could search for (and find) articles about why a camera is a photographer's worst enemy if you looked in the right (or wrong) places.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 13:21 UTC
In reply to:

karlx: It boggles my mind why serious photographers go along with instagram.

Editing photos from raw, and then using a phone to upload them, only to see them morphed into crappy low resolution highly compressed images, cropped with forced aspect ratios.

Well, at least now you don't need to use a phone anymore.

@cosinaphile - nope.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 12:30 UTC
In reply to:

blurredvision: Why does EVERYTHING have to be a "game changer" these days? Anything labeled as such almost never is, not even close. This is one of those.

“Game changer” suggests that until now one was losing the game. The new gadget changes all of that. I’d suggest that if you’re waiting around for gadgets to improve your chances, you need to ppractice more with what you’ve already got.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2017 at 19:59 UTC

I can and do get what I want from my (brand) lights at any wedding. In fact, I can get different lighting and experiment with multiple units all day long. My game doesn't need to be changed.

I'm sure the A! is great on location though with a bunch of ProFoto lights, but it's overkill for a wedding. And it's not a "game changer", (or choose your own punchy catchphrase).

What changed the way lighting could be achieved at weddings was more likely cheaper radio triggers. I can shoot around 10 Godox manual speed lights with whatever modifiers I choose for less than the price of one of these profit lights, and as much as I can see that the A1s are probably superior in any way, I can also see how utterly unnecessary they are for most shoots, and if you're in a situation when ONLY these will do for that one shot, then maybe just shoot it slightly differently.

Maybe you don't want to 'compromise', and that's OK, but really?

NOT spending £2K is the game changer for me.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2017 at 17:57 UTC as 63rd comment
In reply to:

mckracken88: you americans with your gamechangers....

OP Has a point.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2017 at 17:46 UTC
In reply to:

Rensol: Strange they did not launch it on KS

Why? They've been making bags since the 70's, by hand, in the U.K.
Kickstarter used to be a place where inventions were brought to life with money sourced from potential customers, though I accept it's now just a pre-order system for most companies who don't want to manufacture and then bring to market. When you've been stung on Kickstarter (Yes, the LUMI I ordered ages ago which hasn't materialised is 'managed' by the company updating backers with the promise that 'We are 99.9 percent ready to ship, but we need to do some last minute testing, but we have them in our hands' for months), you realise that buying quality gear from someone like Billingham is a real luxury. You might think that Billingham are expensive, but they're not as expensive as being ripped off by some can't get their act together Kickstarter losers who take your money without any sight of a product for three years.
I'll never put money into kickstarter again.
(Bitter? me?)

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2017 at 12:49 UTC
In reply to:

tko: Stupid from the start. In studio shots with controlled lighting, it is very hard to tell the difference. Shooting outdoors, under changing circumstances, nature and street and documentary, FF gives a big advantage. Heck, a cell phone under bright studio lights doesn't look bad.

but in the video the guy says "get your lighting right and you won't need to" (more or less) which is to say that if you want to get your skills up to speed you might find that there are fewer scenarios where you will see the benefit of spending $4K more on camera equipment than you need to. i.e - if you're going to need to shoot over 1600 then you might need to decide whether you can live with an almost imperceptible 'Loss' in IQ or if you would prefer to hang onto a few thousand dollars etc. and so on.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2017 at 23:17 UTC
Total: 573, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »