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: 675, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

tkbslc: Why complain? If the subscription costs more than you are willing to pay, just cancel it and find something else (or don't sign up). This is not an actual problem.

stevo23 - businesses and professionals would prefer to pay the same or more for stand alone products every 18 months when they need to upgrade?
It's nominal for professional users.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2018 at 17:57 UTC
In reply to:

jadot: I actually think this kind of thing is funny. Depressing, but funny.
The fact is the guy is right - photographers are hypocritical when it comes to intellectual property. The amount of slideshows that you see in the wedding industry with a bed of modern pop music underneath is frightening. There is no way that Jason Mraz has signed off on all of that stuff. I don't think "Yeah, take my song" was what he meant when he sang "I'm yours"

I don’t think Take That are getting too many kickbacks from the DJ either, but who’s gonna police this stuff?
It’s why personal ethics and responsibility are so critical.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2018 at 22:15 UTC

I actually think this kind of thing is funny. Depressing, but funny.
The fact is the guy is right - photographers are hypocritical when it comes to intellectual property. The amount of slideshows that you see in the wedding industry with a bed of modern pop music underneath is frightening. There is no way that Jason Mraz has signed off on all of that stuff. I don't think "Yeah, take my song" was what he meant when he sang "I'm yours"

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2018 at 18:59 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

abe4652: What happens if the statement is motivated by malice, but it's also 100% true?

"Huh?"

Keep up mate.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2018 at 18:47 UTC
In reply to:

abe4652: What happens if the statement is motivated by malice, but it's also 100% true?

I'm guessing that the judge or judicator thought that the contract was sufficient or in some way legally binding. Hence the outcome.
I'm not sure 'your view' has got anything to do with it, but thanks for sarcastically assuming that it was not worth me commenting on by commenting on my comment.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2018 at 15:34 UTC
In reply to:

abe4652: What happens if the statement is motivated by malice, but it's also 100% true?

The Photographer fulfilled the contract. The bride signed the contract then disagreed with her own agreement after the fact.
Ergo; If you're not happy with the contract, don't sign it. No?
If she wasn't happy about it she could easily have said [on the internet]: "After considering the contract I realised that I had made a mistake by not reading it thoroughly in the first instance and so decided to break the contract. I should have read the contract and that's not the photographer's fault. There are some things I don't agree on when it comes to how this photographer runs their business, but I accept that I should have done due diligence" - or something to that effect.
Taking your scorn to the max is not the answer, as she rightly found out (to the tune of $89K).
I hope the photographer can pick up and rebuild her business.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2018 at 13:29 UTC
In reply to:

historianx: So much petty jealousy here-- yes there is a little too much sky in #1, but shoot it in 21:9 and balance out the ground it's actually quite good. But whoa: this is DPR, where 98% of the members are "composition Nazis" to the point that if it's not compositionally perfect, it sucks. Loosen up, break a few rules, challenge yourself.

Just leave out the 'car park' bit and they'll never know.

So yes - I might be a little jealous of the exposure any crappy award seems to bring, but the hardest thing is making the decision to not want to join in with award schemes, least of all pay for one, because one thinks it's better for the industry as a whole.

You're always going to come up against the argument; "You're saying that awards are rubbish just because you haven't won one yourself".
You get accused of "virtue signalling" and other BS. That's OK. I get it.

Awards aren't a bad idea per se - it's just that there is no regulation or award that is universally recognised as fair, anonymous, ethically judged, and based solely on merit. Maybe one or two, but there are 101 out there that are of no use.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2018 at 10:06 UTC
In reply to:

historianx: So much petty jealousy here-- yes there is a little too much sky in #1, but shoot it in 21:9 and balance out the ground it's actually quite good. But whoa: this is DPR, where 98% of the members are "composition Nazis" to the point that if it's not compositionally perfect, it sucks. Loosen up, break a few rules, challenge yourself.

So let's break this down;

If they're being awarded for the quality of the work I'll show you 100 hundred photographers that nobody has heard of who regularly produce better photography.
If they're being applauded for their services, I'll show you 200 photographers with 4 times the experience who have made a success of their business in a sustainable way without an award.
So they're being awarded for what? For marketing themselves, and networking, which is admirable enough, but it doesn't mean anything to the clients they want to book. You could argue, I suppose, that the photographer putting him or herself in the position where they can inflate their prices, is ensuring a particular measure of commitment and quality, but when the advice from all quarters is to charge what you want this becomes redundant.

In the end it's about ethics. The bog standard 'award winning' photographer knows fully well that the award for 'best photographer in this car park' means nothing to his/her couples.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2018 at 09:55 UTC
In reply to:

historianx: So much petty jealousy here-- yes there is a little too much sky in #1, but shoot it in 21:9 and balance out the ground it's actually quite good. But whoa: this is DPR, where 98% of the members are "composition Nazis" to the point that if it's not compositionally perfect, it sucks. Loosen up, break a few rules, challenge yourself.

I agree with Peter1976 to some extent, (though if I'm honest I'm probably a bit jealous of the exposure that these photographers have achieved).
More than this though, the competition itself is being called out here. Let me state my position:
There are so many competitions in the wedding industry now that they have been cancelled out by themselves. There are even websites that will self proclaim to be the home for the 3 beast photographers in such and such an area. (No names mentioned in the South East of the UK). Says who? Say the photographers who have set up the website, that's who! Another website puts forward their 50 best wedding photographers in the UK based on who they share social media with, with a little favour for favours here or there.

The Photographer gets to say they're "award winning" but what does it mean?

It means that they can charge more to their couples, under the umbrella of illusion of being the "1" everyone wants.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2018 at 09:48 UTC
In reply to:

taruaS: Wedding photography isn't really photography though is it? One is providing a service, like car valeting or stacking shelves. But, hey, we all have to make a living and if yours is trying to make fat Americans look good, you have my sympathy, if nothing else.

bit controversial

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2018 at 18:40 UTC
In reply to:

Peter1976: Guys, guys, guys... instead of complaining about the lame photos (which they are imho) it is worth to look who is the organzier of this strange "competition" or prize.
It is this one of a kind where you have to PAY to enter the competition. Each photo you enter costs you money.
As a marketing guy, I notice more and more "competitions" like that. A good way to make money for the organizer. The ones that pay hope for getting awareness/reputation (and therefore jobs). As easy as that.
And It is by far not an unbiased jury...
Another example of a ridiculous prize/competition is the "red dot award". Pay enough money and get it. So who cares about this "international Wedding ... blabla". It is a marketing thing.

It's the same as paying to be a member of an association, like the SWPP here in the UK. Anyone can pay, so anyone can be accredited, which voids the accreditation. All it proves (to couples - to anyone) is that you've got a direct debit going out every month. That's it. It doesn't mean that you're an approved professional with ethics. You might be, but the membership doesn't make that so.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2018 at 14:11 UTC
In reply to:

Peter1976: Guys, guys, guys... instead of complaining about the lame photos (which they are imho) it is worth to look who is the organzier of this strange "competition" or prize.
It is this one of a kind where you have to PAY to enter the competition. Each photo you enter costs you money.
As a marketing guy, I notice more and more "competitions" like that. A good way to make money for the organizer. The ones that pay hope for getting awareness/reputation (and therefore jobs). As easy as that.
And It is by far not an unbiased jury...
Another example of a ridiculous prize/competition is the "red dot award". Pay enough money and get it. So who cares about this "international Wedding ... blabla". It is a marketing thing.

Most awards are paid for - yes. In the wedding industry, everyone is an "award Winning' Photographer. Regional finalists, one of the 50 Best photographers in the UK etc. All 'Masters of Photography before they're 30 years old.

It means they can charge more to their clients, is all.

Don't get me wrong - if I had an award (I don't know - best hat in photography?) I'd tell everyone all about it too.

The problem is that I can't afford to enter all of these competitions (both financially and ethically) and besides I suffer from an abject fear of rejection, so not winning is not an option!

Anyway, which competition really means something/anything? Recognition from industry insiders is pointless to couples who want some great photography on their wedding day. What do my clients care if I was 'voted one of the best 50 photographers in a region'?

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2018 at 14:07 UTC
In reply to:

jadot: it has to be said that spending 5 minutes on Instagram (assuming you follow people like Jonas Peterson, Jose Villa, et al) will yield real wedding photographs that tell a more visceral and moving story of people than perhaps any of these, at least in the context they're delivered.

And that's another thing; any wedding is a sequence of events that tell a story - how can one image be held up to represent the pinnacle of the story of the day? Two Mann Studios are probably the exception to the rule here - their photography is very deserving of any recognition, but the rest of the images (The rings? Please!) come across as a bit silly. They might mean everything to the bride and groom if they are in their proper context, but here they just look ridiculous.

There should be some sort of campaign against these kinds of competitions - they aren't representative of an industry and they only serve to confuse couples who are getting married in some normal every day way.

No - you can't have the sun setting behind you both as you run down a beach in slo-mo in California because you're getting married in Guildford! (And your wedding or marriage won't mean anything less because of that).

Look. I don't really care. I'm not entering into competitions, and I'm not really into the whole 'award winning' tag either, but the fact is that giving away 10K worth of equipment or more doesn't tell us anything in particular about anything in particular.

To single out images as winners isn't helpful to the photographers either. A bit of recognition maybe, but a whole load of scorn for images which should be kept private and in the context they were intended to be. Otherwise the whole thing is a cynical exercise in industry back scratching.

There are millions of pictures being taken and shared every day, and these are the best ones?

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2018 at 13:58 UTC

it has to be said that spending 5 minutes on Instagram (assuming you follow people like Jonas Peterson, Jose Villa, et al) will yield real wedding photographs that tell a more visceral and moving story of people than perhaps any of these, at least in the context they're delivered.

And that's another thing; any wedding is a sequence of events that tell a story - how can one image be held up to represent the pinnacle of the story of the day? Two Mann Studios are probably the exception to the rule here - their photography is very deserving of any recognition, but the rest of the images (The rings? Please!) come across as a bit silly. They might mean everything to the bride and groom if they are in their proper context, but here they just look ridiculous.

There should be some sort of campaign against these kinds of competitions - they aren't representative of an industry and they only serve to confuse couples who are getting married in some normal every day way.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2018 at 13:58 UTC as 15th comment | 2 replies

I find that not entering into competitions means I can do what the F*** I like with my pictures without worrying about what kind of backlash I'm due.

Maybe he should try that?

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2018 at 16:17 UTC as 4th comment
On article Cactus announces palm-sized RQ250 wireless monolight (85 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sam Bennett: Happy to see more options here, but the Godox AD200 is still a more compelling offering to me due to the size. It's a little less powerful, but good enough for my needs. Would be curious to see a color consistency comparison between the two.

The Ad200is fine for most uses . The cactus looks good to me, but I don't doubt that Godox will update the AD200 at some point soon to give us more power. Maybe an Ad360 etc...

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2018 at 09:54 UTC

Looks like a great wedding camera. Kudos to Sony.
(I don't need one - I shoot Fuji - but if I was in Sony's world I'd probably be pretty pleased today)

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2018 at 17:36 UTC as 96th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

LessMirrored19: I texted canon Facebook page " congratulations for the release of the A7 iii , its a perfect entry level mirrorless "
Canon : we didn't make this camera
Me : I know you can't make such good camera....

You do know this isn't actually very clever or very funny don't you? Predictable and dull, maybe. But funny it aint.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2018 at 14:53 UTC
In reply to:

NJOceanView: I saw the headline and thought this is old news. So I really appreciate your providing the context up front, and then giving us far better background into this venture than frankly any of their own internal marketing pieces provided. I initially thought I would never trust a start-up when my SanDisk cards have been so reliable for over 21 years of me shooting digital. But the team here make a compelling argument for considering them -- at least for one of the two card slots. Thanks for digging deeper.

Ha! I just had a look - that’s an awesome bit of kit! It made me remember that actually my first digital camera must have been a point and shoot probably around 2000 or 2001 I suppose. I think it was a Canon Ixus something or other. I left it in a taxi one evening and that was the end of that.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2018 at 10:40 UTC
In reply to:

NJOceanView: I saw the headline and thought this is old news. So I really appreciate your providing the context up front, and then giving us far better background into this venture than frankly any of their own internal marketing pieces provided. I initially thought I would never trust a start-up when my SanDisk cards have been so reliable for over 21 years of me shooting digital. But the team here make a compelling argument for considering them -- at least for one of the two card slots. Thanks for digging deeper.

Wow, I didn’t get my first digital camera until around 2002 I think. I Remember thinking that I was fairly quick off the mark. What was around 21 years ago in 1997? I’m not that clued up on 90’s digital cameras...

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2018 at 22:02 UTC
Total: 675, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »