Jacques Cornell

Jacques Cornell

Lives in Kazakhstan Almaty, Kazakhstan
Works as a photographer
Has a website at jacquescornell.photography
Joined on Jul 13, 2002
About me:

I've been actively engaged in photography for about 35 years, the past 20 as a professional. I studied photography at the Institute for Contemporary Photography in Tokyo and the International Center of Photography in New York, have photos in the permanent collection at the Kiyosato Museum of Photography in Japan, have taught photography at the Fashion Institute of Technology and the International Center of Photography in New York, co-founded event photography company Happening Photos in New York, and serve clients around the world. I also shoot, print, exhibit and sell fine art travel & landscape photos.

Comments

Total: 497, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

JamesVo: Well done. First time I see an article that summarises so well the conflict between weight, image quality, weather sealing and instant accessibility for landscape photography enthusiasts in high mountain environments...with some nice pics too! People that don't hike or climb don't get to see what we see and it is very difficult to carry a camera good enough to capture such scenes realistically.

I have struggled with these issues too, carrying, at times, up to 6kg including D800, 2 lenses, tripod and acessories on multiday trips. The biggest issue for me has been accessibility. The big heavy camera goes on top of the backpack and I have to stop and remove the pack to get at the camera....so many shots get missed.

Thanks for posting and don't let the critical hyenas get to you, they just don't know what it's like to actually get shots like these.

Ebrahim Saadawi
"Is there really a conflict between image quality and weight since the day Sony crammed its 36mp sensor in the diminutive first A7-R and put a universal mount?"

Yes. It's the sizes of the lenses, not the bodies, that led me to choose a smaller format for travel.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 07:14 UTC
In reply to:

Ebrahim Saadawi: Nice images but I really think they'd benefit greatly from a higher dynamic range camera. Not under-expose-by-6-stops-and-crank-shadow-slider-up-to-max fake look, but just a bit enough to keep the slightly clipped highlight intact and keep the shadows noiseless for closer inspection. Not even change the actual contrast of the images because they look nicer this way with high contrast.

I mean it would REALLY make an appreciable difference.

Great images again. Thanks for posting the shooting experience.

I just shoot an exposure bracket - takes about 2 seconds - then merge to HDR in LR. Gives me much more than the 1-2 extra stops of HDR I'd get from a larger sensor, without the cost, weight and bulk.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 07:05 UTC

Clambering over rocks as I do on my day hikes, I would never carry my camera on my hip. Were I to slip, there's a good chance I'd land on the camera. Instead, I carry my GX7 & 14-140 in a TLZ pouch on my chest, suspended from D-rings on my backpack's shoulder straps. This provides protection from branches, brush, and precipitation as well.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 07:01 UTC as 58th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Jacques Cornell: Peak Designs gets a whole lot of free press these days. Makes me wonder if it's really free.

How about a review of OpTechUSA products? For decades, they've been making a complete system of modular components that can be configured for almost any purpose, letting you easily swap a camera from, say, a wrist strap to a shoulder strap to a dual sling harness. The stuff is versatile, reliable and affordable.

A lot of the expensive "new" strap products from boutique makers are essentially just repackaging OpTech's concepts at a higher price.

mosswings - In what way does it work better?

Impulses - I've been using OpTech stuff for 25 years - carrying heavy rigs like a Pentax 67 and Canon 1-series with long zooms and flashes around the world and through crowded banquet halls - and have never had a failure or accidental release or needed to replace any of it. I don't see how anything can be more "robust" or "stronger" than that.
I'm curious, though, what you mean by "Peak's fail mode will be more forgiving".
Good point about quick length adjustment. The only OpTech products I know of that have this are the the slings. That said, the slings are the only things I routinely need to adjust.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2017 at 07:02 UTC
In reply to:

Jacques Cornell: Peak Designs gets a whole lot of free press these days. Makes me wonder if it's really free.

How about a review of OpTechUSA products? For decades, they've been making a complete system of modular components that can be configured for almost any purpose, letting you easily swap a camera from, say, a wrist strap to a shoulder strap to a dual sling harness. The stuff is versatile, reliable and affordable.

A lot of the expensive "new" strap products from boutique makers are essentially just repackaging OpTech's concepts at a higher price.

Your take sounds even more cynical.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 14:36 UTC

Peak Designs gets a whole lot of free press these days. Makes me wonder if it's really free.

How about a review of OpTechUSA products? For decades, they've been making a complete system of modular components that can be configured for almost any purpose, letting you easily swap a camera from, say, a wrist strap to a shoulder strap to a dual sling harness. The stuff is versatile, reliable and affordable.

A lot of the expensive "new" strap products from boutique makers are essentially just repackaging OpTech's concepts at a higher price.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 14:28 UTC as 37th comment | 14 replies
In reply to:

cavensar: "We're going to need a bigger desk."

"We're going to need a neck brace."

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2017 at 14:19 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: The bride and groom really overdid it. As much as I thought the photographer was a mediocre wedding photographer at best and her practices were nickel and dime, this is probably the right verdict. She gave in after they complained - there was no reason to blast this all over the place.

It's only "shady" if she concealed it.
I agree, though, that it's an odd arrangement. Not the way I'd do it. Better to just charge $6250 up front and include the cover as part of the package. Or, charge $6000 and make the cover a $250 option. But, then, I haven't read the details of this case, so I don't know whether the clients had reason to feel aggrieved, or if they were just willfully ignorant of the terms. In the end, the court ruled with the photog, so it hardly seems constructive to be pointing fingers at her.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 20:33 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: The bride and groom really overdid it. As much as I thought the photographer was a mediocre wedding photographer at best and her practices were nickel and dime, this is probably the right verdict. She gave in after they complained - there was no reason to blast this all over the place.

"Nickel and dime" is how you keep up-front costs down for clients who can't afford extras. Example: gilded printing on the album cover: $50. Don't want it? Don't buy it. A photographer has to make a living. It's gonna cost what it's gonna cost, whether the bill has just one line item or 20, and the customer accepts these terms in signing the contract.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 18:36 UTC
In reply to:

girlperson1: I've been asked several times to do weddings....no way would I ever get into that business. Bridezillas.

Close friends and family are the most perilous.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 18:33 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: It seems the news media should have been sued for defamation since they are the ones that took it and ran with it.

There's a difference between reporting and supporting.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

NorCalAl: I'm an amateur and accepted an offer to shoot my girlfriend's daughter's wedding. I spent around two grand swapping out gear and buying better suited great for the wedding. Drove twice to the venue over five hours away. Once to test lighting and scope out good outdoor sports and once for the event. She didn't even thank me. I gave them all the processed shots but not the raw images. Her mother told her this and she interpreted that as I had held something back. She talked crap about me for years, to people I'd never met and didn't know me. Five years later I met a couple that knew her and introduced myself. They acted shocked. The man laughed and said "after all we've heard about you and the wedding pictures, we expected a monster!" Five years later. Fortunately, I had no business to be ruined.

A cautionary tale for amateurs who see wedding work for friends, colleagues, or "casual" clients as a shortcut on the winding path to building a career in photography. Money + high emotions + friends and family = recipe for disaster.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 18:30 UTC
In reply to:

Bobthearch: I wonder why a large company like P&G doesn't have their own in-house photographer and photo studios? They would own the copyrights and save a fortune in licensing fees, especially if they end up losing millions because they could not adequately track each individual image license.

Or why they don't negotiate to purchase the copyrights from the outside photographers?

Bobthearch:
Thanks for being a gentleman. Sorry if I fell short of that standard.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 15:08 UTC
In reply to:

Bobthearch: I wonder why a large company like P&G doesn't have their own in-house photographer and photo studios? They would own the copyrights and save a fortune in licensing fees, especially if they end up losing millions because they could not adequately track each individual image license.

Or why they don't negotiate to purchase the copyrights from the outside photographers?

It's simple. Photographers are not interchangeable. One in-house photographer cannot produce the range of work that access to many freelancers provides. A large company may need a wider variety of ideas, styles, skills, and experience than a single in-house photographer can provide. That is why agencies and photo buyers are constantly shopping for new talent.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 13:15 UTC
In reply to:

Bobthearch: I wonder why a large company like P&G doesn't have their own in-house photographer and photo studios? They would own the copyrights and save a fortune in licensing fees, especially if they end up losing millions because they could not adequately track each individual image license.

Or why they don't negotiate to purchase the copyrights from the outside photographers?

Bobthearch:
Photographers are not copyrights. Do I really need to spell it out?

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 21:06 UTC
In reply to:

Zigmont: Good luck wit dat. Huge U.S. mega corporation vs. Jane Doe? In the world of U.S. corporate owned government where corporations can do no wrong and the consumer is a pawn designed to hand over money, who do you think is going to win?

Says the Russian troll trying to convince Americans all their institutions are worthless. Nice try, but no cigar. I'll take rule of law over victory to the richest any day.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 21:02 UTC
In reply to:

Gediminas 8: LOL, why not 75,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in damages? You know, photographs are SO valuable!

"Name a photo that P & G has used that anyone remembers?"
You don't have to remember it for it to have influenced your purchasing decisions. They're not selling high art, they're selling diapers.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 21:00 UTC
In reply to:

photo099: L.O.L... why NOT $7,500.00 or $17,500.00... no lawyers, but $75,000 000.00?... Give me a break, Pls.

photo099:
It might make sense if you'd learn about "punitive damages" and the function they serve. Your suggestion essentially gives the rich a license to break any law they want for a cost they won't even feel.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 20:58 UTC
In reply to:

laddsmith: Sounds to me like P&G made a mistake. I think I made a mistake once, but good luck getting $75M out of me, but then P&G has deep pockets, and I certainly do not. So the attorneys want to go for the max. Absolutely crazy attorney stuff-she should be paid fairly and maybe given a little additional for her trouble, etc. $75M-think of how much of that will end up going to the attorneys. Let us have some reason here.

"she should be paid fairly and maybe given a little additional for her trouble"
Bullies with deep pockets would love that, since they could do whatever they want, and they wouldn't even feel the tiny pinch on their big, fat wallets.
Punitive damages are intended to make the cost of misbehavior high enough to deter would-be abusers. Think about it: if the cost of a parking ticket were a penny, wouldn't you just park wherever you wanted? For a company like P&G, a $100,000 settlement might as well be a penny.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 20:55 UTC
In reply to:

samsaamsaaam: When are we going to realize only the lawyers win, and everybody else loses, in one way or another?

When the culprit pays and the victim gets nothing. Fortunately, this doesn't happen, so I have no idea why you're trying to discourage photographers from suing for damages. Maybe you work for P&G?

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 20:47 UTC
Total: 497, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »