Teila Day

Teila Day

Lives in United States FL, United States
Has a website at www.teiladay.com
Joined on Apr 5, 2005
About me:

A saucy grandmother who'd much rather wrestle a Cessna Caravan down to the runway in a stiff crosswind, discuss housing market, socioeconomic demographic related to housing, or photograph clients in beautiful ball gowns, hats, and premium hosiery... than bake a cake, entertain toddlers, or coo in the face of infants.

You can find me primarily shooting in the greater California Bay Area, California's San Joaquin Valley, Indiana, and along Florida's Gulf Coast where I seem to spend a lot of time lately; even summers (Oh the humidity!).

Comments

Total: 1176, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Eliot Kramer: Can someone explain what "gentle sharpness" is?
Is that the same as "out of focus" or "soft low resolution", because I have plenty of photos with "gentle sharpness" that I have been hiding from clients but might now consider selling to them with that moniker?
See, totally Zeiss Supreme quality photo, nothing is in focus, so gentle.
Come on. I know they will be high quality, but the advertisers are just silly with those words.
Don't even go into "elegant bokeh", cause I had no idea bokeh was wearing anything stylish and elegant, mine has been pretty naked up to now. Not sure that is the best adjective to pair with bokeh.

I'd guess that means the opposite of true-to-life colours and stark sharpness. e.g. shooting with the Canon 200 f/2 as opposed to shooting with the Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 which gives a slight grey-blue-purple tint which at times gives the impression of a "softer" bokeh.... which may also give the impression of a "softer" sharpness.

Not unlike shooting with some Leaf backs... the colours aren't realistic, giving a sort of "soft" fantasy look to the resulting file. I wonder if that's what they mean.

Who knows? Frankly I couldn't care less... when I purchase a lens, I go by the characteristics that I can discern with my own eyes, not what some manufacturer writes. That said... my eyes tend to fancy the results from the excellent Zeiss lenses over excellent OEM glass.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2018 at 17:10 UTC
In reply to:

NemanRa: hmm, how many megapixels is needed for those beasts?
regards

As you mention, there are situations where using a super telephoto lens (e.g. 600mm) + stitching can be the ideal way to create a compelling final image.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2018 at 22:08 UTC
In reply to:

princecody: That’s almost as much money Kevin Federline is asking Britney Spears for child support money lol. #TrueStoryBro

Britney should move to a country that doesn't support the idea of support beyond actually what it takes to support a child, and give Federline $200 monthly.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2018 at 20:41 UTC
In reply to:

Quantum Scientist: What's the difference between a Hoover vacuum and a lawyer on a motorcycle?

With the Hoover vacuum, the dirtbag is on the inside.

People disparage attorneys until they need one. The irony is that if it wasn't for "dirtbags" we wouldn't need tort related attorneys must of the time.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2018 at 20:34 UTC
In reply to:

NemanRa: hmm, how many megapixels is needed for those beasts?
regards

"... of course you can still always get more detail if you use a higher-resolution sensor. Just like you can always get more detail if you zoom.. "

It's like someone "zooming in" with a 35mm film camera then stitching the results together. No matter how many 35mm shots they stitch, the resulting print won't have the same detail as if they had photographed the same scene using 4x5 or 8x10 film.

Again, you might understand that, but many others do not... they think that zooming and stitching gives them the same detailed print as a much larger sensor (or sheet of film) as long as the final print or file has the same amount (or more) total "megapixels". That's all. Nothing against you, what you do, or how you work. :)

Link | Posted on May 27, 2018 at 21:18 UTC
In reply to:

NemanRa: hmm, how many megapixels is needed for those beasts?
regards

Yes and no. Yes, you'll see more detail when you zoom compared to using a smaller focal length, however (for example) you will never get the same detail with a 20mp camera as you will with an 80mp camera shooting the same scene at equivalent focal lengths no matter how much you stitch in any direction (horizontally and or vertically doesn't matter). :)

We're assuming both 20 and 80mp cameras' pixels are high quality... obviously and 80mp cell phone camera (at the time of this writing anyway) will not give you the same quality as a Nikon D850.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 02:41 UTC
In reply to:

NemanRa: hmm, how many megapixels is needed for those beasts?
regards

zsedcft, I know what stitching and focus stacking are; I first did both sometime back in the 1980's, however you gave a GREAT explanation and I thank you for it! (I'm am in no way being sarcastic!)

Please forgive my poor articulation of what I was trying to say as it was indeed confusing. I was trying to convey that if you stitch multiple images from a 20mp camera, you merely create a larger scene (more pixels) with the same "level" of detail... just more (pixels) of it.

Many (not those of you who know better) think 'stitching' is a substitute for higher resolution cameras as they interpret a "500mp image" comprised of multiple photographs from a 20mp camera (for example), to yield the same 'detail' as if the scene was shot with a 500mp camera.

With stitching you get more of the scene, but not a more *detailed* scene.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2018 at 17:57 UTC
In reply to:

NemanRa: hmm, how many megapixels is needed for those beasts?
regards

anticipation... Simply if you stitch 100 photographs together (taken with a 4mp camera), then you wind up with a huge 4mp detailed file or print (or scene). Likewise with a 20mp, 50mp or 150mp file.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2018 at 00:48 UTC
In reply to:

NemanRa: hmm, how many megapixels is needed for those beasts?
regards

Anticipation_of .... stitching 20mp shots together, only gives you a larger 20mp scene, which is beneficial for some. I've never been a fan, but there are a lot of great stitched final products out there.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2018 at 21:43 UTC
In reply to:

xiao_xiang: The world of free consumption meets politics: Trump wins election!

The world of free consumption meets photography: people sniping about advertorial content!

The lesser of two evils, I suppose.

People want free, but there is no such thing. No even clean air!

Oh but there is a such thing to the consumer, and from a business standpoint it just depends on how you monetize whatever it is you're doing. The bottom line is that most magazines are simply long outmoded by the internet where one can usually get better, more up-to-date, and faster information on photography as opposed to paying for a magazine only to read a 2-3page opinion piece on a particular camera... with the rest of the magazine by and large going unread by most people who made the purchase.

One can get better info here on DP in 24hrs, than sifting through 20yrs of various photo centric magazines... and experience-based-opinions (irrespective of subject matter) are more often than not, "free" ;)

Link | Posted on May 23, 2018 at 16:05 UTC

What he said was appropriate in today's ridiculous culture of "entitlement". He said what needed to be said, and needed to being heard. *However* If I was some bright eyed teenager today who cared about photograph high line cars, I'd focus on doing it through high end software instead, as it would be a more versatile skillset that, when coupled with other tech, marketing, and business skills.. will give a youngster a better shot at actually owning high line cars and homes, as opposed to photographing them ;)

Link | Posted on May 17, 2018 at 17:03 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Stollen1234: wondering if there is an adapter to use a very good Canon Camera with it.

There are multiple adapters (under $100 to over $200) to use Nikon glass with Canon. No AF though with the ones I've used.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 17:36 UTC
In reply to:

xPhoenix: Cool lens, but honestly, 12 grand? Those images are fine, but I think my 200-500 is just as capable. Even if it doesn't get me all the way there as far as IQ is concerned, it'll get me at least 95%. Spending over 8 times as much is just absurd, IMHO. Nikon needs to focus on lenses that real people are actually going to buy. 600PF at a reasonable price? Yes, please! This 100-400? No thanks.

xPhoenix..... there was a time when I thought the same about the 200 f/2 vs. 70-200 f/2.8. Here's the bottom line. If someone pays $12k over $2k.... most of the time there's a realistic reason why. While 1-stop or faster focus might not benefit you, for many it can be the difference between wasting thousands of dollars and effort or returning home with minimal missed shots.

Personally I'd rather use a 400 f/2.8 with TC or 600mm f/4 but that's me. I think the myriad of uses for this wonderful lens is rather evident. What took Nikon so darn long to do the obvious..

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 17:33 UTC
In reply to:

historianx: LOL all these silly statements by those who do NOT get WHO this lens is meant for. You guys crack me up. Keep up the cluelessness whilst I get some popcorn. This lens is meant for the highest level of photographic professional, not DPR forum denizens who value razor sharp pictures of their cats with dust-pumper variable aperture zooms. LMMFAO.

Marcio, I think the takeaway here is multi-faceted. (1) A stellar portfolio for most people buying gear isn't going to make a change in their life, lifestyle or income.
(2) For many established professionals, whether their portfolio, display prints, or sample web page is updated or not isn't of any consequence to their income.

That's not a criticism toward you personally, rather just a reality for many people purchasing pricey gear. Some will buy this lens because they will enjoy it for themselves. Others will buy the lens because it will make getting the shot easier for *them*. Either way, when you swipe your credit card or 'click' the "buy" button and the transactions goes through-- at that instance you 'deserve' the lens because you paid for it.

When it comes to pro work you generally have two camps: (A) Those who want to make great work and receive accolades (B) Those who are focused primarily on making money with the least exertion.

Best in photography to you Marcio

Link | Posted on May 11, 2018 at 17:24 UTC
In reply to:

historianx: LOL all these silly statements by those who do NOT get WHO this lens is meant for. You guys crack me up. Keep up the cluelessness whilst I get some popcorn. This lens is meant for the highest level of photographic professional, not DPR forum denizens who value razor sharp pictures of their cats with dust-pumper variable aperture zooms. LMMFAO.

Hi Marcio

Please keep in mind that neither Nikon, or Canon care whether people buying their products are professionals or not. Money *IS* a measurement of whether one deserves something. If I earned enough money to buy a $10k lens or Ferrari, then I "deserve" it the moment I plunked my money down and met the seller's conditions.

Ferrari sold motorcars to support racing ambitions. Meaning he needed the *money*. Ferrari, Porsche, McLaren (like Nikon, Canon, Leica, et al) aren't in business because of 'professionals', rather because of those who have a propensity to have disposable income.

Earning awards is different; but what counts in the real world isn't how great a portfolio is, or how many awards have been won... rather simply how well (or ruthless) one does business, and most often money (income) is irrefutably a direct testament of that; unless you're famous, that's all a manufacturer cares about.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 20:46 UTC
In reply to:

Aleks7: I don't know. It looks nice but very expensive, and I can't see any benefit over my 200 f2VR on D850 except the size. And I can imagine the AF will be nowhere near the Nikkor.
I tried recently the GFX50 with 120mm f4 Macro as that was my favourite lens on Mamiya 645 Pro. I really liked the Fuji, but I miss the point on why should I spent so much money for this system.

I use 100mm - 400mm for portraiture on FF, and nowadays with the Pentax 120, 300 and 400mm for the same; mostly using 120mm. I don't find 300mm particularly long on FF; let alone on MF. 240mm on MF isn't any "reach" to write home about, but it would be great for beach portraits, though I prefer an even longer focal length.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2018 at 04:17 UTC
In reply to:

Aleks7: I don't know. It looks nice but very expensive, and I can't see any benefit over my 200 f2VR on D850 except the size. And I can imagine the AF will be nowhere near the Nikkor.
I tried recently the GFX50 with 120mm f4 Macro as that was my favourite lens on Mamiya 645 Pro. I really liked the Fuji, but I miss the point on why should I spent so much money for this system.

vdcd, yes.. we do. .. and no it won't be "equal" because the current crop of 54x40mm'ish 100mp backs are larger sensors, which to many is much more than just a marginal benefit over a 33x44mm variety in utility alone.

Not making a comparison or purchase decision on something that is a given going forward in the market place is ridiculous when it comes to smart purchase planning. Kinda like all the Nikon shooters who bought up DX lenses swearing that Nikon would never go FF. More than a few MF shooters are thinking about this lens on a 100mp body.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2018 at 06:17 UTC
In reply to:

Teila Day: Very, very good news to hear that there's activity in this area (larger sensors); ideally with continued research in this area, we'll see something along the lines of a 300mp 6x7 or 6x9 camera. I hope this type of exploration continues and would like to see more people get into bringing much larger sensors into fruition.

I'm not talking about the specifics of this camera's design or their plans, rather in general the more activity there is with larger sensors, the quicker many of us can get to shooting larger sensors with the kind of resolution that we'd expect from shooting such. For lugging a camera around, medium format is the sweet spot, especially in 6x7 (or larger) trim.

At least 5 years-10 years from now, a 300mp MF camera is something that one can conceivably reason into their inventory as it can quickly be put to work in many areas. Location fashion/portrait/glamour/editorial, studio work (portraits, product, etc.), industrial, landscapes, and so on.... Not too many people are looking forward to lugging a 4x5 or 8x10 around for any reason in comparison to a more rounded high resolution 6x7 or 6x9. 300mp 6x7 is something that can be done now... just a matter of time until more MF innovation and prices fall like a rock.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2018 at 05:47 UTC
In reply to:

Aleks7: I don't know. It looks nice but very expensive, and I can't see any benefit over my 200 f2VR on D850 except the size. And I can imagine the AF will be nowhere near the Nikkor.
I tried recently the GFX50 with 120mm f4 Macro as that was my favourite lens on Mamiya 645 Pro. I really liked the Fuji, but I miss the point on why should I spent so much money for this system.

Aleks7... It's common sense when it comes to these things right? The current GFX sensor is nearly a 5 year old design. So realistically you're looking at a 250mm lens mated to a 100mp GFX; that's what people should be making comparisons to.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 06:44 UTC

Very, very good news to hear that there's activity in this area (larger sensors); ideally with continued research in this area, we'll see something along the lines of a 300mp 6x7 or 6x9 camera. I hope this type of exploration continues and would like to see more people get into bringing much larger sensors into fruition.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2018 at 18:33 UTC as 10th comment | 3 replies
Total: 1176, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »