Teila Day

Teila Day

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

Comments

Total: 809, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

larrytusaz: I'm not for the permit requirement yet still, whatever happened to shoots in a studio? Why does seemingly EVERY photo now HAVE to be taken outside?

Just depends on the customer. Some would rather have the beach grasses and sugar white dunes in the background and others prefer studio shots. Looking back at family portraits, I would much rather today have the same portraits taken in spaces that were either outdoors in places where we lived, or in our own homes. The studio shots are fine portraits but beyond that don't offer the rich reminders of the past like shots in our natural element or places we visited, etc..

"Different strokes for different folks" as they say :)

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 20:23 UTC
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: Are you serious? Heck is not a curseword. its a PC word people that would die from hearing an actual curseword use & now thats even to rude? Its only a matter of time when the word Bye is considered an insult or a threat >.< Guys seriously WTH!

I suspect DPreview should've added clarity in parentheses... and I won't comment about the level of silliness associated with adults making references to "borks" and "hecks".

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 20:10 UTC
In reply to:

Teila Day: Hell will freeze over and turn to ice cream thrice before I even *think* about getting a permit to take personal photographs on any public beach on planet earth.

@RedFox88, I read the article, comprehended the article and stand by my statement. Irrespective of what may be required (or even misinterpreted by some) it wouldn't matter to me because I wouldn't ever pay money to take personal photographs under any circumstance (which was my only point). My sentiment makes clear *why* I wouldn't misinterpret any requirement to pay since I'd disregard any requirement to pay fees outright unless the fees concern paid work.

Presumptuously read my comment ... eh?

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 20:28 UTC
In reply to:

steelhead3: Laguna Beach wants to be an exclusive white rich person colony which bad artists can sell their wares...in reality, it is the largest tract housing development in the world.

No, Laguna Beach wants to be a resort enclave that keeps looking like a resort beach town that hasn't been overrun by two-legged rats who move in, lower real property values, increase crime, and slowly financially depress the area. "Tract-housing" isn't a bad thing *in this context* to many people. Tract housing where the median household income is $35k per annum (as opposed to $150k/annum) is an entirely different visual definition... I think we all know that. ;)

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 20:20 UTC
In reply to:

hfjacinto: I've been to Laguna, it's a beautiful area with lots of weddings on the weekends. Check out Santa Barbara it's as bad on Friday - Sunday. Even model shoots on the beach.

.... but look at that wonderful background you get when shooting in Santa Barbara! You can't get that most places around the U.S., which often look horrible in comparison to Santa Barbra. I think California generally offers the best location shooting in the U.S. :)

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 19:20 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: I'm not for the permit requirement yet still, whatever happened to shoots in a studio? Why does seemingly EVERY photo now HAVE to be taken outside?

Where has it been all this time? It's been there, but the glut of photographers decades ago figured they'd copy everyone else and have a "studio", which does have advantages and a lot of disadvantages when it comes to interesting portraiture as opposed to a family sitting in front of fabric or paper with the man's hand obligatorily a'rest on his wife's shoulder and her head tilted just so....

I'd much rather have portraits of my family done outdoors with the photographer facing the sun, no squinting required; slight sea breeze in our hair...
Just because you're outside, doesn't keep you from having "studio lighting" on location.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 17:51 UTC
On article Adobe achieves record revenue (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: This is bad news.
It will push even more software companies to adopt a "rental only" model, disguised as cloud.

In the end, it will all collapse when people start to refuse to run hundreds of software subscriptions.

Of course I brought up drugs, because it's a truth, like fatty foods, and other things that I mentioned. Let's just skip to the bottom line, which is, everything that I wrote was true irrespective of the number of people who forego cable. It's common knowledge that most poor people in the U.S. have personal access to a TV and a large percentage of that demographic has traditional cable (especially since TV went digital).

There isn't a reasonable study on the planet that would assert that poor people in the U.S. don't *generally* have cable television. Many rural people not having tv has absolutely no bearing on the f-a-c-t that a significant number of poor people do.

The bottom line is that if someone makes a tool, service or software, then be ready to pay for it. If you can't afford it, or think the price is too high, I recommend at least trying to make a better product or provide a better service as opposed to sitting around belly aching.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 00:42 UTC

Hell will freeze over and turn to ice cream thrice before I even *think* about getting a permit to take personal photographs on any public beach on planet earth.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 23:55 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
On article Adobe achieves record revenue (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: This is bad news.
It will push even more software companies to adopt a "rental only" model, disguised as cloud.

In the end, it will all collapse when people start to refuse to run hundreds of software subscriptions.

I'm starting to wonder what score you achieved on the SAT, ACT, GMAT, GRE, etc... you seem to have trouble with comprehension. I don't mean that as a dig.

"statistically significant number of poor people in the U.S. near, and even under the "poverty" threshold, have cable TV and spend money on the aforementioned." ... did you not see the first two words in that sentence?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 21:06 UTC
On article Adobe achieves record revenue (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: This is bad news.
It will push even more software companies to adopt a "rental only" model, disguised as cloud.

In the end, it will all collapse when people start to refuse to run hundreds of software subscriptions.

Most poor people in the U.S. live in some sort of domicile. You can replace the word "drugs" with tanning, hair salon, nail stations, wax jobs, shoes, fast food, etc.. The reality is that a statistically significant number of poor people in the U.S. near, and even under the "poverty" threshold, have cable TV and spend money on the aforementioned.

Adobe has done what many photographers have done... abandoned the nickel-and-dime way of doing business.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 20:49 UTC
On article Adobe achieves record revenue (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: This is bad news.
It will push even more software companies to adopt a "rental only" model, disguised as cloud.

In the end, it will all collapse when people start to refuse to run hundreds of software subscriptions.

@HowavboutRAW, surely you realize that a significant number of people across the U.S. that can't pay their rent, but obtain money for drugs, cigarettes and cable. People will pay for what they really want.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 09:18 UTC
On article Adobe achieves record revenue (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: This is bad news.
It will push even more software companies to adopt a "rental only" model, disguised as cloud.

In the end, it will all collapse when people start to refuse to run hundreds of software subscriptions.

Adobe isn't "gouging" anyone. Adobe doesn't sell Oxygen. You can't reasonably accuse Ferrari for 'price gouging' just because they require $75,000 or more for certain options. That's just directing your services/product to an ideal buying demographic that's eager to pay the asking prices as opposed to whining.. It's ridiculous to play to a demographic that wants to add *less* to your bottom line!

Too many photographers are hypocrites. They want top dollar for their work, but whine when other artists or creators (in this case software) require the same. The nerve of some people who'd charge $5,000 to photograph a bride/groom cutting darn cake and dancing; who demand people pay to use their stock photographs, who require payment for a 'license' to use realty related photos, but seethe when others do the same. Those want-something-for-nothing folks can go kick cobbles with open toe high heels.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 09:06 UTC
On article Adobe achieves record revenue (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

Matsu: Adobe built a platform that became the de-facto industry standard, so when they moved it to a subscription model, many users had little choice but to follow.

Essentially, they've run a legal ransom-ware racket, so of course it's profitable: Pay up or get locked out of the industry platform. I'm not sure whether a subscription model can spring new from the ground up and expect similar success without a previously installed base to coerce into monthly payments. "Buying" all your apps this way will quickly get very expensive.

I'm sticking with CS6, for now it's still in my SW/HW upgrade cycle, typically 4-6yrs between updates. I routinely submit to print/design shops with far older software still in daily use.

However, Adobe should assume nothing about my future business. Alternatives will be weighed heavily against Adobe's price structure & features when the time comes.

@HowaboutRAW.... Adobe *IS* "working with" the customer demographic it deems more financially significant (business 101) and look... it's working! (chuckle). ;)

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 08:22 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: Who shoots portraits at 35mm?

@JackM ... a lot of photographers who make money shooting portraits who are past using the 85 and 135, etc., as if they're a photographic robot shooting portraits the way every tom, dick and harry wielding a 135 f/2 lens shoots them. So much more to photography than that. Wide angle catches more "real life" in many instances. Many viewers are interested in seeing that as opposed to the oh-so-typical. :)

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 08:16 UTC
In reply to:

Arca45Swiss: Manual focus ?

@noirdesir, you're correct... Zeiss even had on their website at one point stating that the optical formula differences were not significant with the Milvus line compared to the ZE/ZF set. Nice lenses either way-- love the long buttery smooth focus throw.. and slight off-colour of the ZE 100mm makro.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 08:10 UTC
In reply to:

quietrich: A new lens from Zeiss is in the ‘other news’ column, whilst some idiot cutting a lens in half with a water jet on YouTube is considered ‘news’ enough to be in the main content. I just don’t get it.

I’ve never really understood the combination of a fast aperture and wide FoV. 35mm would never be my lens of choice for portraits; 50mm hits the sweet spot for me. But I do use the Zeiss Biogon 2/35 zm for landscapes and it’s a great lens for £700 or so.

The 50mm lens is the dustiest lens in my bag. I'd find the 35 focal length more useful indoors. You can shoot on a 1.5 crop camera for affect or FF for up close in your face wide angle shots. Options.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 08:03 UTC
In reply to:

quietrich: A new lens from Zeiss is in the ‘other news’ column, whilst some idiot cutting a lens in half with a water jet on YouTube is considered ‘news’ enough to be in the main content. I just don’t get it.

I’ve never really understood the combination of a fast aperture and wide FoV. 35mm would never be my lens of choice for portraits; 50mm hits the sweet spot for me. But I do use the Zeiss Biogon 2/35 zm for landscapes and it’s a great lens for £700 or so.

I thought it was just me... at least now I know I'm not the only one not giving a rats behind about water cutting through a lens (on this site). How long have they been cutting lenses and cameras with water now anyway?

About portraits... wide and fast lenses make sense for in-your-face shots with a wide angle lens. The faster aperture often helps with what otherwise would wind up being a ratty out of focus area even though you're shooting up close. The wider aperture also helps when shooting indoor ambient light portraits. Fast wide lenses are also bread-and-butter tools for shooting porn, art nudes, fine art shots of the human body (or whatever label you might want to use). Some like owning the gear, but many others will use the lens and gaping aperture as a work horse.

Wide apertures also help when shooting wide in the early morning at a distance of say 20 feet (or more), where a "thin" DOF can be nearly 10ft. Useful when shooting in a hallway the length of a living room.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 07:57 UTC
On article Adobe achieves record revenue (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: It's nothing short of amazing how people who seem to have a problem with renting software (...a direct, clear cut, quid-pro-quo arrangement where I, for example, spend less daily than I spend on coffee...) and, yet, seemed to not have a problem whatsoever in the days where the self-contained software they purchased was not actually theirs, as per EULAs.

...Never about the essential, always about the accessory...

Yes, many people complaining will spend more per month on cigarettes, alcohol, and or fatty foods. The bottom line is that Adobe's obligation is to their bottom line. Period. Business is about making money from a stable demographic and it seems that Adobe is doing just that. I use CS6 mainly, but I applaud Adobe for doing what makes the best business sense.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2017 at 19:35 UTC
On article Adobe achieves record revenue (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

Matsu: Adobe built a platform that became the de-facto industry standard, so when they moved it to a subscription model, many users had little choice but to follow.

Essentially, they've run a legal ransom-ware racket, so of course it's profitable: Pay up or get locked out of the industry platform. I'm not sure whether a subscription model can spring new from the ground up and expect similar success without a previously installed base to coerce into monthly payments. "Buying" all your apps this way will quickly get very expensive.

I'm sticking with CS6, for now it's still in my SW/HW upgrade cycle, typically 4-6yrs between updates. I routinely submit to print/design shops with far older software still in daily use.

However, Adobe should assume nothing about my future business. Alternatives will be weighed heavily against Adobe's price structure & features when the time comes.

Yes, of course, "ransom" like a newspaper, magazine, college or an apartment. Frankly, subscription *is* the better business model and Adobe didn't go into business to be affordable or to make people happy. Adobe is in business to make a money. While I use CS6 (mainly) because there hasn't been any advances to Photoshop/InDesign that make me want to subscribe; you can bet that I will *gladly* subscribe when such advances become available.

I would also subscribe if I was a business where the differences between CS6 and CC saved a significant amount of time, and or made a significant difference in workflow.

If Adobe purchased Phase One... now that would be not only interesting, but would get a lot of people to bite at say, $29.95/mo USD. From a business standpoint, the possibilities of the subscription model are almost boundless.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2017 at 19:32 UTC
On article Adobe achieves record revenue (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: This is bad news.
It will push even more software companies to adopt a "rental only" model, disguised as cloud.

In the end, it will all collapse when people start to refuse to run hundreds of software subscriptions.

Why is it bad news? If you spend your time making a great product you should be compensated in a manner that maximizes profits right?

Nothing will "collapse" until the subscription price outpaces what people are willing to pay (not close to that point), or when "the people" get off their duffs and write and offer their own software which proves better than what Adobe, PhaseOne, et al can write... and we're not close to that point either.

People complain about their cable bill, but at least in the U.S. even poor people will pay for it until technology gets to the point where traditional cable is no longer attractive to tens of thousands of Americans (we're actually moving toward getting to that point).

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2017 at 18:01 UTC
Total: 809, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »