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 the local housing market or photograph clients in beautiful ball gowns, hats, and premium hosiery... than bake a cake, hold infants, or coo in the face of babies.

You can find me primarily shooting in the greater California Bay Area and 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: 1109, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

FelixC2013: Your news articles are always so timely. He died nine days ago and Petapixel broke the story last Saturday and you guys finally decide to run with the story today?

I'm not at all opposed to immigration. I am opposed to letting people into the country who haven't proven their financial ability, who hail from countries that **typically produce immigrants who do not embrace Western culture upon immigrating here**, etc.. Irrespective of a person's income- I don't want a culturally incompatible person in my community who refuses to conform to the established lifestyle to include noise. At no time should I hear your noise when I'm in my home unless you're mowing, edging, sawing, etc..

I don't care what you look like or where you're from, if you can't culturally conform; believe in restricting the personal rights of others based on your religion; don't meet a certain income threshold, etc... then I don't want you immigrating to this country.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2018 at 23:52 UTC
In reply to:

FelixC2013: Your news articles are always so timely. He died nine days ago and Petapixel broke the story last Saturday and you guys finally decide to run with the story today?

sop51: "Marty...Teila Day only mentions "immigration." No mention of undocumented immigrants (I prefer not to use "illegal immigrant") appears in Teila Day's post."

Incorrect. I specifically mentioned "poor immigrants". If 60 immigrant families move within 2 miles of our housing community, and they each have a family income of $90k/annum; that does not usually have the same affect on the surrounding housing area, housing market and *existing* and *prospective* businesses as immigrants with a family income of $25k or less.

Your links don't address realities obvious to many property owners. The poor move in; home values drop, land values drop, crime increases, better businesses and healthier eateries stay away-- and if you're a business selling a discretionary products costing $675 or more... poor people don't add to your bottom line like a board certified oncologist or a family running the local boutique dental practice... irrespective of the family's legal/illegal status.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2018 at 23:40 UTC
In reply to:

FelixC2013: Your news articles are always so timely. He died nine days ago and Petapixel broke the story last Saturday and you guys finally decide to run with the story today?

sop51

Irrespective of how many immigrants are reported to be on assistance or paying taxes by the IRS (which can't keep even keep track of U.S. citizens) is not relevant to the reality that increase crime and neighborhood market depression has followed in MOST areas inundated with immigrants. We know that. Japan knows that. Sweden et al knows that.

Markets in many states have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in value and hundreds of *millions* of dollars in business revenue due to the poorer demographic moving in and the resulting "flight". Towns on their way to vibrancy now are fighting homelessness, crime, sour housing markets, and can't woo better businesses to their communities because of it.

**Hundreds of billions of dollars** in Equity, property tax, and potential earnings have been lost due to the influx of poor immigrants, which contrasts starkly against the relative drop-in-the bucket taxes that they do pay.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2018 at 21:55 UTC
In reply to:

xPhoenix: They were probably shooting with D850s. Need cheaper cameras, haha.

If the units purchased cameras like other units do, they're using D5's and 1Dx's and top glass. . such a waste. The first D2H and 17-35 f/2.8 lens I ever used was military. Same with expensive unneeded band equipment- the military wastes money there as well. We could save millions (plural) just by requiring the military to buy what it needs as opposed to what it wants.

When the end of the fiscal year comes near, it's a spending spree! Scanners, cameras, cool medical equipment that isn't needed, $140 ea. raincoats for soldiers in the unit, etc... just uncontrolled spending to be able to maintain a particular budget level. Lose it if you don't use it mentality.

The tax payer really needs to get involved.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2018 at 21:27 UTC
In reply to:

M Chambers: The women in combat need something to do.

Like flying the OH-58D or C-17, performing surgeries on military working dogs, administering anesthesia, etc..? Women have plenty to do besides standing behind a camera in the military if you didn't know.

Those two units needed to be cut because the job is and has long been outmoded.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2018 at 21:20 UTC
In reply to:

FelixC2013: Your news articles are always so timely. He died nine days ago and Petapixel broke the story last Saturday and you guys finally decide to run with the story today?

Everyone should keep in mind the real job of a news company. It isn't to give unbiased, raw reporting. The job of a news company is to sell a product; the obligation is to make money. I don't have an issue with that... I see "news" for what it is.

I'd rather see CNN, FOX, BBC, et al run a story about Trump getting a federal law passed that makes one ineligible for citizenship if you've drawn or enroll in public assistance.. and those enrolled are reported to ICE... but that's another thread for another forum ;)

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2018 at 16:49 UTC
In reply to:

FelixC2013: Your news articles are always so timely. He died nine days ago and Petapixel broke the story last Saturday and you guys finally decide to run with the story today?

If you want "Breaking news", look to CNN or elsewhere. I don't think a bit over a week to publish *this* story is a big deal; reasonable thinking by this site judging the number of comments thus far. Though the loss of human life in this case *is* important. When Petapixel does/does not break a story is irrelevant on *this* photo gear related site.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2018 at 16:09 UTC
In reply to:

User3366538285: Just curious, and not meaning at all to minimize the severity of the incident. Question to pilots and engineers: what would happen if the drone struck the aircraft? I guess it depends "where on the aircraft", i.e.: cockpit - very bad, tail section - not so bad, engine - serious, etc.

Can cause damage which could range in the amount of thousands of dollars, to millions of dollars (literally). An engine can cost over $10million to give you something to go by. So when you factor in how much direct and indirect cost an insurance company would have to pay just because one fool's drone got sucked into the engine, you'll see why people get upset over these types of people having access to drones.

These irresponsible people are putting the flying community at risk physically and financially.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2018 at 08:20 UTC
In reply to:

Einride: Isn’t it time to bury the term ‘full frame’? It’s a dinosaur from the times before the 5D and D3 where people’s film era lenses got cropped due to the smaller sensor of DSLR.

The Fujifilm X system, for example, isn’t crop. The lenses are designed for super35, or APSC, and nothing is being cropped. It’s just a smaller format than 135. Just as m43 isn’t crop either, it’s a different format.

It’s the 135 format. Or 35mm format. Especially when discussing cine cameras it would be appropriate to write “slightly larger than 35mm”.

Not "angry" at all. Best of the day and best in photography to you as well :)

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2018 at 06:53 UTC
In reply to:

Einride: Isn’t it time to bury the term ‘full frame’? It’s a dinosaur from the times before the 5D and D3 where people’s film era lenses got cropped due to the smaller sensor of DSLR.

The Fujifilm X system, for example, isn’t crop. The lenses are designed for super35, or APSC, and nothing is being cropped. It’s just a smaller format than 135. Just as m43 isn’t crop either, it’s a different format.

It’s the 135 format. Or 35mm format. Especially when discussing cine cameras it would be appropriate to write “slightly larger than 35mm”.

Peter, medium format is yet another area where people muddy the waters.. Medium format simply denotes sizes between 35mm and 4x5 just as it did decades ago before digital photography came into the fray.

Leica S2, Fuji GFX, 100mp PhaseOne, Hasselblad 6x6, Pentax 6x7, Mamiya 645.... all medium format. See, easy-peasy. (warm smile)

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2018 at 15:28 UTC
In reply to:

John Koch: €76,608.37 is the price for body only? Why not simply €80,000? In that budget league, do people ponder small change? Some of the lenses presumably cost over €10,000 apiece. Realistically, the problem is more likely to be what security deposit, insurance, or rental rates a lessor will have to apply to recoup the costs before the gear breaks, becomes obsolete, or gets entangled in projects that become insolvent or default.

rfsIII... that's just what most financially aggressive people who value money do whether they're in film or not; whether they're in business or not.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 22:18 UTC
In reply to:

Einride: Isn’t it time to bury the term ‘full frame’? It’s a dinosaur from the times before the 5D and D3 where people’s film era lenses got cropped due to the smaller sensor of DSLR.

The Fujifilm X system, for example, isn’t crop. The lenses are designed for super35, or APSC, and nothing is being cropped. It’s just a smaller format than 135. Just as m43 isn’t crop either, it’s a different format.

It’s the 135 format. Or 35mm format. Especially when discussing cine cameras it would be appropriate to write “slightly larger than 35mm”.

Peter, doing the math based on sensor or film size makes sense to get an idea of how a particular focal length will report on a particular camera, which is expected. The point however is to get away from "FF" being the standard format; since other formats are just as, if not more, prevalent today and much of the newer generations can't relate to using 35mm film anyway; making even less sense to use FF as a standard, even though doing the math between formats (sensor and film sizes) is, of course, expected. :)

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 22:16 UTC
In reply to:

primeshooter: As someone that has produced stock photography for years with some of the big players, it is frustrating to see a lot of people giving their product away; as Zack rightly said this is truly a race to the bottom. Big corporations etc really see these people coming. Big woop if you got printed in a newspaper / used in a magazine with your name next to it and did not get paid. You got worked over! It is amusing to see on the unsplash site the part about you do not have to credit the photographer but we like it if you do. Photographers that are on their giving away their stuff; have no illusions it's not going to magically turn into paid work etc. If you are good at something; never do it for free.

Thumbs up!

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2018 at 23:31 UTC
In reply to:

JosephScha: I have a way this situation can be avoided. Erect an 8 foot high opaque barrier across the part of curve where you don't want any photographer to stand. They won't stand there.

Thank you!

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2018 at 23:29 UTC
In reply to:

Einride: Isn’t it time to bury the term ‘full frame’? It’s a dinosaur from the times before the 5D and D3 where people’s film era lenses got cropped due to the smaller sensor of DSLR.

The Fujifilm X system, for example, isn’t crop. The lenses are designed for super35, or APSC, and nothing is being cropped. It’s just a smaller format than 135. Just as m43 isn’t crop either, it’s a different format.

It’s the 135 format. Or 35mm format. Especially when discussing cine cameras it would be appropriate to write “slightly larger than 35mm”.

Agreed. Just different size standards is all. Time for the FF descriptor to fall by the wayside.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2018 at 23:28 UTC
In reply to:

JosephScha: I have a way this situation can be avoided. Erect an 8 foot high opaque barrier across the part of curve where you don't want any photographer to stand. They won't stand there.

I think that's a compliment. If so, thank you. If not.. well, I can't win'm all :)

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2018 at 08:30 UTC
In reply to:

primeshooter: As someone that has produced stock photography for years with some of the big players, it is frustrating to see a lot of people giving their product away; as Zack rightly said this is truly a race to the bottom. Big corporations etc really see these people coming. Big woop if you got printed in a newspaper / used in a magazine with your name next to it and did not get paid. You got worked over! It is amusing to see on the unsplash site the part about you do not have to credit the photographer but we like it if you do. Photographers that are on their giving away their stuff; have no illusions it's not going to magically turn into paid work etc. If you are good at something; never do it for free.

Licensing photos (to-be-sold at competitive prices) is not "working for free". What I said was *sell* ("get paid for") photos that you were going to take *anyway* (e.g. while on vacation, business outing, political function, etc..) as opposed to wasting time, going out of your way to shoot stock; which is for most is no longer what's considered a "lucrative" facet of professional photography, even though there's still money to be made in stock.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2018 at 08:06 UTC
In reply to:

primeshooter: As someone that has produced stock photography for years with some of the big players, it is frustrating to see a lot of people giving their product away; as Zack rightly said this is truly a race to the bottom. Big corporations etc really see these people coming. Big woop if you got printed in a newspaper / used in a magazine with your name next to it and did not get paid. You got worked over! It is amusing to see on the unsplash site the part about you do not have to credit the photographer but we like it if you do. Photographers that are on their giving away their stuff; have no illusions it's not going to magically turn into paid work etc. If you are good at something; never do it for free.

Nicolas06... I agree. Spending a lot of time dedicated to shooting stock will be a waste of time for most photographers.

These days It's better just to use photos that you may have obtained shooting at a political event, holiday, outing, etc., for stock photos... that way you get paid for something that you were photographing anyway, and haven't wasted your time if you don't sell anything since you didn't go out of your way to take the photos.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 16:22 UTC
In reply to:

JosephScha: I have a way this situation can be avoided. Erect an 8 foot high opaque barrier across the part of curve where you don't want any photographer to stand. They won't stand there.

;)

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 16:01 UTC
In reply to:

JosephScha: I have a way this situation can be avoided. Erect an 8 foot high opaque barrier across the part of curve where you don't want any photographer to stand. They won't stand there.

I have a solution.... do absolutely nothing to protect the brain-dead from themselves and we might wind up with less twits in society.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 06:12 UTC
Total: 1109, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »