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

photolando: Ok. Fun little shoot. Now, and I say this as a portrait photographer, pick a "normal, everyday person", not a young pretty professional model who knows how to pose and look good. If your a "portrait" photographer, you work with people who have no idea what to do, what to wear, overweight, average looks, etc. It's really hard to take a bad pic of a pretty pro model. Even if the lighting is bad.

I look at all their linked images and all I see is young pretty faces. Now take a look at Karsh, Penn or Mary Ellen Mark, and many others. Real people. Some famous, but not models. Older. Interesting. Portraits that say something about that person. Sorry. These are more fashion/glamour images than they are "portraits". And that's fine. But call it what it is.

photolando.... You're 100% on target. It's like wedding photographers who only put the most exotic churches and expensive venues in their portfolios... what I want to see is how well they make the typical dimly lit corner church surrounded by telephone poles and wires, on the not-so-great side of town look and how their wedding photos of an overweight bride wearing a $300 wedding dress (or a homemade one) turn out.

Showing me pics of a beautiful, lean bride wearing a $15k designer gown in a well lit church with more glass letting in ambient light than Harry Potter's glasses, doesn't impress me.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2017 at 15:32 UTC
In reply to:

Don Mario: as someone already stated - "lost opportunity". tahiti is much more than the white man dream of surfing, diving, spearfishing or jumping on a slack line and a romance with the local girls. it's just food for the western cliche of what the pacific islands are.

The reality is that many westerners aren't interested in beyond what is cliche' to many others. Most reasonably intelligent people know there's more to a location than pretty trees and lovely waterscapes and the typical tourist areas; but so what if people don't care to see that? Many people just want to get away from their local climate, and enjoy what *they* (not others) consider enjoyable.

There's a *lot* more to New Orleans, Las Vegas, San Francisco, Washington D.C. and NYC than the typical tourist will ever see. However reality is all the other stuff isn't what a lot of tourist care to waste their time experiencing. The same goes for other points around the globe.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 14:45 UTC
In reply to:

Azathothh: Bokeh junkies will now all move to MF. Better rewrite that article, DPR!

Medium format cameras have never been just relegated to studio work, and are favorite cameras for many photographers shooting location work for pay, world over. In fact, a lot of sport shots (golfing, tennis, skiing, etc.) for magazines features are indeed shot using medium format cameras on location and studio lights.

A medium format camera is just a tool, what you're using the tool to shoot isn't of any consequence it if fits what you're trying to accomplish. Medium format even in the film days, with manual focus, no metering and a single focus point... were also some of the most popular and sought after cameras for street photography/photo journalism. Don't be fooled. :)

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2017 at 01:30 UTC
In reply to:

Satyaa: It is a valid action based on real concerns, as long as they address the grey areas. It will take its time.

Now I also want courts to rule that civilians can confiscate drones flying into their property, for privacy concerns.

Ed... you sure U.S. Law supports what you're saying in the U.S.. (chuckle)?
Hmmm... so what you're saying is that if a tree in my yard, has overhanging limbs in the neighbors yard that are 20ft. above his land, he doesn't have a right to cut down the limbs overhanging his property? Do state and municipal codes support your assessment?

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 21:52 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Good luck shooting a drone on the move consider the military don't have buck shot.

...That's when the law should allow for the shooting of the person flying the drone! ;)

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 21:48 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: I can just imagine an A-10 Warthog Tankbuster taking on a DJI Inspire 2, missing, then sucking the drone into its engine and crashing.

"OF COURSE NOT", comes the "informed" military response, "a plastic toy like that is no danger to our aircraft".

EXACTLY! Something I have been saying for a LONG time. There is FAR too much "Drone Mania" about at the moment. How about the military taking out anyone seen carrying a GUN? That would do the world FAR more service.

Brian

... of course those who actually fly aircraft understand how ingesting something much smaller than a plastic drone (like a screw, nut or bolt) into a turbine engine can be catastrophic, especially during take off. Tell me this... IF an A-10 ingested a small drone, how much money would tax payers have to spend in the subsequent tear down of the engine and part replacements? $100k? $300k? $600k or more? The problem with most civilians talking about aviation matters (I'm not talking about you specifically) is that they have no clue how much things costs. They don't know that an oil change on some sport cars can cost $600 at the dealer, and they haven't clue that a few damaged turbine wheels in an aircraft and the maintenance associated with such, can cost more than their home to fix.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 21:45 UTC
In reply to:

duartix: I couldn't care less about drones flying over military bases, while reckless owners still do it over civil airspace.
In these two cases, shoot them all I'd say, but shoot the ones flying near airports first!!! Track the owners and send them the bill for the bullets.

The rules are due to brain-dead people who don't follow rules and what would be common sense to most reasonably intelligent people. Fly drones irresponsibly and I'm all for neighborhood kids shooting them down with their favorite CO2 pellet or BB gun. When the police ask if I saw anything, my answer would be I didn't see a thing other than an irresponsible jerk flying his drone an an area not appropriate for drone flying.

Struck by lightning in a plane isn't remotely close to a bird or drone being ingested into, say, a small single engine turbine aircraft on take off at near gross weight in a metropolitan area. People don't need to get used to drones, rather drone operators need to put other drone operators in 'check', because if it wasn't for the nuts that ruin it for everyone else, there wouldn't be so much anti-drone sentiment.

Drones aren't new technology.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 21:23 UTC
On article When the selfie turns sacreligious (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: I witnessed people taking smiling selfies in front of Tito's grave in Belgrade. I felt uneasy and I thought that they were really stupid and disrespectful.

I couldn't care less what they were doing as long as it was legal; I've got better things to concern myself with than whether or not someone wants to take selfies in front of a dead person's bones. I wasn't there, but it sounds like they might've been making light of death and embracing the comedy ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2017 at 17:41 UTC
On article When the selfie turns sacreligious (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: I witnessed people taking smiling selfies in front of Tito's grave in Belgrade. I felt uneasy and I thought that they were really stupid and disrespectful.

But you weren't doing the "taking". To some people, it doesn't feel right to dance in the streets during the funeral procession with a bright coloured band blaring joyful jazz. Frankly, I'd rather watch the 2nd line of a funeral procession in New Orleans, than endure the drab, dark, overly somber and dead (no pun... well, ok, pun) feel of the typical funeral. If death is dark to you, then that's for you to embrace. Others feel differently which doesn't make them stupid or disrespectful by default.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 22:15 UTC
On article When the selfie turns sacreligious (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

Oly Canikon: I wonder would he have a "bloom of nausia" if I was taking a picture of the place with my camera? Or if I handed my camera to someone to take a snap of my wife and I?

What exactly is it about the selfie that brings on god's wrath?

Absolutely nothing because God couldn't care less who's pressing your shutter button. It's merely another thing that small minds concern themselves over.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 21:58 UTC
On article When the selfie turns sacreligious (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

katastrofa: Gosh, a shrine? People are taking selfies in Nazi death camp museums.

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/should-auschwitz-be-a-site-for-selfies
http://selfiesatseriousplaces.tumblr.com/

The last one's best, the girl crawled into the oven: http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,130438,5683714,Pamiatkowe_zdjecie_z_Majdanka__nastolatka_w_piecu.html

... people taking photographs of their dirty navel while sitting in church; wrapping 'sacrilegious' and 'nasty' all in one big greasy enchilada! ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 21:56 UTC
On article When the selfie turns sacreligious (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: I witnessed people taking smiling selfies in front of Tito's grave in Belgrade. I felt uneasy and I thought that they were really stupid and disrespectful.

Tito doesn't care; not sure why you feel uneasy.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 21:52 UTC
On article Ten things we're hoping for from the Nikon D850 (476 comments in total)
In reply to:

ardp: More pixels = smaller pixels. why oh why does even a professional site such as this, chase that false scale?

@Dan_168, it doesn't matter. A sensor stuffed with high quality pixels, that suffers a .5 deficit in DR and has horrible ISO performance above 400, is still very useful and preferable to many professional photographers compared to other sensor of the same vintage.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 19:51 UTC
On article Ten things we're hoping for from the Nikon D850 (476 comments in total)
In reply to:

ardp: More pixels = smaller pixels. why oh why does even a professional site such as this, chase that false scale?

... because for a lot of professional photographers using a camera with strobes indoors and outdoors, it may work perfect for them is why. The number of pixels for many photographers are just now getting to the point of "comfortable" for them. More quality pixels is hardly a "false scale" as it obviously has a lot of uses irrespective of pixel size.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 15:14 UTC
On article Nikon announces development of D850 (538 comments in total)
In reply to:

Albert Valentino: Why not call it the D820. Nikon seems to paint themselves into a corner with their somewhat inconsistent names. For example, after the D100 came the D70, then D80 and D90 so they ran out of numbers since the D100 was taken. Okay, so they decided to reserve the 100 numbers for the upper APS line, D200, D300. But then they came out with a D700 FF which was follwed by the D600 FF. But the D300 was almost 10 years later succeeded by the D500, not a D400. So what comes after the D500?

Anyone remember the Abbott and Costello Who's on First Routine? One could work out a similar skit with the Nikon naming.

I think both Nikon and Canon have had ridiculous nomenclatures. I prefer the simplicity of simple nomenclatures like the D1, D1x, D2, D2h, D2hs, D2x, D2xs, D3... D4, D5...

@nachos, you're right about Canon's ridiculous D series names. What a mess.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 16:05 UTC

You know what they say about "suckers" being born every minute... not even they will take this seriously.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 15:54 UTC as 1st comment
On article Nikon announces development of D850 (538 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hugo808: Not more bloody pixels! How big do you guys print for crissakes?

@Hugo808, it's not just about printing large, it's also about cropping/adjusting angles, etc., and generally less ragged results after processing the raw file which is helpful whether one prints or not. The bottom line is that with more quality pixels, you have considerably more latitude to work with the file. Working with a macro lens becomes less of a detriment when you have more pixels to work with as you can trade getting closer, with cropping and *still* print 20x30in **from a near 300ppi file**. You can't do that with a Nikon D810, etc..

@mr.izo, Most of my prints are 20x30in and larger. Printing from my 4mp Nikon D2hs is not the same as doing it from my 21mp Canon 5d2 (even at 8x10'ish), which is not the same as printing from a 50mp Pentax 645Z, which does not offer the same crop latitude as printing from an 80 or 100mp medium format back.
It's often about having more latitude to do what you want with a *part* of the file.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 15:41 UTC
In reply to:

CallumG: No personality whatsoever.

@CallumG.... when I'm shopping for clothes, I couldn't care less whether or not the model exudes "personality", I just want her to be a good clothes hanger so I can see what the fabric might look like draped over a human body that's my size. The model can be a droid for all I care, it won't make the dress look any different.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 01:22 UTC
In reply to:

JeffinMass: Do most people really care? Not! They have other issues to deal with.

Unless it's in the context of something that's supposed to be historic or archival, most people couldn't care less.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 18:46 UTC
In reply to:

photo099: Manipulated photos? What Manipulated photos... There is a documentary photography and then there is an art photography. Period.
Do you think, that famous portraits from old famous painters sold for "arms & legs" are not manipulated? Give me a break...
The camera is like a painters brush.

I am sure you have got a rest of the story...

If it isn't documentary/archival photography, then I couldn't care less if the photo is manipulated as I'm more interested in the aesthetics. I don't fancy highly processed glamour / fashion / beauty photography but I realize others like it. So be it; we all have an opinion. I think it's silly that so many people expect photography in general to be free of manipulation.

I especially loathe groups that act like women are too stupid to realize that the average size of a women (in the U.S. especially!) is not a size 2 and that when we look at beauty photographs, we need to be told that the photos have been "enhanced".... as if we're brain dead and think that a practically pore-less face of a woman with brilliant, almost glowing blue eyes isn't fake (insert eye-roll). Advertisers do not need to tell me the obvious and it's my job to point out the obvious to my grandkids... which are smart enough to detect the obviously manipulated beauty pics like most people with an IQ over 6.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 18:43 UTC
Total: 845, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »