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

Rodenmg: Funny stuff. Artificial Unintelligent. :)

http://home.earthlink.net/~mgroden/images/Untitled-1.jpg

@KrisAK... I'm wondering if the program judges the aesthetics of a photograph in the context of being a *stock* image. If so (which would be very useful) it would stand to reason why many popular photographs wouldn't rank well as a stock image.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2017 at 18:22 UTC
In reply to:

citrate: So, people who want to buy a Fuji GFX or Hasselblad X1D should really save their money now and wait the the new sensors?

@citrate... That depends on your personal finances and reason for shooting which dictates buying anything (lenses, cameras, etc..) Do you wait for the "new" 600mm f/4 lens if you can make enough money using the current version to make buying the older tech financially worthwhile? In cases where money isn't the issue, often "opportunity" to shoot a particular thing might not present itself to you again (due to your age, location, or the scene that you want to capture being a one-time event).

Do you wait on buying FF for your business if you can save yourself anguish shooting in confined places and or financially benefit from FF "system" + tilt/shift lenses in your work?

Such questions are what any reasonable adult should ask themselves when contemplating whether to upgrade now or later. How important (socially, financially, etc..) is the upgrade to you? :)

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 20:39 UTC
In reply to:

princecody: Has Sony perfected the Art of the sensor? Is that why 80% of the camera brands use Sony sensors?

@thx1138.. If I was Sony, Nikon, Canon, etc... I wouldn't think of spending time cranking out APS-C lenses.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 20:32 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: I think there's a point, unless you're printing huge prints (like 30x50 ft) that megapixels aren't really going to matter for those who are looking at pictures on a screen or perhaps a smaller print, like 11x17 or even poster sized. Yes, higher resolutions can mean more detail, but I would think at some point, prints would exceed what a human eye can see at normal viewing distance (and not pixel peeping on a computer). Dont' get me wrong, 150MP is going to be impressive, expensive, and probably only for those with fat wallets (at least, to start out with). I can only imagine what the glass would cost for such a system...

@PeteQuad, you're partially correct. (1) If you use a 20mp FF Canon + 100mm macro lens to photograph the human eye, it will not look as detailed, as 150mp MF + 120mm lens whether printed 30x40" or viewed on a 12" Macbook. People incorrectly assume more megapixels don't matter unless it's a large print, which is incorrect.

(2) It also matters shooting wide in a confined space. Shoot 175 high school band members using FF (you can generally only get so close and shoot so wide). Shoot the same scene with roughly the same angle of view using a 150mp sensor (still not a whopping amount of pixels) can make a practical difference in facial detail when viewed on a computer or print. Ever see large school group pic (online or print) depicting tiny poorly detailed faces?

300mp or more for under $20k would be a boon to business for a lot of photographers.

That's just scraping the very top of *practical* uses for a lot of pixels & resolution.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 20:18 UTC
In reply to:

HeyItsJoel: God, I miss Steve Jobs. He's like Simon Cowell on American Idol. He's a first class jerk but he knows his ****.

I try to to have a lot of stuff, and I surely don't like the idea of carrying a purse on the shoulder filled with junk and gum, like every other Jill and Jane. When it comes to "stuff", I just say no! :)

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 17:59 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: I think there's a point, unless you're printing huge prints (like 30x50 ft) that megapixels aren't really going to matter for those who are looking at pictures on a screen or perhaps a smaller print, like 11x17 or even poster sized. Yes, higher resolutions can mean more detail, but I would think at some point, prints would exceed what a human eye can see at normal viewing distance (and not pixel peeping on a computer). Dont' get me wrong, 150MP is going to be impressive, expensive, and probably only for those with fat wallets (at least, to start out with). I can only imagine what the glass would cost for such a system...

@Tommy K1 .. Obviously you don't even need 20mp for a double truck print... but that's not the point of wanting the large file from a DMF (CCD or CMOS); and those real-world reasons are what you need to focus on as opposed to what doesn't matter to the photographer/client. The public doesn't care if a magazine page was from my old 4mp Nikon D2hs or from a 20mp FF Canon... which has nothing to do with why people shoot FF or want/need more resolution/pixels or why MF is often preferred in media. Stop with the red herrings.
You don't have to make degradation "clear" to me. It was clear to me more than a few decades ago cropping/enlarging. I also read "Fedway's" post; However it wasn't material to my initial response to you. I recommend addressing who you're speaking to if it's Other than who started the thread.

Any more on this subject just PM me.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 17:29 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: I think there's a point, unless you're printing huge prints (like 30x50 ft) that megapixels aren't really going to matter for those who are looking at pictures on a screen or perhaps a smaller print, like 11x17 or even poster sized. Yes, higher resolutions can mean more detail, but I would think at some point, prints would exceed what a human eye can see at normal viewing distance (and not pixel peeping on a computer). Dont' get me wrong, 150MP is going to be impressive, expensive, and probably only for those with fat wallets (at least, to start out with). I can only imagine what the glass would cost for such a system...

(cont.) If I wanted to shoot a snowy owl with a snowy background and have a choice between using 70-300mm lens on a Nikon D810 or a 400mm lens on a Pentax 645Z, I'm picking up the MF camera.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 06:58 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: I think there's a point, unless you're printing huge prints (like 30x50 ft) that megapixels aren't really going to matter for those who are looking at pictures on a screen or perhaps a smaller print, like 11x17 or even poster sized. Yes, higher resolutions can mean more detail, but I would think at some point, prints would exceed what a human eye can see at normal viewing distance (and not pixel peeping on a computer). Dont' get me wrong, 150MP is going to be impressive, expensive, and probably only for those with fat wallets (at least, to start out with). I can only imagine what the glass would cost for such a system...

@Tommi K1... I did not bring up focal lengths. You did. Again, you keep trying to equate a school bus to a sedan. When 'others' pull out a 200-500 zoom, most MF photographers will keep shooting with a 24, 35, 80, 100, or 120mm lens because those focal lengths (and thereabout) are the focal lengths that most MF photographers will use when doing actual paid work, which historically is the single most reason why a significant number of people purchase or use a digital MF camera. (1) My statements remain irrefutable; to date, there are no small sensors that give the same overall performance as a 33x44 and larger CMOS sensor (2) Currently there isn't a small sensor that gives the same cropping latitude & quality as MF, at typical MF working focal lengths.
(3) APS-C, FF, etc, are different tools that excel in their respective lanes. (4) If a MF shooter wants to shoot small birds, they use the appropriate tools to begin with like experienced photographers typically do.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 06:40 UTC
In reply to:

HeyItsJoel: God, I miss Steve Jobs. He's like Simon Cowell on American Idol. He's a first class jerk but he knows his ****.

@Heyitsjoel... because you're that interested ;)

https://us.burberry.com/patent-london-leather-continental-wallet-p40234601?istCompanyId=564e1513-f47e-4b67-be63-f610234165ed&istItemId=xipqaiplrm&istBid=tztx&gclid=CKjt5amOj9MCFQQOaQodv3UGEw&gclsrc=aw.ds&dclid=CMrY6qmOj9MCFVEMgQod_QsOaw

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 05:39 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: I think there's a point, unless you're printing huge prints (like 30x50 ft) that megapixels aren't really going to matter for those who are looking at pictures on a screen or perhaps a smaller print, like 11x17 or even poster sized. Yes, higher resolutions can mean more detail, but I would think at some point, prints would exceed what a human eye can see at normal viewing distance (and not pixel peeping on a computer). Dont' get me wrong, 150MP is going to be impressive, expensive, and probably only for those with fat wallets (at least, to start out with). I can only imagine what the glass would cost for such a system...

@Tommy K1.. actually physics doesn't tell the whole story any more than a published 0-62km time; you'd benefit looking at the whole as opposed to the parts. The bottom line is that no matter what lens you slap on a Nikon 1, the result will not usually look like that of a Sony CMOS 33x44 (or larger) sensor. You'd be cropping the detail from a Nikon 1's sensor. Likewise, the results from a Canon 5Dsr aren't the same as the Sony 33x44 CMOS irrespective of what lens is used. You're too busy "equating" that you fail to realize that the images being captured aren't of the same quality from the start.

It's like trying to argue that a 70-300 lens gives the same angle of view for a lot less money as a 300 f/2.8. The bottom line is that they don't even look the same at 300mm .

"Everytime you start copping a image, you are putting **compromise** to image quality vs same with optical magnification"

((sigh)) ... the irony of using a smaller sensor.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2017 at 20:08 UTC
In reply to:

Gesture: Basically, Apple is much more interested in closed devices that get replaced in short cycles versus computers that can be upgraded. This has been going on for a while now and, actually,, this was the vision of Jobs. He didn't want all those G3 and G4 towers to take upgrades; didn't like computers whose memory could be expanded; etc.

Old hands remember that Firmware Update that prevented the Blue and White G3 from taking a G4 processor.

The iMac is an outstanding value given its screen, if it fits your needs, but it is a closed system for the most part. The Mac mini has been dumbed down, instead of some creativity like making it a bit bigger and allowing hot swaps of, say, 2 laptop sized drives or even M2 gum-stick drives. Memory is fixed at time of purchase, etc.

Actually, I'm surprised that the creative community hasn't migrated to PCs, where you can build anything you want. The proprioception issues have been solved and in my experience PCs do as well as Mac now.

@Turboff, you'd be correct in a lot of ways. I use workstations for high volume high speed scanning, etc., as many peripherals do not bother with Mac drivers and unfortunately aren't plug-n-play across the board. Running "Parallels" is an option but why use the Mac when a faster PC with more RAM is available?
So that's one case I make for using PC; software for PC is obvious, etc..

Several things I like about Mac. (1) Years ago I wanted to do a basic quick video edit, I basically plugged in the camera and viola! The same with PC was a task. When I plugged in a 22" Cintiq into the work station, there were issues on top of issues trying to get it to recognize the device. Plugged it into several Macs (iMac, MacBook Air) and it just worked. (2) Nuances. The built-in Mac PDF reader searches differently than using Acrobat /PC. Using both Acrobat+Mac's reader gives me more search options; etc.. (3) iMac = only all in one that doesn't make me want to throw up when I look at it.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2017 at 19:35 UTC
In reply to:

HeyItsJoel: God, I miss Steve Jobs. He's like Simon Cowell on American Idol. He's a first class jerk but he knows his ****.

The Apple pro stagnated for a time even with Jobs at the helm. Apple needs to make up its mind (I think it really has, but a corporation saying what it *really* thinks isn't always good for public relations); either it's going to be a competitor in the professional power-graphics computing market or it isn't. I think the trash-can (mac pro) works well for many people. I think better/cheaper performance can be found elsewhere, but I understand how the apple ecosystem can be very beneficial to people.

I'd like to see an iMac with a notably larger screen (at least 1.5x larger, doesn't have to be thinner) w/more slots, professional very robust security tools built-in along with scanning software w/character recognition that takes advantage of all processing cores. I will very happily dig deep into my purse for that.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2017 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: I think there's a point, unless you're printing huge prints (like 30x50 ft) that megapixels aren't really going to matter for those who are looking at pictures on a screen or perhaps a smaller print, like 11x17 or even poster sized. Yes, higher resolutions can mean more detail, but I would think at some point, prints would exceed what a human eye can see at normal viewing distance (and not pixel peeping on a computer). Dont' get me wrong, 150MP is going to be impressive, expensive, and probably only for those with fat wallets (at least, to start out with). I can only imagine what the glass would cost for such a system...

@Tommi K1... that's what people we're overly concerned about when the 12mp Nikon D2X came out ((chuckle)). The bottom line is that it's relatively simple to find your personal demarkation line between required shutter speed (or fast flash/cut-off) and blurry photographs.

If a 200mp photograph yields a near 40mp result after cutting off 1/2 the photograph. What would a 36mp file give you after doing the same? Stitching simply expands the view of a given "scene"; stitching does nothing to increase detail and size of that same scene.

Reality says I wouldn't use a 16mp today with a 400mm lens (or w/any other lens for that matter). A realistic situation is being able to shoot a bit wide, and having the latitude to crop down and still get various 11x17" compositions, etc.. from far less work and post processing. Too many real-world benefits to recount here.

When using a FF or APS-C is more beneficial over MF... then I pull such out of my camera bag.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2017 at 00:37 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: I think there's a point, unless you're printing huge prints (like 30x50 ft) that megapixels aren't really going to matter for those who are looking at pictures on a screen or perhaps a smaller print, like 11x17 or even poster sized. Yes, higher resolutions can mean more detail, but I would think at some point, prints would exceed what a human eye can see at normal viewing distance (and not pixel peeping on a computer). Dont' get me wrong, 150MP is going to be impressive, expensive, and probably only for those with fat wallets (at least, to start out with). I can only imagine what the glass would cost for such a system...

@sirhawkeye64... that's many years away; so many years away that many of us will be dead by the time that happens. ;)

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2017 at 16:29 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: I think there's a point, unless you're printing huge prints (like 30x50 ft) that megapixels aren't really going to matter for those who are looking at pictures on a screen or perhaps a smaller print, like 11x17 or even poster sized. Yes, higher resolutions can mean more detail, but I would think at some point, prints would exceed what a human eye can see at normal viewing distance (and not pixel peeping on a computer). Dont' get me wrong, 150MP is going to be impressive, expensive, and probably only for those with fat wallets (at least, to start out with). I can only imagine what the glass would cost for such a system...

I think until we reach at least 5 more stops colour range (dynamic range) and about 300mp, I think there's a *lot* of room yet to grow in the digital photography realm. We haven't even remotely begun to reach the point where 150mp can't be put to very, very good practical use. All photographers aren't printing on paper. 100, 150 or even 200mp isn't exactly a gobsmacking amount of pixels when you're printing on a 30x80in glass pane.

I'm thinking it'll take 200-300mp to equal a good 4x5 scan, and hoping such quality will be achieved in a medium format form factor (albeit larger sensors). I see 150mp as a far-more-useful *practical* jump in resolution as opposed to the piddly incremental changes that we've come accustomed to being spoon fed.

My question is the projected price of the colour version. Good to see Sony doing something other than sitting on its haunches.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2017 at 03:53 UTC
In reply to:

RadGuy: it's actually pronounced, "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". But people just say, Bokeh for short

You're quite precocious! ;)

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2017 at 01:11 UTC
In reply to:

analoggrotto: This article right here is why my new 5d4 and 300/2.8 II will NOT be purchased from Amazon. Take the space, the exposure and status of the web's #1 photoblog to add more confused rubbish to an already confusing hobby. What a sponsored fraud, the readers deserve better. Instead of focusing on every camera's disadvantages, how about a more positive edge? Photography is emotional and rewarding for the interested and dedicated hearts and mind yet this website wants to prove otherwise time and time again.

@analoggrotto, ecka84 hit the nail on the head... photography for the most part isn't remotely confusing, he also made a very important point that some people can allow themselves to become confused by taking to heart the opinions of others instead of using his/her own eyeballs.

@David Mantripp.. you're right about the stitching vs. pixel shift comment.. I'm not sure where @ecka84 was going with that, as I view the two things as two very different tools for distinctly different purposes.

Best in photography to all of you!

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2017 at 02:05 UTC
In reply to:

Jon Porter: Wow, lots of comments but none stating the obvious! Since the porn industry is usually the first to apply new personal technology, I could see someone offering this to drone around a private estate or beach staffed with frolicking naked bodies. They'd make a lot more money than offering drones over a desert.

... or maybe we need to legalize some drugs, drive the prices down and make it a business not worth big 'crime' getting into. Fighting the ridiculous battle on "drugs" is like trying to kill the wind using a Katana. How 'bout we use those billions of dollars on U.S. infrastructure instead? I remember when "gated community" was an option, now it's an imperative with the rapid declination of many neighborhoods.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2017 at 01:41 UTC
In reply to:

Bernie Ess: Hmmm, the d810 may or may not be up to MF level in terms of noise and DR, but the skin tones in the first portrait above are awfully bad. Regardless of format, I could not live with those ugly Nikon skin tones. They were the reason why I sold my d700 years ago. No profile/ custom profile/ Raw converter could help it.

@Bernie Ess, for some reason there's a misconception that one can shoot raw on any camera and quickly equate it to the colours generated by another camera shooting raw. The truth is depending on the camera's manufacturer, and what the subject matter is (skin, foliage, sky, grass..) one may or may not be able to easily match colours to their liking, effortlessly or otherwise. Seems like you at least realize this, irrespective of what camera is being used.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2017 at 01:33 UTC
In reply to:

Jon Porter: Wow, lots of comments but none stating the obvious! Since the porn industry is usually the first to apply new personal technology, I could see someone offering this to drone around a private estate or beach staffed with frolicking naked bodies. They'd make a lot more money than offering drones over a desert.

@Jon Porter you're right. The porn industry usually takes advantage of technology before mainstream businesses and the general public does. This technology though will benefit drug dealers the most I suspect. I can already hear the attorney in court... "So what you're saying is that it ISN'T impossible that my law abiding client's drone was hacked, especially in the light of the f-a-c-t that our nation's military drones have been hacked on several occasions?" Assuming a real drone is being flown. Which is safe to assume in the future, since the rudimentary tech has been field tested by drug dealers already.

Drug dealers can fly a misdemeanor amount of drugs x multiple trips so when the drone gets "caught" it's not carrying a load. ** The reality is the likelihood of a drone getting intercepted is remote; even if a few drones make it to their destination carrying a pound of crack, coke, smack, x, weed, etc., makes it 'worth it'.

The nefarious possibilities are endless.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 21:17 UTC
Total: 722, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »