iae aa eia

iae aa eia

Lives in Brazil Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Works as a English school coordinator and EFL teacher
Joined on Jan 13, 2011
About me:

I was born in Brazil, in a city called João Pessoa. I lived in a few other cities in three neighboring states before moving to where I currently live, about 1,300 miles away down south, Belo Horizonte. Back then, photography was not offered at colleges and universities, I didn't want any other courses, and I never got a higher education. I tried to get in the AirForce—they offered the career of aerial photographer (don't know if they still do)—but I could not get in because they detected a health problem. I started working with social photography. I shot a couple of birthday parties and some portraits, but I wasn't successful. I liked the experience, but I had never been a very social person and the few clients I had I got with the help of my mother.

During this time, I was living by myself and in a different city, and I was not able to prospect any clients by myself or get any references from the few folks I had done work for. I was just to shy to ask for references. I had some issues related to lack of perseverance. I was constantly feeling down since my later teenager years. I ended up giving up and working with motorcycle sales, an area in which I was also unsuccessful because I had to be socially more engaged as well, but I thought that it was going to work just because I liked motorcycles. After a while, I got an opportunity to work at those 1-hour photo labs/shops as a minilab operator. Now I was able to do a better job, probably because I didn't have to have high social skills. I worked isolated most of the time. As a minilab operator, I was considered one of the best at all the places I worked at, thanks to the fact that I loved photography, read a lot of technical literature, and learned with two very good folks how to operate and maintain those machines. One of them had worked at a Kodak laboratory for more than a decade and had opened a photo lab along with two other business partners, the first photo lab I worked at. The other guy was a Noritsu consultant/technitian.

I started getting socially more engaged after I got involved with the church of Christ. If I was as socially engaged as I was after 2 or 3 years attending church and doing volunteering work when I started shooting, the story would have been different. Since I got involved with church, I have been often in contact with Americans and my English improved considerably. It was because of that that I had my first opportunity to teach English, helping some classmates at a course I was attending in which to have English was a very important requirement. My classmates noticed that I liked teaching and that I taught well, and they encouraged me to be an English teacher.

After about six years working at at least four English schools, I got the opportunity to have my own business, which is as a master franchisee for an English school specialized in private classes. This opportunity was offered to me by the same company I had been working for two and a half years as an EFL teacher, but only if I moved to a pretty far away city, which is where I live now. I had terrible headaches when I lived in my previous hometown, but my current hometown is cooler and drier, and it's also better for business, a little more developed, the fried and cooked food is amazing (except baked stuff, nothing special), and the accent is among the nicest in Brazil.

INITIAL INTEREST IN PHOTOGRAPHY
The first camera I've ever shot with was my mother's Kodak Instamatic 177XF, in the 80's; I used to disassemble and assemble it quite often. The first contact I've ever had with photography literature was still in the 80's, when the husband of a distant relative of mine gave me a photography guide composed of two magazine-sized and four less-than-letter-sized books. Each one of the magazine-sized books was divided into many sections, like cameras, lenses, flashes, framing, darkroom, techniques, pro-photographers' galleries, etc; and the other four books focused on specific photo subjects. Only photos and commentaries in these. One was about people, the other was about women, another one about nature, and one about architecture. I loved that kit. Decades later, already late 2000's, when I was able to understand English much better, I could compare them with many other guides and I realized that they were quite complete and technically accurate. Really good stuff for Brazilian standards. It was probably the translation of an American guide.

In 1993, I was living in a city called Natal. I was riding a bicycle when I decided to stop at a newsstand located at a supermarket for a quick look at the magazines, as I used to do. I wasn't looking for anything in particular and didn't intend to buy anything, but while I was browsing, I saw that beautiful red glossy cover magazine with lots of SLRs on it, standing on the top shelf. It was the December's 1993 edition of Petersen's PHOTOgraphic magazine. I was in awe, thinking, "Wow, look at that!" (in Portuguese, of course). I had never seen such an appealing cover (uncommon to Brazilian magazines at that time) and that rich content in terms of equipment. I decided to buy a compact Collins Gem Eng-Port Port-Eng dictionary and a calculator in the same week I bought that magazine, and spent the whole month trying to translate most of the magazine's content and converting feet to meters, inches to mili/centimeters, and pounds and ounces to (kilo)grams, and even dollars to royals (our currency, or 'real/reais' in Portuguese)—well, I started doing currency conversion from 1996 onward, as there was no 'real' in 1993, but only a temporary, transitional currency in 1994, and I was still not interested in currency conversions by 1995). I continued to buy issues of that magazine for the next 6 months. At first, equipment ads, gear guides and articles, and shopping catalogs where the sections I read the most.

FIRST JOB IN PHOTOGRAPHY
In 1996, I was living in Guarabira, a small city in the countryside of the State of Paraíba, and the owners of a photo shop in Natal called me and invited me to move back there and work as a minilab operator. That was my first job. I knew the folks there because they didn't have access to that kind of magazines and I used to go there to show them to them and talk about photography, and we enjoyed doing that and became friends.

While I was working there, I had the chance to handle and use some very nice cameras like the Nikon F3 and FM2, the Minolta Maxxum 9xi and X-370, and quite a large variety of Pentaxes, like the K2000, ME, and P30t; There were other cameras from same said brands and other brands, like Vivitar and Yashica. Canons were rare and I don't know why. I can't remember ever seeing one, except compacts. But, two brands I wanted so much to have an opportunity to see live were Contax, Ricoh, and Zeiss. I just drooled over seeing pictures of Contax bodies and Zeiss lenses. Even one or two of Contax compacts. I also wish I had seen more Olympus SLR's. I also drooled over its µ-II.

I'M GONNA ADD MORE LATER.

Comments

Total: 355, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

iae aa eia: Don't buy Chinese (whenever possible)! Their government system and their labor practices are very different from those in capitalistic countries. Why giving money to them? Why supporting regimes you'd never live under?

If a Chinese product is much cheaper or is the only one offered or available, then I have nothing against it.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2018 at 11:27 UTC
In reply to:

iae aa eia: Don't buy Chinese (whenever possible)! Their government system and their labor practices are very different from those in capitalistic countries. Why giving money to them? Why supporting regimes you'd never live under?

1. I didn't write to ignore Chinese products. I wrote 'whenever possible.' Whenever possible means if you find a capitalistic-country competitor or similar or not so higher price;

2. I don't get why America is considered the only capitalistic country. This is quite dumb;

3. Whoever is saying they wouldn't live under a regime similar to the American instead of one like China's is lying, unless this person, whether Chinese or not, actually lives in China, but I still have my doubts since China is probably monitoring them with their social reliability measurement app;

4. American (and other nation's ) companies didn't know all they do now when they started to open the doors for the Chinese market. Many thought it would help China open itself the same way, learn to play a similar game. We can't speak about this as if we knew everything from the start;

5. Being made in China doesn't mean it's Chinese. It's less bad to buy a product only made there then buying a Chinese.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2018 at 11:24 UTC

Don't buy Chinese (whenever possible)! Their government system and their labor practices are very different from those in capitalistic countries. Why giving money to them? Why supporting regimes you'd never live under?

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2018 at 02:42 UTC as 8th comment | 16 replies

iPhone does a pretty good job at mimicking it. Not perfect, but amazingly good and perfectly misleading to the untrained yey.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2018 at 02:38 UTC as 26th comment
In reply to:

iae aa eia: The point about cimate change is not disbelief. I think most people including conservatives/republicans/rightwingers agree on that. What we don't agree is liberals/progressives/democrats/leftists saying that it's mostly caused by men and forcing people and companies to adopt regulations and practices that are not feasible, which forces people and companies to depend on subsidies to adopt those practices, and to get more subsidies the gov't has to raise taxes, putting more power of decision in the hands of government.

So, in the end of the day, what democrats defend is more power to the government, while republicans want to keep the power in the hands of the private initiative.

In the meantime, China abuses nature as no other country in the world and you don't see democrats working together with republicans to use trade to force them to be better, to pollute less and stuff.

Democrats are hypocrites beyond one can measure.

By the way, great photos and interview.

@AlanG, you're being unfair. I don't know what Ivanka has to do with this conversation, but if you want to go this way, fine. If you comparing the circumstances of both situations, and what was sent, you will see a huge difference. It doesn't mean Ivanka did the right thing. What she did was wrong, but it's simply very wrong to think both brought the same danger. I can't believe you read anything about it besides article titles, or maybe you only checked leftist sources (MSNBC or NYT or WaPo, etc.). It seems Ivanka broke gov't record policies, not laws. She never shared classified information as Hillary did.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2018 at 16:24 UTC
In reply to:

iae aa eia: The point about cimate change is not disbelief. I think most people including conservatives/republicans/rightwingers agree on that. What we don't agree is liberals/progressives/democrats/leftists saying that it's mostly caused by men and forcing people and companies to adopt regulations and practices that are not feasible, which forces people and companies to depend on subsidies to adopt those practices, and to get more subsidies the gov't has to raise taxes, putting more power of decision in the hands of government.

So, in the end of the day, what democrats defend is more power to the government, while republicans want to keep the power in the hands of the private initiative.

In the meantime, China abuses nature as no other country in the world and you don't see democrats working together with republicans to use trade to force them to be better, to pollute less and stuff.

Democrats are hypocrites beyond one can measure.

By the way, great photos and interview.

@AlanG, you have to find a balance between providing jobs and caring for the environment. Remember that animals and humans are part of the environment, so all need care.

Caring for the environment 100% will never be feasible for humans, and caring for humans 100% will never be good for the environment, so you must find a middle term and this middle term has to be something that doesn't make men in the hands of a government, with excessive subsidies and consequently high taxes.

How come we care for the environment and don't care for unemployed people? By the way, I believe that more people working destroy the environment less than more people not working.

You can't have it both ways, and big gov't is out of question. The US is still the best country in this sense. Be thankful for that, and be thankful Trump cares about people.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2018 at 22:05 UTC
In reply to:

D Gold: 27 years ago I was a skeptic. Then I took a contract position on a NWS , (National Weather Service), modernization project called AWIPS. I spent 4.5 years in Boulder and working with the Environmental Research Lab and our beta site in Norman Oklahoma and met many dedicated PHD scientists.

One in particular was the SOC, (Science Operations Officer), at the beta site I worked at where we tested all the new systems. He had helped develop some of the global warming theories of that time and lived in the world of science when it came to climate and meteorology every day. His explanations over that time helped me understand 2 things.
1. Climate change is happening and is going to be a real problem for humanity on a global scale.
2. These scientists do not have a political agenda, though the GOP has one. I was republican at the time but I realized I was wrong.

FWIW,

It's all about power in the government hands. That's what Democrats are for, it doesn't matter whether a person believes climate change is mostly caused by men. It's economically unfeasible to adopt all the regulations and laws necessary to make the US perfect for democrats, and this would only happen with lots and lots of subsidies, and thus raising taxes. This is not what America is about. America is about its people not its government.

Even the US being as it is now, it's by far the country that has made the most for the environment, but it's thanks to its capacity to compete that has driven technology ahead, not only at home but also abroad.

In other words, democrats simply don't like their own home, it doesn't matter what the US does, and that's another reason why it's not worth doing what they want. It will never be enough.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2018 at 21:58 UTC
In reply to:

iae aa eia: The point about cimate change is not disbelief. I think most people including conservatives/republicans/rightwingers agree on that. What we don't agree is liberals/progressives/democrats/leftists saying that it's mostly caused by men and forcing people and companies to adopt regulations and practices that are not feasible, which forces people and companies to depend on subsidies to adopt those practices, and to get more subsidies the gov't has to raise taxes, putting more power of decision in the hands of government.

So, in the end of the day, what democrats defend is more power to the government, while republicans want to keep the power in the hands of the private initiative.

In the meantime, China abuses nature as no other country in the world and you don't see democrats working together with republicans to use trade to force them to be better, to pollute less and stuff.

Democrats are hypocrites beyond one can measure.

By the way, great photos and interview.

@AlanG, also, demand that democrats demand from themselves and the stupid rich supporters that they decrease their footprints too. A rich critic of pollution probably pollute more than dozens of average Americans. Critics of pollution as caused mostly by men have to put their money where their mouths are.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2018 at 01:19 UTC
In reply to:

iae aa eia: The point about cimate change is not disbelief. I think most people including conservatives/republicans/rightwingers agree on that. What we don't agree is liberals/progressives/democrats/leftists saying that it's mostly caused by men and forcing people and companies to adopt regulations and practices that are not feasible, which forces people and companies to depend on subsidies to adopt those practices, and to get more subsidies the gov't has to raise taxes, putting more power of decision in the hands of government.

So, in the end of the day, what democrats defend is more power to the government, while republicans want to keep the power in the hands of the private initiative.

In the meantime, China abuses nature as no other country in the world and you don't see democrats working together with republicans to use trade to force them to be better, to pollute less and stuff.

Democrats are hypocrites beyond one can measure.

By the way, great photos and interview.

@AlanG, just let the private initiative strong but keeping taxes low and without excessive regulations. The United States have been doing an exception job. Compare the US pollution per area to other countries, and compare how much it pollutes today compared to years ago, and also compare how much the US produce and have evolved in terms of technology and food quality in relation to how much is released in pollution.

When you think about pollution, you have to think about those correlations too, and also consider the level of freedom from gov't bureocracy. Now, considering all those factors, compare to other countries and imagine how much contribution would it be if the US forced other countries like China do ge the same correlations?

Attacking the freest country, the country with the highest power of competition and thus improvement (without the same amount or more subsidies from the gov't compared to other countries) is simply even less effective.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2018 at 01:14 UTC
In reply to:

D Gold: 27 years ago I was a skeptic. Then I took a contract position on a NWS , (National Weather Service), modernization project called AWIPS. I spent 4.5 years in Boulder and working with the Environmental Research Lab and our beta site in Norman Oklahoma and met many dedicated PHD scientists.

One in particular was the SOC, (Science Operations Officer), at the beta site I worked at where we tested all the new systems. He had helped develop some of the global warming theories of that time and lived in the world of science when it came to climate and meteorology every day. His explanations over that time helped me understand 2 things.
1. Climate change is happening and is going to be a real problem for humanity on a global scale.
2. These scientists do not have a political agenda, though the GOP has one. I was republican at the time but I realized I was wrong.

FWIW,

Climate change exists and most conservatives/republicans/righwingers believe so. The problem is that liberals/progressives/democrats/leftists put all the blame on men, which is a mistake, and by doing so, they push the idea that people and companies have to adopt practices that are not feasible, and to achieve this they need subsidies and subsidies won't come without more taxes.

In the end of the day, it's about putting more power in the hands of the government instead of keeping it mostly in the hands of the people and the companies.

In the meantime, China abuses in all forms possible, but democrats are more concerned about the evil the US is. Bunch of hypocrites.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2018 at 15:32 UTC

The point about cimate change is not disbelief. I think most people including conservatives/republicans/rightwingers agree on that. What we don't agree is liberals/progressives/democrats/leftists saying that it's mostly caused by men and forcing people and companies to adopt regulations and practices that are not feasible, which forces people and companies to depend on subsidies to adopt those practices, and to get more subsidies the gov't has to raise taxes, putting more power of decision in the hands of government.

So, in the end of the day, what democrats defend is more power to the government, while republicans want to keep the power in the hands of the private initiative.

In the meantime, China abuses nature as no other country in the world and you don't see democrats working together with republicans to use trade to force them to be better, to pollute less and stuff.

Democrats are hypocrites beyond one can measure.

By the way, great photos and interview.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2018 at 15:22 UTC as 88th comment | 9 replies

They could have put the dot in a slightly different color, like Leica on the lens cap, or just the name, without the dot. As is, I wouldn't buy it. It doesn't make any sense to me to have the money to buy such a jewery and not be able to make others see me as an exclusive guy, but if one feels Ok by wearing a Rolex without the brand name imprinted on front, but just on the back, good for them, right?

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2018 at 02:19 UTC as 55th comment | 1 reply
On article Hands-on with the Red Hydrogen One (153 comments in total)

Red should have released only the body as a case for other phones.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2018 at 21:30 UTC as 44th comment
On article Hasselblad XCD 80mm F1.9 sample gallery (107 comments in total)

The amazing thing about the medium format for me is that you can get the miniature effect naturally. To get the same result in FF, for instance, the lens has to be 1.4 or brighter, but the miniature effect is not the same, since the higher vignetting and irregular bokeh at the widest aperture on the corners kill part of the effect.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2018 at 18:41 UTC as 23rd comment | 2 replies

Perfect! I'd rather see them lauching more and more larger-sensor cameras so that their prices get competitive against FF-sensor cameras. After I lost the last good camera I had, a Lumix LX3, I always thought, "I will never buy an FF camera. I will either buy a 1-inch (or, up to an APS), or it will be a larger-than-FF sensor camera." But I was feeling helpless about a large sensor until Fujifilm launched this system. Now I believe my chances of getting a large-sensor Fujifilm, even if used, is, not higher, but now somehow real.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2018 at 20:46 UTC as 70th comment

First time I read about this on DPR I thought, "What a silly camera." It shocks me seeing now how many backers, how much fund they got.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2018 at 03:16 UTC as 80th comment
In reply to:

nerd2: So it's equivalent to FF 300mm 2.8 and 12-24 f4 lenses.

Fuji 200mm f2.0 OIS: $5,999, 2.3kg
Canon 300mm 2.8L IS II USM: $6099, 2.4kg,

Fuji 8-16 2.8: $1,995, 805g
Sony 12-24 4.0: $1,698, 565g

Again, the equivalent FF lens is just as light and cheap as APS specific lens. And FF mount has much larger user base, which will keep growing with release of Nikon/Canon FF mirrorless bodies.

I don't question the price because you're trying to deliver great resolution in a smaller area, and that requires a lot of technology too. I don't question the aperture in the wide zoom, because bokeh is not the strongest selling point of it, and the aperture of 2.8 holds the equivalence in terms exposure. I question the tele, though, because now bokeh is a great selling point, and in this case you are just trying to do the same job of a 300 2.8, which is not that much of a big deal. It would if it were, let's say, 1.7.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2018 at 03:38 UTC
On article Hands-on with Nikon's three Z-series lenses (144 comments in total)

It's always possible to identify a Nikon lens without seeing the brand name, but not anymore in the case of the Z ones. I know that this can be the least worrisome issue in practical terms. I just like the idea of being possible to identify a brand by certain product design characteristic.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2018 at 21:41 UTC as 8th comment | 3 replies
On article Leica M10-P adds a touchscreen and removes the red dot (464 comments in total)

It would make more sense to me if they had the red dot in a different color, or shiny silver, or body-color in high-relief, or something like that, like a special edition or model, but just removing it makes it look like a Chinese copy. I know it might sound silly, but I wouldn't buy it. Clean design is a strength in Leica, but this is too much. I wouldn't pay that much money to go home without that red dot, without being able to make people know I have a Leica, my camera is for few, and I am exclusive, eventually me showing up in a picture holding the camera and nobody knows what brand it is.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2018 at 00:54 UTC as 30th comment | 3 replies

If advertisers cheat in the Western world and sometimes the world has to be falling over their heads so that they apologize and learn and stuff, imagine a Chinese company.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2018 at 02:06 UTC as 54th comment | 1 reply
Total: 355, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »