David Wyman

David Wyman

Lives in United States United States
Works as a Photography-related endeavors
Has a website at http://www.davewyman.com
Joined on Jan 27, 2003
About me:

My fourth book, Fearless Photographer: Nature, was published in early 2016. I'm also the author of three pictorial guidebooks, two about California, one about Yosemite.

I conduct photography workshops for the Yosemite Conservancy and I conduct trips around the western U.S. through my own company.


Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
In reply to:

maiaibing: Lots of local legislation prohibits photography - the Hollywood Sign - the (famous) Hotels on the Vegas strip - Sydney Opera House (if main subject) - Eiffel Tower at Night (day OK) - Ayers Rock (gotta love this one!!!) - Brussels Atominium etc. etc.

Expect more to come in the future. Only good thing is nobody seems to care unless you use those pictures commercially. But the risk is there.

And in fact lots of people are indeed selling these pictures violating the building/monument owners copy rights...

The Hollywood Sign, hotels in Las Vegas? The Eiffel Tower at night? There's no restriction on photographing these places.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2017 at 22:58 UTC
In reply to:

Majauskasson: Nikon is floundering. For years it produced front/back focusing lenses that required setting by owner - quality control? - not acceptable and inexcusable - and DSLRs that were simply too big for the smart phone era. You don't see many DSLRs any more and mirrorless and smart phones are why. No sympathy for Nikon - it did not read the tea leaves in time.

I can only speak for the greater Los Angeles area where I live. I see a lot of people with cameras wandering around the Farmers Market, the Arts District, Malibu and Venice, Palos Verdes, Hollywood - all the places where people would be expected to have cameras. I've seen few mirrorless cameras and plenty of DSLRs.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 15:56 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: If camera manufacturers did not release a new camera as frequently as they have done since the digital era started, maybe they would not have lost their focus. In the film era, we had little or none of this and that was better for both customer and manufacturer.

True technological progress is incredibly fast, but do we really need to keep up with the best possible and change our equipment when that best gets better? For most of us, I think not but many consumers think the ability to make huge images of top quality a requirement even when they never do so.

They are conditioned into this largely because of marketing strategies that brainwash materialistic people into ill considered purchases.

As a senior citizen, most visiting DPR are not, I could be accused of seeing the past through rose coloured spectacles. My vision is good enough that my conclusions do not rely upon any such assistance, both meanings intended.

In short, Nikon has been chasing the buck, not coherent progress.

Nikon wants to make money! Imagine that.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 15:49 UTC

Yeah, forget hotographing the Eiffel Tower, too. Whatever shot YOU come up with, it'll already been done, and better.

Photos of your kids? There are plenty of better shots of better looking kids than yours on the web.

I'm going to be in Jackson Hole, Wyoming beneath the Tetons during the eclipse. I plan on making a few photos of the total eclipse with a long lens, shots of people, shots of the awesome landscape, and shots of the scene before and after totality. I'll use a special, DIY neutral density filter to capture the sun in partial eclipse with the landscape below. And so on.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 05:06 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

Mark Hubbard 1949: What constitutes "commercial" photography in the National Parks? Using a tripod and medium or large format cameras? OF COURSE these visitors were foolish and criminal in walking out on the fragile and beautiful Grand Prismatic. How much did they make from their "commercial" photography? Where were their "commercial" products published? Did the voice-over of their films incite others to ignore rules in our National Parks? The National Park Service has become increasingly hostile towards photographers in the last 50 years; unfortunately, idiots like these four burden the rest of us with unwarranted scrutiny and the possibility of arrest for seemingly innocent activities. We all need more EDUCATION and CLEARER GUIDELINES from the National Park Service to properly enjoy our hobby and to respect the needs of the parks while protecting the environment. I regret that it was four Canadians who were charged when too many U.S. citizens disrespect our public lands and need additional education.

"capturing images for later display with the expectation of receiving money from individuals who wish to see the images"

That seems like a slippery slope. How about individuals who have no expectation of selling their photos at the time they make them, but have no means of or knowledge how to do so? Or who later decide to do so, or are approached to do so? I'm guessing you'd you're OK with those scenarios.

I'd rather see emphasis on restrictions/special rule/fees on the equipment photographers can use – i.e. on drone photography, scaffolding for lights, etc. – than to try impose rules and fees on photography per se, for what photographers may or may not do with their photos after they make them.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2017 at 19:11 UTC
In reply to:

DavidsfotosDotCom: Did these guy do any real damage or just make a few temporary footprints if any? If you believe in evolution (I don't based on 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics) then what, is this just evolution in action? There have been free range Native Americans exploring & living there thousands of years before the NPS put up signs!

Every freedom loving person should read: The Law, 1853 by Frederic Bastiat - it explains how the state use's the law to get Legal Plunder!
People plead guilty who are NOT all the time because the STATE is a 9,000 lb gorilla that will make a punitive example of you if you don't plead guilty!

Well, David, I don't believe in the first and second laws of thermodynamics, so I'm pretty sure you don't exist, either.

I don't suppose you realize how kooky your ideas are, do you? No, you don't, or you wouldn't post them here.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2017 at 18:53 UTC
On article Power Zoom: Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100/TZ100 Review (362 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecm: I know a lot of folks already really love this camera - but I am unhappy; I guess because I was expecting too much.... With a 1" sensor and a much limited but useful-range zoom, I thought this might be it - a large sensor camera with a sharp, usable wide to moderate telephoto lens. After all, Panasonic makes darned good fixed long zoom lenses, my old ZS15 attests to that.

But, "soft"? "Noise reduction obliterates detail"? This does not sound like the Panasonic I know.... I already get that from my ZS50 - why would I spend so much for what sounds like exactly the same problems? Very disappointed.... going to cry in my corner now.... :\

"a large sensor camera"

I'm late to the party, but ecm's comment caught my attention. A 1" sensor isn't a large sensor. It's a small sensor.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2016 at 04:23 UTC
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7