Nantucket Red
"Mr. Fashionista"
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,380
- Reaction score
- 23
This is an example of why I find a lot of recent "technology" distasteful.
I agree. It's a regression.
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
This is an example of why I find a lot of recent "technology" distasteful.
For the sakes of the topic, Kodak Gold 100 is a very average film while a 16.6 MP digital camera is a considerably advanced digital camera. So it takes a relatively advanced digital camera to beat an average color film.
Nah, not really, though. That's just comparing the raw file to the film. Add in the ability to tweak the histogram, noise reduction and sharpening and even a $800 or so digital camera is going to have as good quality as film. Also, you can do this to entire batch of images in just a few seconds. Lastly, quality really has nothing to do with megapixels. They're only loosely related. Megapixel ratings keep increasing beyond practical need when it really doesn't change the quality of the pixels at all, and that's what's important. Just because *you're* confused and don't understand how digital SLRs work (it's pretty much identical to normal SLRs, only the data is saved on a card instead of film) doesn't mean the technology is inferior. And while the new oil readers on BMWs may be a pain **********, the fact that you can get 30 mpg in a car with 300 horsepower, amazing breaks and safety features is clearly better than the minute practical benefits of vintage automobiles.
For the sakes of the topic, Kodak Gold 100 is a very average film while a 16.6 MP digital camera is a considerably advanced digital camera. So it takes a relatively advanced digital camera to beat an average color film.
. Its the use, not the media that determines the final quality of any art.
It still comes down to that.
http://www.cameraclash.com/index.php
Jee-sahz, there's a website for everything! Competing on a theme is really tacky crap, it's like a photography class. I say, each of you put up your best stuff. We'll decide.
I'm up for it if LK is... I guess. My camera is almost definitely inferior, but if we are judging on MERIT, not technical ability... I'm cool.
Power steering and power brakes are over-rated.
I'm up for it if LK is... I guess. My camera is almost definitely inferior, but if we are judging on MERIT, not technical ability... I'm cool.
except this isnt a photography war. This is "which is a superior medium"
As I pointed out earlier, any images scanned for the web will end up in digital form anyway, so it's a moot point.