• Hi, I am the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • This site contains affiliate links for which Styleforum may be compensated.
  • We would like to welcome House of Huntington as an official Affiliate Vendor. Shop past season Drake's, Nigel Cabourn, Private White V.C. and other menswear luxury brands at exceptional prices below retail. Please visit the Houise of Huntington thread and welcome them to the forum.

  • 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.

Technology Climax.

Brian SD

Moderator
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
9,492
Reaction score
128
Originally Posted by LabelKing
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.
 

LabelKing

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
May 24, 2002
Messages
25,421
Reaction score
268
Originally Posted by Brian SD
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.
If you wanted a nimble, fast car with good gas mileage, you could get a Lancia Fulvia. One of my paramount priorities is that I do not like disposable goods. I see things that eschew mechanical engineering in favor of a bunch of electronic goods as disposable. Power steering and power brakes are over-rated.
 

Tokyo Slim

In Time Out
Timed Out
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
18,360
Reaction score
16
Originally Posted by LabelKing
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.
The MKII was the first camera to objectively (and to the shock of the reviewers and readers) surpass 35mm non-specialty film in terms of complete image quality without post editing. Three years ago. There are about half a dozen cameras that can give you comparable results on the market today. Both Fuji Superia and Kodak Gold 100 were among the top rated multipurpose films at the time of the respective articles.
 

caelte

Senior Member
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
739
Reaction score
3
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
. Its the use, not the media that determines the final quality of any art.
It still comes down to that. I've seen your photography and LK's. Let's have a shoot out
boxing[1].gif
 

Tokyo Slim

In Time Out
Timed Out
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
18,360
Reaction score
16

Tokyo Slim

In Time Out
Timed Out
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
18,360
Reaction score
16
Originally Posted by caelte
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.
 

caelte

Senior Member
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
739
Reaction score
3
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
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.
If I had my way you would be both be armed with digital daguerreotype cameras at 30 paces. Seriously, I don't think merit enters into it, just the image.
 

Brian SD

Moderator
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
9,492
Reaction score
128
except this isnt a photography war. This is "which is a superior medium"
 

Nantucket Red

"Mr. Fashionista"
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
5,380
Reaction score
23
Originally Posted by LabelKing
Power steering and power brakes are over-rated.

You wouldn't think so if you had to drive a Packard with a shot gasket for its vaccuum-assist steering and brakes. That said, my brother was able to make a new gasket and completely remedy the situation in a matter of hours.
 

LabelKing

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
May 24, 2002
Messages
25,421
Reaction score
268
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
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.

A shoot-out as it were.

I only have very few images on the computer, actually.
 

caelte

Senior Member
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
739
Reaction score
3
Originally Posted by Nantucket Red
As I pointed out earlier, any images scanned for the web will end up in digital form anyway, so it's a moot point.
Yes, you are right but this is about pointing the camera and making something happen that seems..special. Isn't that what all this is about? Maybe I'm wrong? Is it just about having the best equipment? If it is, what a fugin bore. You can boast about having the best but if you can't do anything with it, what's the point? It will have to viewed at 72 dpi or whatever but that's the limitation.
 

Featured Sponsor

How important is full vs half canvas to you for heavier sport jackets?

  • Definitely full canvas only

    Votes: 55 35.5%
  • Half canvas is fine

    Votes: 60 38.7%
  • Really don't care

    Votes: 17 11.0%
  • Depends on fabric

    Votes: 27 17.4%
  • Depends on price

    Votes: 28 18.1%

Forum statistics

Threads
505,179
Messages
10,579,203
Members
223,894
Latest member
cliftonnwalker
Top