ordering/printing digital pics

April23 said:
Ya sure it will. :ugh:
Click to expand...
Hey, they said you could never replace traditional xrays with digital ones because the quality wasn't there. Well, its there now and more people are switching over because digital xrays are more detailed than printed ones.

They said digital theaters would never match the quality of film, but studios are quickly moving away from film with the radification of the DCI spec and digital projectors with resolutions as high as 4096 x 2160. FWIW, I've seen such a projector and it truly does blow film away.

So what's to say that it won't catch up to stuff in your home?
 
theacoustician said:
Hey, they said you could never replace traditional xrays with digital ones because the quality wasn't there. Well, its there now and more people are switching over because digital xrays are more detailed than printed ones.

They said digital theaters would never match the quality of film, but studios are quickly moving away from film with the radification of the DCI spec and digital projectors with resolutions as high as 4096 x 2160. FWIW, I've seen such a projector and it truly does blow film away.

So what's to say that it won't catch up to stuff in your home?
Click to expand...


Photography is a peice of art... not some amped up microwave of the future.
 
Bubbles said:
Are you TRYING to be difficult?
Click to expand...
No, I just think I place more value on the idea, the vision, the thought than the actual object. If something can invoke all the same feelings and experience as the original (mentally, visually, aurally, etc.), than how is it any different than the original?

I think the only thing I'm getting out of this is that I'm the only person here who puts more value on an idea or a feeling than a "thing".
 
Last edited:
theacoustician said:
No, I just think I place more value on the idea, the vision, the thought of thinks than the actual object. If something can invoke all the same feelings and experience as the original (mentally, visually, aurally, etc.), than how is it any different than the original?

I think the only thing I'm getting out of this is that I'm the only person here who puts more value on an idea or a feeling than a "thing".
Click to expand...

It's a sentimental thing.
 
theacoustician said:
No, I just think I place more value on the idea, the vision, the thought of thinks than the actual object. If something can invoke all the same feelings and experience as the original (mentally, visually, aurally, etc.), than how is it any different than the original?

I think the only thing I'm getting out of this is that I'm the only person here who puts more value on an idea or a feeling than a "thing".
Click to expand...
To place the same value on a replica as the origional (as you are saying) is only putting value in the 'thing'. Some people put value on the uniqueness of the origional inception of that object itself. The ideas or feelings the creater had while making the origional. There is more to an object than the visual of the physical object itself.
 
Pandora said:
To place the same value on a replica as the origional (as you are saying) is only putting value in the 'thing'. Some people put value on the uniqueness of the origional inception of that object itself. The ideas or feelings the creater had while making the origional. There is more to an object than the visual of the physical object itself.
Click to expand...
Placing more value on an object that is physically indecernable from a copy simply because it was the first is placing more value on the object than the experience that it invokes.
 
theacoustician said:
Placing more value on an object that is physically indecernable from a copy simply because it was the first is placing more value on the object than the experience that it invokes.
Click to expand...


physically indecernable eh?

I figured you could actually see the brush strokes in the original and not in the print.
 
Coqui said:
physically indecernable eh?

I figured you could actually see the brush strokes in the original and not in the print.
Click to expand...

His point is a philosophical one. If there is no discernable physical difference between the replica and the original, is there really any difference. If every brush stroke looked EXACTLY the same between the two, would they be the same (ie have the same value)?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back