| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/20/2006 09:26:42 PM · #1 |
I'm reading This article on Wikipedia about digital photography. And, I find it quite funny.
The advantages of wiki style references is they are collaborative... but just read the section on digital photography and you can tell two forces are battling here. The article reads very much like it was writtne by an author with severe Schizophrenia.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2006 09:29:02 PM · #2 |
"One useful approach to deciding between a film or digital camera is to consider the ultimate medium of display for your photographs. If your pictures are for display on computer or television screens, small format prints such as snapshot or 8x10" photo paper, then the resolution provided by a 5 to 9 megapixal digital camera may be adequate. If your final medium is magazine or poster images, or slides for projection, then you may need the resolution provided by film in order to get a satisfying product. Lower resolution images will look grainy when printed or projected in large format."
bwahahaahahaahahaahahah!!! |
|
|
|
01/20/2006 09:32:56 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I'm reading This article on Wikipedia about digital photography. And, I find it quite funny.
The advantages of wiki style references is they are collaborative... but just read the section on digital photography and you can tell two forces are battling here. The article reads very much like it was writtne by an author with severe Schizophrenia. |
Yeah, it is funny how that happens. Fortunately, those types of issues do tend to get worked out.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/20/2006 09:37:01 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
"One useful approach to deciding between a film or digital camera is to consider the ultimate medium of display for your photographs. If your pictures are for display on computer or television screens, small format prints such as snapshot or 8x10" photo paper, then the resolution provided by a 5 to 9 megapixal digital camera may be adequate. If your final medium is magazine or poster images, or slides for projection, then you may need the resolution provided by film in order to get a satisfying product. Lower resolution images will look grainy when printed or projected in large format."
bwahahaahahaahahaahahah!!! |
...and that is worng why?
|
|
|
|
01/20/2006 09:38:48 PM · #5 |
Wikipedia is a joke. Anybody can put anything there.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2006 09:39:27 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by wavelength:
"One useful approach to deciding between a film or digital camera is to consider the ultimate medium of display for your photographs. If your pictures are for display on computer or television screens, small format prints such as snapshot or 8x10" photo paper, then the resolution provided by a 5 to 9 megapixal digital camera may be adequate. If your final medium is magazine or poster images, or slides for projection, then you may need the resolution provided by film in order to get a satisfying product. Lower resolution images will look grainy when printed or projected in large format."
bwahahaahahaahahaahahah!!! |
...and that is worng why? |
go find nsbca7..... not interested Brent. |
|
|
|
01/20/2006 09:47:16 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Wikipedia is a joke. Anybody can put anything there. |
And anyone can correct it.
In most cases, Wikipedia is quite accurate. I'd have to find the link, but a major university in the UK did a study that found scientific articles on Wikipedia had a rate of errors comparable to peer-reviewed journals.
To be sure, there have been some highly publicized cases of abuse of Wikipedia. Even the people who run Wikipedia will tell you that it's not intended to be more than a starting point for serious research, a basis for gaining a general understanding of a topic to get an idea how and where best to research further. That's true of any encyclopædia though.
I believe in the Wiki concept enough that I have set up a Wiki called Wikitography specifically for photography-related topics. It's pretty new but it's filling out quite rapidly with some decent information.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/20/2006 09:55:20 PM · #8 |
I agree completely with ClubJuggle on this ... Wikipedia is a great resource on a very wide range of subjects.
The particular article I pointed out just needs a bit of editting to make it read better. Perhaps, we can sneak over tonight and fix it for them.
OH and Wikitography Rocks!
|
|
|
|
01/20/2006 09:56:59 PM · #9 |
I've never found any really well written stuff on Wikipedia.
I find it silly too. Any time I have looked at anything on the medium, I have found this schizophrenic approach to every topic. A LOT of it is fueled by opinions.
If I want opinions, I can listen to myself. Of course that tends to sound a little schizophrenic too ;) |
|
|
|
01/20/2006 10:05:32 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by wavelength:
"One useful approach to deciding between a film or digital camera is to consider the ultimate medium of display for your photographs. If your pictures are for display on computer or television screens, small format prints such as snapshot or 8x10" photo paper, then the resolution provided by a 5 to 9 megapixal digital camera may be adequate. If your final medium is magazine or poster images, or slides for projection, then you may need the resolution provided by film in order to get a satisfying product. Lower resolution images will look grainy when printed or projected in large format."
bwahahaahahaahahaahahah!!! |
...and that is wrong why? |
Certainly, magazine copy (and National Geographic Magazine) expects higher resolution, so some of "wavelength's" statement must be true.
In my limited and non-professional experience, I've had excellent 4 x 6 prints & some very good 8 x 10 prints from 1600 x 1200 images taken by my 1.9 MP camera. It seems that the requirement for 5 to 9 MP just to get a good print in those sizes is just not required.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2006 10:11:50 PM · #11 |
Yeah, but the difference is that it isn't peer reviewed in the academic sense. You can't guarantee that anything on Wikipedia isn't total nonsense, which isn't the case with journal articles.
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Wikipedia is a joke. Anybody can put anything there. |
And anyone can correct it.
In most cases, Wikipedia is quite accurate. I'd have to find the link, but a major university in the UK did a study that found scientific articles on Wikipedia had a rate of errors comparable to peer-reviewed journals.
To be sure, there have been some highly publicized cases of abuse of Wikipedia. Even the people who run Wikipedia will tell you that it's not intended to be more than a starting point for serious research, a basis for gaining a general understanding of a topic to get an idea how and where best to research further. That's true of any encyclopædia though.
I believe in the Wiki concept enough that I have set up a Wiki called Wikitography specifically for photography-related topics. It's pretty new but it's filling out quite rapidly with some decent information.
~Terry |
|
|
|
|
01/20/2006 10:23:18 PM · #12 |
I've read some peer-reviewed stuff that is total nonsense, but all the peers like it, and since they're the "experts".... Peer review is completely defined by the bias of the community on the whole. If someone challenges the status quo of the scientific community, it's guaranteed that their work gets buried.
Message edited by author 2006-01-20 22:23:38. |
|
|
|
01/20/2006 10:31:02 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Wikipedia is a joke. Anybody can put anything there. |
There is something called 'iteration process' in engineering, we start with rough and mainly wrong solution and keep on correcting it, wikipedia is like this. We may start with wrong articles but it is corrected as time passes and after some time it becomes accurate and then it is not a joke, its a serious business.
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Removed personal attack. |
|
|
|
01/20/2006 10:33:52 PM · #14 |
Comparing a journal article to a wiki article is mostly irrelevant. Scientific journals, for the most part, deal with theories backed by establish scientific methods.
Wikipedias articles (and all encyclopedia articles) are interpretations from various sources. They tend to be less specific and broader ranged than a journal article.
Britanica, just to name one encyclopedia publisher, sees Wikipedia as a major threat. The links below will show you why.
Wikipedia Corrects Britanica
Wikipedia's Accuracy Compared to Britanica
Message edited by author 2006-01-20 22:36:38.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2006 10:35:13 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I've never found any really well written stuff on Wikipedia.
I find it silly too. Any time I have looked at anything on the medium, I have found this schizophrenic approach to every topic. A LOT of it is fueled by opinions.
|
if you read something which is bound to be subjective, you may find such kind of articles. But if you are looking for something very objective, like searching for newtons laws, you will get only one answer for them, since they should be same when written by lot of people.
For engineering subjects i find them to be very useful. |
|
|
|
01/21/2006 10:49:01 AM · #16 |
Good point zxaar. Please remember that my comment was entirely based on the very small number of things I have checked in the wikipedia.
They were subjective articles and they seemed to be unfinishable works in progress because they were the literary equivalent of an argument.
For engineering stuff, I've never actually considered checking the wikipedia. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 02:48:27 AM EDT.
