(via quartzcrystal)
Oh dear. I’m by no means a hater Li Lo, but honey, stick to the things your good at… like changing hair colour and reinventing the wifebeater as a micro mini dress.
The company that developed FarmVille makes its money through people spending actual, real people dollars to buy imaginary money, with which they then buy buildings or vehicles or some other virtual improvement. It’s not bad enough you spend your time on this game, but you’re going to pour your own money into it as well? Swapping genuine currency for literally nothing. Paying for the privilege to do an online chore. Well done, Generation Y.
“
| — |
Tom Slater. (via churly) Oh, virtual worlds. I paid for a PC version of The Sims in year 10 and I would probably purchase it again now (if I were unemployed). But Farmville… it just doesn’t appeal to me. Maybe it’s the farm part. Perhaps if it were called Cityville and you paid money for virtual gins rather than pumpkin seeds, I would be more inclined to sign up. |
Retirement is not one of the topics with which I deal. Why should I? I still have so many projects that I sometimes don’t know where to begin. Chanel will still need some clothes when I’m 89. The world can count on me for a long time.
“
| — | Karl Lagerfeld |
I love forum bashing. It often provides me with a million LOLS and hours of procrastination. This is probably one of my favourite discoveries hidden amongst the gizmodo forums, egged on by the rumoured release of the Leica M7 Herme’s Edition retailing at $14400 USD -
applesanity11/16/09
I love how all the techie geeks and amatuers talk about how digital outperforms film, even MF or LF film. Then when you walk into Chelsea galleries to see what new artists are doing these days, it’s pretty much all chromogenic and silver gelatin prints. A $4 roll of Tri-X still has greater dynamic range than an $8K Nikon D3X.
When scanned, slides from my dinky Bronica are well over 100 megapixels. A moot point though- optical prints still whip anything an Epson can spit out. Show me your best DSLR - I still win. Or, if you ever want to make a respectable print bigger than 5 feet, then there is absolutely no digital alternative to LF.
If time, quantity, and convenience are crucial, i.e., sports or photojournalism or wedding photography, then hands-down of course digital wins. But if you’re out to make some art, and then actually print that art versus pixel peeping on your monitor, then it’s film all the way.
In regards to this article - I would never pay 14 grand for an M7. Aren’t regular edition M7 kits less than half that price?
Markarian11/16/09
@applesanity: I love how film geeks and lomosexuals talk about how film is still relevant and far superior to today’s digital cameras. If you walk into an advertising agency or portrait studio, it’s pretty much all dye-sublimation prints from full-frame or medium format digital. A $2700 5D Mark II using AEB hs dynamic range than a $200 film scanner.
When scanned, slides from your dinky Bronica are well over 100MP and take forever to scan per roll. A moot point though, professional dye sublimation prints still whip anything a film photographer could do that wasn’t swimming in money for processing costs. Or if you ever want to make a respectable print bigger than 5 feet, there is absolutely no digital alternative to LF…except for digital LF, or maybe even digital MF.
If pretentiousness, elitism, and aggravation are crucial, then hands-down of course film wins. But if you’re out to make some art, and then actually print that art versus choking on chemicals or paying out the ass for someone else to do your processing, then it’s digital all the way.
In regards to this article - I would never pay 14 grand for an M7. Aren’t Mamiya or Hasselblad digital backs about the same price?
