I think it's wisest to tread Don's 'demonstrations' as entertaining conundrums, if you enjoy hunting out trickery, not as statements of fact. If you don't enjoy hunting out trickery, just ignore them.
April 11, 2023
678
-
Yes. that is all true for anyone who is aware of his history and what he gets up to.
But further down the track of time new members to DPRevived who might not be aware of his history here or at dpreview might end up wasting a lot of time if he tries the same things and members who know what he might be doing simply ignore him.
-
do think taking an image at iso 100 and iso 4000 of your kitchen is rocket science ? im glad im me. do you guys actually take test images ?
-
back peddling are you both after your exposure triangle theory hit a brick wall 😁 i have so much more info would make you and Bobs head spin on the whole history of photography. You guys just preach everyone else's info without doing your own research.
-
No, it's quite easy just like faking and editing them to suit an agenda would be if someone wanted to.
-
childish accusations
-
Nope. Just challenging the authenticity and legitimacy of your images as I am entitled to do.
-
That is another example of you not telling the truth and you wonder why I challenge your honesty and integrity 😂
What I posted was not an accusation but a statement of fact.
I said
Are you saying it is difficult for everyone to fake and edit images to suit an agenda if someone wants to?
-
what agenda ?
-
Whatever the agenda was that they were pushing.
-
Please can you stop this sniping at each other. It just pisses the rest of us off.
Alan
-
pisses me off more, i post a simple image and expect questions and answers related to my image . not some primary school crap all the time. is it so god dam hard to have a sensible conversation on this site without all the garbage thrown in ?
-
If you don't like the authenticity and legitimacy of your images being rightfully questioned for the reasons Bob correctly mentioned earlier then post links to raw files in the first place and don't run away when asked to do so if you don't at first post links to them.
You had the option to post raw files as well as those jpegs but you decided to withhold the raw files and post only jpegs with who knows what processing and editing applied to them.
So it is totally reasonable for anyone to wonder what you might be hiding.
You have only yourself and your past history to blame for people sniping at you.
-
but your images are not that simple. The lightness difference is far smaller than you would expect with the ISO difference. So asking what processing was done is a fair question which could be answered by providing actual jpg's with complete exif
-
That's the problem, you haven't. A screenshot isn't the images we need to see. Pushing JPEGs much?
-
can you not read ? iso 4000 raw processed no adjustments. iso 100 pushed to reach the same brightness as the iso 4000 image. the difference is in the shadows. WB is also off shooting underexposed.
-
dont you read my posts ? iso 4000 raw processed no adjustments. iso 100 pushed to reach the same brightness as the iso 4000 image. the difference is in the shadows. WB is also off shooting underexposed.
-
Post the raw files. Simple.
