fixed your typo and thanks đ
fixed your typo and thanks đ
@SrMi has written:With a bit of searching, it seems that @DannoLeftForums had indeed a heated discussion with a Sabrina81 user, but that was in 2020 (as David1961).
There are 260+ pages of David members on dpreview. I am happy for people to believe I am anyone of them đ
But David1961 registered here a couple of weeks ago, and started trolling me immediately. I reported David1961 to bobn2 who subsequently identified him as member Porky on dpreview and changed his username here. Porky/David1961 has since left the dprevived 'building'.
the post was under Danno not david1961
all i got was they were fake.
You are again not telling the truth.
post links to posts where anyone said they were fake đ
I said there was no way of verifying what noise reduction or any other processing might have been done to the jpegs you posted because you were not willing to post links in the public forums to their raw files
@DannoLeftForums has written: @SrMi has written:With a bit of searching, it seems that @DannoLeftForums had indeed a heated discussion with a Sabrina81 user, but that was in 2020 (as David1961).
There are 260+ pages of David members on dpreview. I am happy for people to believe I am anyone of them đ
But David1961 registered here a couple of weeks ago, and started trolling me immediately. I reported David1961 to bobn2 who subsequently identified him as member Porky on dpreview and changed his username here. Porky/David1961 has since left the dprevived 'building'.
the post was under Danno not david1961
There are 2 pages of Danno members on dpreview.
Post a link to the post you are referring to.
@DannoLeftForums has written: @SrMi has written:
Who cares? It is all ancient history. Let's see if we can get back to the discussion. I know the answer is 101010 but what was your question again?
@CrashpcCZ has written:You could have posted the comparison
I all ready did 300 posts ago, you musted have missed them. all i got was they were fake. you see even your not game to be on the hit list đ
Exactly. 300 posts ago, controlled by you. Last time I remember you accused me of reading it all. No. I scroll through, see my reference or quote, respond to that, and leave it alone. A 500 post thread with the name "beginners questions" arguing about RAW discussion with connection to another 500post thread, all full of offtopic, badmouthing, accusations, is no discussion. You do it to yourself. Enjoy the mess. Your game. At this point, as long I see it is allowed, I am getting comfortable with just having fun before I find next moment of serious task to do. Now it's about fun, and not about your RAWs.
@DonaldB has written: @DannoLeftForums has written: @SrMi has written:With a bit of searching, it seems that @DannoLeftForums had indeed a heated discussion with a Sabrina81 user, but that was in 2020 (as David1961).
There are 260+ pages of David members on dpreview. I am happy for people to believe I am anyone of them đ
But David1961 registered here a couple of weeks ago, and started trolling me immediately. I reported David1961 to bobn2 who subsequently identified him as member Porky on dpreview and changed his username here. Porky/David1961 has since left the dprevived 'building'.
the post was under Danno not david1961
There are 2 pages of Danno members on dpreview.
Post a link to the post you are referring to.
Do we need a 'former nicks' commission to sort out once and for all who was ever who on DPReview. I have a friend who could trawl the databases for the answers.
@DonaldB has written: @CrashpcCZ has written:You could have posted the comparison
I all ready did 300 posts ago, you musted have missed them. all i got was they were fake. you see even your not game to be on the hit list đ
Exactly. 300 posts ago, controlled by you. Last time I remember you accused me of reading it all. No. I scroll through, see my reference or quote, respond to that, and leave it alone. A 500 post thread with the name "beginners questions" arguing about RAW discussion with connection to another 500post thread, all full of offtopic, badmouthing, accusations, is no discussion. You do it to yourself. Enjoy the mess. Your game. At this point, as long I see it is allowed, I am getting comfortable with just having fun before I find next moment of serious task to do. Now it's about fun, and not about your RAWs.
but it will be fun, its a good demonstration that shooting at iso 100 and raising the brightness in post displays more noise than shooting a iso 4000, also demonstrates that iso has an effect on the exposed raw image.
but it will be fun, its a good demonstration that shooting at iso 100 and raising the brightness in post displays more noise than shooting a iso 4000, also demonstrates that iso has an effect on the exposed raw image.
1) This is many many years old knowledge.
2) I don't think it is the point here.
3) I certainly have fun. Just different kind now.
What do you want me to do? I am refusing the search though, and all has to be public.
its a good demonstration that shooting at iso 100 and raising the brightness in post displays more noise than shooting a iso 4000, also demonstrates that iso has an effect on the exposed raw image.
You haven't posted any verifiable evidence that proves your claim to be correct, especially in all cases.
Do we need a 'former nicks' commission to sort out once and for all who was ever who on DPReview. I have a friend who could trawl the databases for the answers.
Yep, I am all for that. It will be interesting to see the evidence used to link member accounts with actual people.
@DonaldB has written:its a good demonstration that shooting at iso 100 and raising the brightness in post displays more noise than shooting a iso 4000, also demonstrates that iso has an effect on the exposed raw image.
You haven't posted any verifiable evidence that proves your claim to be correct, especially in all cases.
See? I have no idea what is going on here really. But that claim is true. DPR and other pages are full of these DR, exposure latitude, brightening and pushing tests. Also basic measurements tell you that if you can read the full meaning of these.
Pushing low ISO image up to the brightness of the same exposure higher ISO image gets you more noise in the output image.
@DonaldB has written: @DannoLeftForums has written: @SrMi has written:Who cares? It is all ancient history. Let's see if we can get back to the discussion. I know the answer is 101010 but what was your question again?
.Im purely defending my integrity that others seem to doubt. The posted images display different noise patterns and colours of 2 equally exposed images at iso 100 and iso 4000. and begs the discussion that iso has an effect on a raw image file.
.Im purely defending my integrity that others seem to doubt. The posted images display different noise patterns and colours of 2 equally exposed images at iso 100 and iso 4000. and begs the discussion that iso has an effect on a raw image file.
Again, post the raw files.
@Robert1955 has written: @DonaldB has written: @DannoLeftForums has written: @SrMi has written:Who cares? It is all ancient history. Let's see if we can get back to the discussion. I know the answer is 101010 but what was your question again?
.Im purely defending my integrity that others seem to doubt. The posted images display different noise patterns and colours of 2 equally exposed images at iso 100 and iso 4000. and begs the discussion that iso has an effect on a raw image file.
Then you should have no problem publicly sharing the raw's these screenshots are based on
@DannoLeftForums has written: @DonaldB has written:its a good demonstration that shooting at iso 100 and raising the brightness in post displays more noise than shooting a iso 4000, also demonstrates that iso has an effect on the exposed raw image.
You haven't posted any verifiable evidence that proves your claim to be correct, especially in all cases.
See? I have no idea what is going on here really. But that claim is true. DPR and other pages are full of these DR, exposure latitude, brightening and pushing tests. Also basic measurements tell you that if you can read the full meaning of these.
Pushing low ISO image up to the brightness of the same exposure higher ISO image gets you more noise in the output image.
Hooooooooooraaaaaaay đťđťđťđťđ Thats all my images were posted for. and no one else could even give me an answer , this is the right place for beginners thats for sure.
@DonaldB has written: @Robert1955 has written: @DonaldB has written: @DannoLeftForums has written: @SrMi has written:Who cares? It is all ancient history. Let's see if we can get back to the discussion. I know the answer is 101010 but what was your question again?
.Im purely defending my integrity that others seem to doubt. The posted images display different noise patterns and colours of 2 equally exposed images at iso 100 and iso 4000. and begs the discussion that iso has an effect on a raw image file.
Then you should have no problem publicly sharing the raw's these screenshots are based on
I had no problem in sharing them till certain members got up my nose and declared war.
Hooooooooooraaaaaaay đťđťđťđťđ Thats all my images were posted for. and no one else could even give me an answer , this is the right place for beginners thats for sure.
It's not that I proved it yet, and it is not hooooray if it takes you and other users to even begin to discuss a thing in +-400 posts. That is very low point.