The Beginners Questions Area

I don't think I know Dan. I do know and two other people know and I plan to leave it at that. I do like you, so that's that.

Danny.

Such low pixel count :))

Saying you lnow something without saying what it is doesn’t mean anything.

I like people guessing who I or anyone else might gave been in the past. It's entertaining and very funny at times.

A little before the dpreview announcement LynniePad\WryCuda accused bobn2 and me of being the same person :-D

It makes no difference to me who people think I might or might not have been on dpreview.

And it will get more stale when people bring it up again in the future.

It seems to me some people are struggling to cope with me not caring about who they think I might or might not have been on dpreview.

It's when you make statements like this Dan .........

"I am questioning your integrity and honesty because you have not told the truth on these forums on way too many occasions, and then run away when challenged on them, for me to just accept anything you post as being true."

Without looking in the mirror first. I'm nzmacro no matter where I go or Danny Young. Nothing has changed since I first got on the net. I don't need different nicknames.

Danny.

You seem to be implying that anyone with past accounts and not declaring them is being dishonest. If so, I disagree.

It was always within dpreview rules (moderator Smaug01 can confirm) for members to have multiple accounts as long as they were not used simultaneously.

And if someone else created an account somewhere on the internet as either nzmacro or Danny Young would you consider changing your username to differentiate yourself from the other person?

There are countless david1961's on the internet.

Are they all the same person and could more than one of those be the david1961 on dpreview that some people mention?

Not interested in games with you as player and referee, but let us assume there is Someone with a Supposed Agenda (Swasa in short). Swasa processes processes your raw to the best of his abilities to make it look bad. Swasa publishes it here. Then he will be held to the same standard we try to hold you to. If he does not provide a realistically sized jpg with full and intact exif, he will be asked to provide that. If he does not, he will not be taken seriously [and thus failed his agenda], if he does but artefacts caused by his processing or weird or extreme settings can be shown he will also have failed his agenda. Either way he blows credibility

i got my predicted answers . end of storey.

So did we. Your loss

I must add that forging an EXIF is a child's game. EXIFs shouldn't be trusted, especially if coming from unverified sources and offered as a proof of anything.

Thank you. a true gentleman.

A jpeg's exif data is too easily editable and so a jpeg on it's own proves nothing and would be laughed out of any court if it was the only evidence presented to claim ownership.

Having the raw file as well goes a long way to proving ownership.

As I have posted many times, anyone who knows what they are doing can download any image on the Internet and edit the jpeg's exif to make it look like they own the image.

What if there is only JPEG? No RAW file has been shot

Well, you'd better get a very good lawyer (meaning expensive) then if someone else is claiming ownership of your images 😄

It can be determined with at least 90% certainty that none of the cameras "that anyone has" took that JPEG. Such analysis isn't based on EXIF.