There are two ways to handle ignorant/trolling members: you block them (DPR way), or you continue debunking their ridiculous posts. Do you know of a better solution? Ignoring is not a solution, as that would spread the "alternative facts."
April 2, 2023
284
-
-
I would love to see the ignore option here. It makes browsing easier. Also, keeps the people with a lot of ignores less active by not engaging them.
-
I still don't know. From exposure to microphones to a yacht. That's quite a traversal. I'm still trying to work out how building a yacht proves that your ideas on photography are right.
-
Maybe it was your use of the word fathom. Free association time.
-
Good spot! Though if that was the case, shouldn't he have built a submarine?
-
That would be a different poster:
-
Proper action depends on circumstance. I rarely ignore anyone, because then I don´t know what nonsense they might be spewing about me. But once it turns into full on spam, I would chose it as e better solution. Donald with Danno just reached that level for me.
I do not believe the solution is in debunking their nonsense, because you can only do so much in your life, and time is precious. :-) -
And yet you keep reading this thread and posting in it.
Post a link to any of my posts that in your opinion contains nonsense that should be debunked.
-
whats the value of the scene luminance ? guess ! or do you use the incamera meter which iso is read and set manually or automatically. agree ?
-
It obviously depends on the scene.
If you need a refresher on how I set exposure* you can find it at dprevived.com/t/why-are-my-photos-noisy/754/
You are quoting statements that are not even correct because the light is not amplified in the camera.
If you need to be taken seriously, post where you think the light is being amplified in the camera.
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights. -
-
I don't need a light meter to set exposure* as described in the post I linked to.
You are quoting statements that are not even correct because the light is not amplified in the camera.
If you need to be taken seriously, post where you think the light is being amplified in the camera.
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights. -
did you see my image exif data ? just cross out 800 if it is correct.
-
Exif data by itself means very little to me because it is so easy to fake. The fact that exif data can be easily faked is common knowledge.
It would take me, or anyone else who knows what they are doing, no more than a couple of minutes to download any images you or anyone has posted online and alter the exif to make it appear I own the image.
Who knows where any exif data came from in any images you upload online.
-
Game set match. lead by example 😁😁
-
The image doesn't prove anything.
Your exif data might not be real as described earlier. Anyone can change the exif data in that image to whatever they like.
For you to suggest exif data by itself proves anything just proves how naive you are on all thing related to photography.
In any case I don't need a light meter to set exposure* as described earlier.
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights. -
I posted and highlighted the iso value not for its value ,but because Bob has added iso in the exif data to show what the camera exposure was set too 🤣🤣🤣
thats gold . commonsense always wins. Didn't i mention that a while ago in another post 🙄 -
Post a link to where he did that.
ISO is not part of the exposure as the Sony article I linked to said.
