Your definition of exposure is different to Jim's.
Your definition of exposure is how dark or light a photo looks on the medium it is being viewed on. That is actually image lightness not exposure.
Exposure is the amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.
A lot more light could have been put onto the sensor without clipping the raw data.
Oh boy. Pigeons and chess.
I took the image and its how i wanted to expose the image. so its perfect. Jim has yet to enter the comparrision and post a converted raw thats better than the jpeg. and Btw you havnt either. 😉
According to Sony's own raw converter you clipped the shadows.
You didn't shoot it in raw :) Your arw is lossy compressed.
its still 14 bit
and its shot in apsc mode. so everyone wouldnt complain about the file size.
the camera says i didnt.
Nope, you got the image lightness you wanted.
A lot more light could have been put on the sensor without clipping the raw data.
Exposure is the amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open.
I did. You ignored it.
You know what faststone is a better raw convertor than all the other programs. why ? i just converted the raw and then took the jpeg into photoshop
and measured the black point of the image and it was as low as 3 3 3, directly behind the bird it was 7
Sony craw is 13 bit precision.
That proves, using Sony hardware and software, that the camera's histogram, zebras/blinkies are not necessarily a reliable indicator of clipping in the raw data :-D
That is what people have been telling you all along and now even Sony is effectively telling you :-D
Bhahahaha! 😅😂😂😂😂
You got me. That is some artsy expression. Could not think of better one. Just wow.
400k image 🥱, post a full res image so we can scrutinize it 😁
A: How dishonest you want to be?
B: Yes.
If you want to post a challenge, you absolutely need to post requirements or benchmark, allow for multiple tries, and so on. What you do is not a proper fair challenge. I knew I never find that one, as about noone ever on the internet did it.
I try again and again, and always get this tricky nonsense or no response. You did no better in that regard.
Maybe I didn't read it well or missed something, but Donald did not personally attack you (for the way you reacted anyways). He just accused you of doing this and that, which is not true. For the love of god, for the fun, for the truth, don't refrain from debunking this nonsense professionally. Maybe we do a collage of this one day. That will do Donald for good. 🤭
DonaldB is a proven liar and so it's good to see more people are seeing how he operates.
He has falsified my posts in his quotes of them.
He has plagiarised other people's work and stupidly tried to justify it by saying he didn't actually claim in his post that it was his work even though he didn't reference the plagiarised work. How dumb is that? :-D
This clearly proves that any images or whatever he posts might not actually be his unless he actually claims it is.
So who knows where the images he posts come from and what processing has been done to them to support the agenda he is pushing at the time :-)
