your testing method is not going to be accurate because the red channel is not going to be the same colour red , i shot a red lunch box and my in-camera histogram was pretty well spot on .given the colour red is a mix of rgb colours. i might be wrong ,but someone more experienced might chip in.
[/quote]
Red plastic isn't a problem, unless it's fluorescent. Red flowers are the problem.
I think you should state what you think is the correct facts, but not get into a long argument with somebody who has his own collection of facts.
We each live in our own private universe.
Don
The problem is generally that you state what you think are the correct facts and your interlocutor responds saying your correct facts are incorrect. Do you stop there? If you do it looks like you're acknowledging that your facts were were wrong.
Single malt applied correctly gives you infinite patience.
You're a bad lad, Ted.
Don
I say to myself "What a maroon !" and leave it. Life's too short to worry about always winning arguments.
Don
I once read of a way to post something and then explicitly leave the last word to one's opponent, such that the opponent "lost" if they responded.
It's a great pity that I've forgotten the type of wording of that "something" ... a means to make a point and "win" either way ...
If you apply enough.
In my view it's not really about winning arguments, it's about not allowing 'alternative facts' to propagate. In any case, we have an excellent example in this very thread how a lot of patience allowed such a discussion to reach a conclusion where both parties agreed on what were the facts. That's not always going to happen, but sometimes it will.
Yes, and this forum has effectively become “dpscience”. Which is fine if that’s the expected direction. For real world photography there’s not much happening on here. In fact, if anyone dares relate any of this back to the real world you get told off, talked down to or insulted. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Only if you feel that one-third stop improvement in photon noise will make a difference in your photography. The point of the numbers is not to tell you what to do. The point of the numbers is to give you information so that you can decide what to do.
My guess is that you have far more posts on "science" threads here than anything else. You may counter with "that's all there is", to which my reply would be for you to find the start new thread button and get it started. This forum is a blank canvas. If you want more image threads, or whatever you are looking for here, simply start it. I will click on it.
Or maybe I’ll just keep posting that stuff on my own blog, or maybe join FM which seems to be massively more oriented to photography rather than a bunch of scientists having a pissing contest
I have time to slow down, so what is meant by "maximise"?
2&3 are not applicable to my camera, so no comment.
I think you meant to say your way of working. Because clearly my points are not camera specific. Some folk won’t or don’t need to understand this. And that’s fine. Crack on!
That's very pejorative. That's not what people are doing here.
Seems to me you are doing close to half of the pissing
You may need to step back a bit and realize how much of the innuendo that you perceive here comes from yourself.
Jim gave a number, not a statement that "you must get this 0.37 stops of lower photon noise, or your images are riddled with noise".
Options; not mandates.
