Nope. Just challenging the authenticity and legitimacy of your images as I am entitled to do.
Nope. Just challenging the authenticity and legitimacy of your images as I am entitled to do.
That is another example of you not telling the truth and you wonder why I challenge your honesty and integrity 😂
What I posted was not an accusation but a statement of fact.
I said
...it's quite easy just like faking and editing them to suit an agenda would be if someone wanted to.
Are you saying it is difficult for everyone to fake and edit images to suit an agenda if someone wants to?
@DonaldB has written: @DannoLeftForums has written: @DonaldB has written:do think taking an image at iso 100 and iso 4000 of your kitchen is rocket science ?
No, it's quite easy just like faking and editing them to suit an agenda would be if someone wanted to.
childish accusations
That is another example of you not telling the truth and you wonder why I challenge your honesty and integrity 😂
What I posted was not an accusation but a statement of fact.
I said
@DannoLeftForums has written:...it's quite easy just like faking and editing them to suit an agenda would be if someone wanted to.
Are you saying it is difficult for everyone to fake and edit images to suit an agenda if someone wants to?
what agenda ?
what agenda ?
Whatever the agenda was that they were pushing.
Please can you stop this sniping at each other. It just pisses the rest of us off.
Alan
Please can you stop this sniping at each other. It just pisses the rest of us off.
Alan
pisses me off more, i post a simple image and expect questions and answers related to my image . not some primary school crap all the time. is it so god dam hard to have a sensible conversation on this site without all the garbage thrown in ?
@AlanSh has written:Please can you stop this sniping at each other. It just pisses the rest of us off.
Alan
pisses me off more, i post a simple image and expect questions and answers related to my image . not some primary school crap all the time. is it so god dam hard to have a sensible conversation on this site without all the garbage thrown in ?
If you don't like the authenticity and legitimacy of your images being rightfully questioned for the reasons Bob correctly mentioned earlier then post links to raw files in the first place and don't run away when asked to do so if you don't at first post links to them.
You had the option to post raw files as well as those jpegs but you decided to withhold the raw files and post only jpegs with who knows what processing and editing applied to them.
So it is totally reasonable for anyone to wonder what you might be hiding.
You have only yourself and your past history to blame for people sniping at you.
@AlanSh has written:Please can you stop this sniping at each other. It just pisses the rest of us off.
Alan
pisses me off more, i post a simple image and expect questions and answers related to my image . not some primary school crap all the time. is it so god dam hard to have a sensible conversation on this site without all the garbage thrown in ?
but your images are not that simple. The lightness difference is far smaller than you would expect with the ISO difference. So asking what processing was done is a fair question which could be answered by providing actual jpg's with complete exif
i post a simple image
That's the problem, you haven't. A screenshot isn't the images we need to see. Pushing JPEGs much?
@DonaldB has written: @AlanSh has written:Please can you stop this sniping at each other. It just pisses the rest of us off.
Alan
pisses me off more, i post a simple image and expect questions and answers related to my image . not some primary school crap all the time. is it so god dam hard to have a sensible conversation on this site without all the garbage thrown in ?
but your images are not that simple. The lightness difference is far smaller than you would expect with the ISO difference. So asking what processing was done is a fair question which could be answered by providing actual jpg's with complete exif
can you not read ? iso 4000 raw processed no adjustments. iso 100 pushed to reach the same brightness as the iso 4000 image. the difference is in the shadows. WB is also off shooting underexposed.
@DonaldB has written:i post a simple image
That's the problem, you haven't. A screenshot isn't the images we need to see. Pushing JPEGs much?
dont you read my posts ? iso 4000 raw processed no adjustments. iso 100 pushed to reach the same brightness as the iso 4000 image. the difference is in the shadows. WB is also off shooting underexposed.
@IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:i post a simple image
That's the problem, you haven't. A screenshot isn't the images we need to see. Pushing JPEGs much?
dont you read my posts ? iso 4000 raw processed no adjustments. iso 100 pushed to reach the same brightness as the iso 4000 image. the difference is in the shadows. WB is also off shooting underexposed.
Post the raw files. Simple.
@DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:i post a simple image
That's the problem, you haven't. A screenshot isn't the images we need to see. Pushing JPEGs much?
dont you read my posts ? iso 4000 raw processed no adjustments. iso 100 pushed to reach the same brightness as the iso 4000 image. the difference is in the shadows. WB is also off shooting underexposed.
Post the raw files. Simple.
if you cant see the replicated results its not my problem. a6300 and a74
@Robert1955 has written: @DonaldB has written: @AlanSh has written:Please can you stop this sniping at each other. It just pisses the rest of us off.
Alan
pisses me off more, i post a simple image and expect questions and answers related to my image . not some primary school crap all the time. is it so god dam hard to have a sensible conversation on this site without all the garbage thrown in ?
but your images are not that simple. The lightness difference is far smaller than you would expect with the ISO difference. So asking what processing was done is a fair question which could be answered by providing actual jpg's with complete exif
can you not read ? iso 4000 raw processed no adjustments. iso 100 pushed to reach the same brightness as the iso 4000 image. the difference is in the shadows. WB is also off shooting underexposed.
That does not tell me much about what you actually did in processing. Which slider is “push”?
its not my problem
Please explain what Bill is doing wrong:
www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Shadow.htm#Sony%20ILCE-7M4
That does not tell me much about what you actually did in processing. Which slider is “push”?
It tells nothing at all as the raw files are not provided. IMHO best to ignore the screenshots.
@WolfsHead has written:We are fortunate to have some unquestioned experts in the field of digital imaging - but they shouldn’t be let anywhere near anything with ‘beginner’ in the title!
Interesting point of view. You mean that beginners shouldn't have the opportunity to learn from people who actually know their stuff?
As my uncle “Don” said… “You know too much.”
@bobn2 has written: @WolfsHead has written:We are fortunate to have some unquestioned experts in the field of digital imaging - but they shouldn’t be let anywhere near anything with ‘beginner’ in the title!
Interesting point of view. You mean that beginners shouldn't have the opportunity to learn from people who actually know their stuff?
As my uncle “Don” said… “You know too much.”
I'll take “You know too much” over "You know too little, and most of it wrong" :)