@IliahBorg has written:There was no conversation.
So what type of game is he playing?
@IliahBorg has written:There was no conversation.
So what type of game is he playing?
do think taking an image at iso 100 and iso 4000 of your kitchen is rocket science ? im glad im me. do you guys actually take test images ?
back peddling are you both after your exposure triangle theory hit a brick wall π i have so much more info would make you and Bobs head spin on the whole history of photography. You guys just preach everyone else's info without doing your own research.
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 ?
I can see how and where this is going, the very same games were played else where without much success.
Their is a great number of people that know much more than you with the topics being discussed here and it would be wise for you to take heed in their answers and that you should really stop this act that you seem so keen on playing.
The majority of your post come across as derogatory and the attituded that you could never be wrong.
Even when someone mentions shot noise you could not even be bothered to do some research on the subject and play this game that everyone else is wrong.
This is really a never-ending story with you.
Even in your "Raw histogram and why does it matter" you play this game, in your discussion there you post a link to DPR on the use of RD and that everyone should look at the article, that article in a nutshells did not disagree with anything people was tell you here.
The one person here who would be the one to setup test shots and understands what it takes to evaluate them has already let you know what he thinks of your testing methods
All that has been established is that you sent him something and he is refusing to download it for the valid reasons he posted earlier.
@IanSForsyth has written: @IliahBorg has written:There was no conversation.
So what type of game is he playing?
His normal trolling game π
Even better ,lets see you 2 get out of this one now π€£ what are the odds 1 person is going to ask for the raw files link πand post the conversions showing the shadow noise comparisons. that will be even more fun.π
@DannoLeftForums has written: @IanSForsyth has written: @IliahBorg has written:There was no conversation.
So what type of game is he playing?
His normal trolling game π
Even better ,lets see you 2 get out of this one now π€£ what are the odds 1 person is going to ask for the raw files link πand post the conversions showing the shadow noise comparisons. that will be even more fun.π
You're proving my point π
no games just facts.
A conversation implies that two people have exchanged ideas.
A PM sent with no reply is not a conversation
@DonaldB has written:do think taking an image at iso 100 and iso 4000 of your kitchen is rocket science ? im glad im me. do you guys actually take test images ?
@DonaldB has written:back peddling are you both after your exposure triangle theory hit a brick wall π i have so much more info would make you and Bobs head spin on the whole history of photography. You guys just preach everyone else's info without doing your own research.
@DonaldB has written: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 ?
I can see how and where this is going, the very same games were played else where without much success.
Their is a great number of people that know much more than you with the topics being discussed here and it would be wise for you to take heed in their answers and that you should really stop this act that you seem so keen on playing.The majority of your post come across as derogatory and the attituded that you could never be wrong.
Even when someone mentions shot noise you could not even be bothered to do some research on the subject and play this game that everyone else is wrong.
This is really a never-ending story with you.
Even in your "Raw histogram and why does it matter" you play this game, in your discussion there you post a link to DPR on the use of RD and that everyone should look at the article, that article in a nutshells did not disagree with anything people was tell you here.The one person here who would be the one to setup test shots and understands what it takes to evaluate them has already let you know what he thinks of your testing methods
Ive offed and posted the raw link, not my problem if they are to g.............s to open them. in fear of retribution.
Even better ,lets see you 2 get out of this one now π€£ what are the odds 1 person is going to ask for the raw files link πand post the conversions showing the shadow noise comparisons. that will be even more fun.
I don'T think anyone is going too, And I don't think you really know what points that your trying to make other than playing some stupid game
@DonaldB has written:no games just facts.
A conversation implies that two people have exchanged ideas.
A PM sent with no reply is not a conversation
Your playing there game now and walking backwards with your tail between your legs.
Ive offed and posted the raw link, not my problem if they are to g.............s to open them. in fear of retribution.
I think most are done with your games and your lack of not wanting to learn, yes Don you know everything and you are the greatest ( within your reality)
Ive offed and posted the raw link,
I have no reason to believe you are telling the truth at all there. No-one has downloaded whatever you claim to have sent them.
@DonaldB has written:Ive offed and posted the raw link, not my problem if they are to g.............s to open them. in fear of retribution.
I think most are done with your games and your lack of not wanting to learn, yes Don you know everything and you are the greatest ( within your reality)
It's good to see members here who might not be aware of the trolling he got up to at dpreview slowly wise up to the games and trolling he plays π
He's obviously struggling to cope with members justifiably choosing to ignore his PM's and he wonders why after posting nonsense in the public forums.
@DonaldB has written:Ive offed and posted the raw link, not my problem if they are to g.............s to open them. in fear of retribution.
I think most are done with your games and your lack of not wanting to learn, yes Don you know everything and you are the greatest ( within your reality)
You learn from objective arguments, you don't belittle and perform personal attacks if the thread is not going your way, not my problem if the masses and facts lead to objective conversations with the thread title. You call me dishonest then you better be ready for a good battle, truth will always win in the end. I just walk them to the top of the hill, then they walk right over the edge all by themselves.π they must be lousy poker players ,they called my bluff (rudely i might add),i showed my hand, they lost simple. would you like the link so i can collect my prize ππ
You learn from objective arguments, you don't belittle and perform personal attacks if the thread is not going your way, not my problem if the masses and facts lead to objective conversations with the thread title. You call me dishonest then you better be ready for a good battle, truth will always win in the end. I just walk them to the top of the hill, then they walk right over the edge all by themselves.π they must be lousy poker players ,they called my bluff (rudely i might add),i showed them my hand, they lost simple.
That is just more BS nonsense from you π
All that has been established is that you sent him something and he is refusing to download it for the valid reasons he posted earlier.
@DonaldB has written:You learn from objective arguments, you don't belittle and perform personal attacks if the thread is not going your way, not my problem if the masses and facts lead to objective conversations with the thread title. You call me dishonest then you better be ready for a good battle, truth will always win in the end. I just walk them to the top of the hill, then they walk right over the edge all by themselves.π they must be lousy poker players ,they called my bluff (rudely i might add),i showed them my hand, they lost simple would you like the link so i can collect my prize ππ
That is just more BS nonsense from you π
@DannoLeftForums has written:All that has been established is that you sent him something and he is refusing to download it for the valid reasons he posted earlier.
not getting the link π
@DannoLeftForums has written: @DonaldB has written:You learn from objective arguments, you don't belittle and perform personal attacks if the thread is not going your way, not my problem if the masses and facts lead to objective conversations with the thread title. You call me dishonest then you better be ready for a good battle, truth will always win in the end. I just walk them to the top of the hill, then they walk right over the edge all by themselves.π they must be lousy poker players ,they called my bluff (rudely i might add),i showed them my hand, they lost simple would you like the link so i can collect my prize ππ
That is just more BS nonsense from you π
@DannoLeftForums has written:All that has been established is that you sent him something and he is refusing to download it for the valid reasons he posted earlier.
not getting the link π
I don't need it because you claim you already sent it to someone π
i did what you asked for
You didn't. PM isn't posting.