The Beginners Questions Area

Yep, that what said. You have not told the truth in several posts in this thread and run away when challenged on them.

Like I said, you have only yourself to blame when I and other people question your honesty and integrity.

I dont need to be reminded on the teachings of integrity. i have raised a daughter that was school captian + dux in both her primary and secondary school and is now a university ambassador of a world top 50 university and has awards for leadership form major organizations. so i would be very carefull with your comments as whos integrity is to be questioned.

I think once we get threaded view it'll help a bit, as skipping the perpetual motion portions generated by D&D in affected threads and focusing on the rest becomes more convenient.

agree, you can skip the garbage. never used this view on dpr ever.

Except for another offtopic ballast (very bad people can get to be ambassadors, therefore it is not proof of anything, and we do not discuss them anyways. It might not be your doing either.), we are getting to the point!

The point is, that anyones integrity can be questioned at any point. Mine, admin´s anyones. We have the freedom to ask, and there is no authority to stop that. Especially not you it seems to be.
For my integrity, I have no issue. Let´s go debunk my nonsense. More power to you as far as I am concerned. I am a human, I do mistakes, I change, I am not afraid to face consequences of my wrongdoing. That can unfairly close some doors here and there, but it will certainly open some new ones.

And so it might strike me as that you really don´t get that you have no power here with your achievements. It basically trolls you back, big time. I can understand the upsetting then.

Did I read some hint of a threat?

I am questioning your integrity and honesty because you have not told the truth on these forums on way too many occasions, and then run away when challenged on them, for me to just accept anything you post as being true.

It's as simple as that 🙂

lets recap the out comes. "Raw histogram and why does it matter." it doesnt . the camera is a light meter, it couldnt care less about a raw file. that was easy, i use live view field monitors with complex histograms that read beyond the normal in-camera histograms. easy win that one. 500 posts later. and to put salt on the wound you can fine tune your cameras metering system.
exposure triangle. well go buy a light meter . "exposure" or is it "exposition" 🙄 read about the invention of light meters is a good start. and add asa or iso to estimate exposure.
iso is not part of sensor sensitivity/gain ? dual gain was finally brought into the discussion.
Iso has no importance when shooting raw , that one went horribly wrong didnt it. and you even said your self without realizing it. more noise shooting iso 100 and raising in post from raw file compared to shooting iso4000. ive posted images with negative response.
1200 posts answered in 10 lines what does that tell you.

Members can read the thread you refer to and make their own conclusions as to whether raw histograms matter to them or not.

dprevived.com/t/raw-histogram-and-why-does-it-matter/1848/

It was established that it doesn't matter to you. That is your choice to make. Making that statement on behalf of everyone else makes you look foolish because it was shown in that thread why raw histograms do matter.

For you it went horribly wrong because I don't need to worry about ISO to set the optimal exposure** as long as important highlights are not clipped as described in that and other threads.

That you waffle on a lot and don't always tell the truth.

That is probably true in most cases depending on how the test was done but your jpegs with unknown noise reduction and processing applied to them were not proof of that. You chose to withhold the raw files of those jpegs from the public forums when asked to post links to them.

* 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.

That´s quite a segue. Yes, let´s connect I don´t know, 1500 posts I did not read, into one big family, that has nothing to do with anything and everything to do with everything, to solve personal grudges I guess. At this point it looks to me like a brain shortcircuit. or outburst, not really conversation. Not even arguing.

Generally, camera does not measure light levels. It measures it´s own saturation levels. I take this claim of yours as false or wrong from the start. Indeed it is easy. Easy to make mistakes. Also, it is not the camera that cares. Even proper light meters does not care. User does.

I have no expertise on this. Yet it is not the topic. You can win the stuff that wasn´t even a contest or challenge all day long.

Standalone light meter will not measure the same thing, because it does not know camera levels and it is not in the same position as the camera lens, with the same meter properties. Useless for our case.
I see only one salty wounded person here. Although others are frustrated too.

I am not native either. It is exposure though, exposition is rather "a showcase" in a museum.

Why should I run for thrown aport/fetch yet again? I did enough development in optoelectronics, both HW and SW to have enough for the topic.

I have nor understanding to this text in the context of the topic, nor answer for it anyways.

No idea. I did not claim it, I didn´t see it anyone else to claim it, as I am my own person with my own interests. it´s inappropriate to want this resolution for the whole forum, from me. I speak for myself, and if I stumble across stuff here and there, I am not afraid to correct anyone. If someone claimed exactly that, he is possibly wrong.

In this instance, I know perfectly well what you sayid, and I believe it is true/right statement. That hardly looks like unconscious input or implication from me. That wasn´t the point of discussion at that time though. Being right is not enough. You might miss that nuance.

Indeed. That´s not the point anymore. The reason for negative response was not with the truthfullness of your statement or claim. It was for the fact that your claims might not be universally trusted. Also, you might be right and all righteous about it. It is unpaid labor to be right, and often not appreciated. I had many instances on many forums where I was right, and stayed on topic and civil, yet dismissed by about anyone. This can happen. Yet it is no reason to drop politeness and general civil behavior, rules, or anything like that. Humans are expected to act decently even if their help, truth or whatever falls on deaf ears. It seems you have etiquette to learn before photography. Just a friendly advice. It might help you in the professional field too, it elevates mood, it increases undertanding, and things go smoother on many levels.

Don´t understand this expression, but it tells me that someone certainly loves to argue about nonsense.

A gallery on its own doesn't really prove much but it would be nice to have. I'm sure many members would make use of it.

In the mean time I have several images posted in Samples and Galleries and Photography Critiques.

Feel free to post comments or feedback on any of them 🙂

You might read that wrong, sir. :-)
To tell untrue statement does mean someone is liar, and to call upon that is not calling someone a liar. The language is much more nuanced.

If the camera is set to A or S mode, then increasing the ISO number will reduce exposure, which will reduce the signal-to-noise ratio.
Don Cox

Yes I agree but I haven't called anyone a liar. I said he has not told the truth on too many occasions. Now whether him not telling the truth is deliberate, due to ignorance or stupidity is anyone's guess.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming it's the latter.

If it is deliberate then yes, it is a lie according to the definition of a lie I go by - not telling the truth knowingly and deliberately.

Some cameras will also amplify the signal prior to the addition of read noise, thus effectively reducing read noise and boosting the signal to noise ratio. Again depending on implementation, you could end up with the combination of reduced exposure and reduced read noise. This could in some circumstances be better than leaving the ISO untouched and simply deliberately under exposing.

Having ploughed through all this, I'm left with the uneasy feeling that manufacturers really could explain this better and what their ISO implementation does to avoid all the confusion.