No, I am saying that the DR 400 JPG protects the same 2.7 EV of highlights that the corresponding raw file at same ISO does (at least for HR DR files where ISO is equal or higher than DR and M/L size doesn't matter anyway). You just don't get any control over how gradations are distributed (only 256 gray steps in an 8 bit JPG), which may be reason enough to work with the raw file instead.
No, it seems to offer the same DR/highlight headroom as the 12 MP files. The only difference is that 6 MP files are pre-binned by the camera instead of the raw converter and that tone-curves are applied differently.
Simple. When anyone posts here, their content gets aired without censorship. If that post is deemed "bang out of order", it may get deleted afterwards if complaints are made by other members. But the initial post will always get aired and will be uncensored. You are guaranteed your initial voice or opinion no matter how bad or good it is.
Didn't I even once defend Kim against an argument made by SO, or was it Bill? If memory doesn't fail me it cannot be too long ago then, since I only joined in December. If it does fail me then it was one of the other rather vocal forum members who couldn't accept another member being just as vocal about his views.
Saying "he censors all content" and "there is no 100% guarantee that the OP's voice will get an airing" gives two very different impressions.
He may have expressed his views on his blog, but have you proof that the actual first discussion took place on the blog and not on this forum??
I suppose you have a point. The OP's post quotes from Kim's blog, which makes Kim's blog seem the more natural place to reply. However, if there has been hopping back and forth between forums, then the OP's behaviour is more understandable.
ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. If you defended Kim, it wasn't due to anything that I said. Go back and read the history in December Mister Born before making such outrageous assumptions.
Thanks for your coming out party, Eagle. Quit being a tidy-baby and face people directly.
Exactly. And this thread isn't legit like Packy is saying, either - or is his name Stephen....or Patrick....yep. I still have his oozing, gushing PM to me from a couple of years back where he is bashing Kim like a brick on a wall. Packy-Stephen-Patrick, you may want to check yours - or I can post what you said here if you like. He had posted on one of my threads, sharing one of his band images, then the rather kind and generous PM to me that followed - admitting that he was another person that had posted here. Let me go puke now. Give me your hat, Packy. If you want to play hardball - you're out of your league with me, puddin' pants.
A horrific misconception. Most blogs don't make a penny off of visits. I make absolutely nothing off of mine. If there are ads on the page and someone clicks - that's where the blogger benefits. Mine is ad-free as are most of the other blogs that people have who post here.
a) You created the thread to slam my blog without actually linking to it. That was a little sleazy. But it is on you if my blog gets a little extra attention form this thread (and frankly, the traffic does not actually seem to bear this out.)Yes, one should consider who (se blog) is getting the attention here. Surely not mine (I don't run one).
Having converted tens of thousands of images, I can tell you that every image is an individual. As soon as you change even one little thing, either in the camera or in the composition, you must pay attention to each slider separately.
Why? It is obvious immediately that the file will not behave the same. And experience RAW people will understand already that every file is an individual.
That article has a comments section with hundreds of comments in it spanning years. Some of those comments document errors or omissions that caused me to update the article.
Come on Packy. I've been very clear that the only comment censorship I practice is stuff that is too filthy to post. You know who I mean.
That, in a nutshell, shows the depth of your recent agenda.
