Eric, if you go back and read my post again, slowly, perhaps moving your lips and pointing at each word, you'll see that I explained how I know.
Regarding "stops". In modern photography, they use things called electrons and there are not "stops" in cameras. In the old days, they used photons from the object going through a glass lens onto a glass plate which had a silver compound on it. My grandfather had such a camera which I used to play with and I have a collection of his glass plates. My father used a 35mm camera with plastic film which still used photon-sensitive compounds. Being a 21st century whizzo, I have an electronic bizzo which needs very little light, uses no chemistry and has no stops. I can upload the photos via wifi to Cyberspace.
A couple of days ago, a visiting niece and her friend set up his camera on a tripod [which itself was a clever thing with flexible legs which could be wrapped around a branch of a tree to hand the camera from]. The camera linked via Bluetooth or wifi or some such magic to their iPad on which they could see the image and operate the camera so they could be in the photos too. No stops involved.
Images can be changed electronically these days Eric. No stops needed to underexpose the image as was done in that case and as I explained, which you can read again as the wonders of modern Cyberspace means it's still there for you to read, a mere click away. One stop and you'll be there.
See what I mean about dishonesty. You are providing a second or third layer of dishonesty on the Global Alarmist side.
The photographer might have been honest. The person who darkened the image was the first faker. The liars who wrote the article also were dishonest. You put it in SI and obviously didn't notice the fake photo or were dishonest and ignored the fakery, thinking people wouldn't notice. Then when I point out the dishonesty, you lay it on some more, somehow thinking your claim to being an ace photographer will disprove the points I made about the faked photo.
Now, being dishonest, you won't write, "Oh, good spotting Mq. I hadn't noticed that it was in fact a cloud of steam and NOT smoke." You will dig in some more and try to defend a dishonest position. Or simply change the subject or run away. <You seem to have been duped by your ignorance.
Next...
>
Next...
Mqurice |
