McLeod wrote:

wrote:

Well, you have offered two speculations and one error of fact. And you
accuse me of making a 'jerk of myself' for correctly answering his
question as written? Nitwit.

And yet I have still contributed more than you.

Only a dingbat can consider an error a 'contribution'.

Unless you consider your original answer serious.

The OP asks if "anyone" "understands" the "mechanics" of ISO settings
and RAW images.

I answered, correctly, that I do for my particular camera. I outlined
the answer; I can elaborate if anyone wishes. Now if the OP had
_another_ question in mind, he is certainly free to post it.

Now then, what _is_ your excuse? Or are you just being deliberately
wonky for entertainment purposes?