December 7th 12, 09:26 PM
posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
|
|
|
Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots
On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 12:46:09 +0000, Anthony Polson
wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 02:32:44 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:20:52 +1100, "Trevor" wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
OK, so I am iggerant. But you guys haven't been able to show me an
example
of a RAW image vs a JPG shot at the same time that demonstrates this
superiority of image.
If you are unable to demonstrate it for yourself, then it probably doesn't
matter to *you* what the difference is. The rest of us already know and
choose our work flow accordingly.
I have several times attempted to draw the attention of the ignoramus
to http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg...e-visual-guide
which most definitely provides the information he says that he
requires. However he steadfastly refuses to either look at it or
acknowledge that it provides the information that he says he requires.
I think he is a troll.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
**** you and the horse you rode in on. I have looked at it several times.
Naughty naughty. You musn't lose your temper. The fact is that you
have never previously acknowledged that I have given you a URL leading
to a site which gives you the information you have kept bleating for.
You have missed so many times that you have put me in mind of Robert
A. Heinlein's "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and three
times is enemy action".
No, it does not show any big difference in the images.
Then you are blind.
I think the term is 'wilfully blind'.
There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see something
because it would question their long- and firmly-held ignorant views.
It would spoil his fun.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
|