Now I can go back and finish planting a tree in the yard.
English_Wolf wrote:
rpavich wrote:
.../... Only due to the compression and optical illusion do we see the dark part as "laying on" the other layer of sky. .../...
Only one problem the sensor: is not fooled unlike our eyes and when blowing the magnification the optical illusion goes away... So, with the fractional duration of the flash and the long exposure, the sky should pass through the original place of the object, at least partially... I do not see it.
The later can be explained by the post processing done to the image*, hence the importance to have the original w/o any manipulation to create interferences. This includes the 'contrail/spider web/scratches' that are sharpened as the sharp mask loves to work with bright, well defined areas.
So a wild goose chase that looked more and more like a setup. I should have paid attention to the photo element signature long before.
Bloomfield Ron Was right, his statement was not supported because the evidence lied due to PP.
quote=rpavich .../... Only due to the compression... (
show quote)
English wolf. I appreciate the time you have taken on this. And am flattered to think that you think I know enough to set something like this up. But I really don't like being called a lier.
I know now that next time I have a question like this to not post the final version, but rather the original.
Country's Mama wrote:
English_Wolf wrote:
rpavich wrote:
.../... Only due to the compression and optical illusion do we see the dark part as "laying on" the other layer of sky. .../...
Only one problem the sensor: is not fooled unlike our eyes and when blowing the magnification the optical illusion goes away... So, with the fractional duration of the flash and the long exposure, the sky should pass through the original place of the object, at least partially... I do not see it.
The later can be explained by the post processing done to the image*, hence the importance to have the original w/o any manipulation to create interferences. This includes the 'contrail/spider web/scratches' that are sharpened as the sharp mask loves to work with bright, well defined areas.
So a wild goose chase that looked more and more like a setup. I should have paid attention to the photo element signature long before.
Bloomfield Ron Was right, his statement was not supported because the evidence lied due to PP.
quote=rpavich .../... Only due to the compression... (
show quote)
English wolf. I appreciate the time you have taken on this. And am flattered to think that you think I know enough to set something like this up. But I really don't like being called a lier.
I know now that next time I have a question like this to not post the final version, but rather the original.
quote=English_Wolf quote=rpavich .../... Only du... (
show quote)
Wolf,
Even if she posted a copy that she sharpened; that's quite a leap to say that it was posted as a wild goose chase...who would make the connection with sharpening and this picture's details not being understood?
I certainly wouldn't and I'd have posted a sharpened shot, not even giving it a second thought.
No malice intended I'm sure.
Country's Mama wrote:
English_Wolf wrote:
Only one problem the sensor: is not fooled unlike our eyes and when blowing the magnification the optical illusion goes away... So, with the fractional duration of the flash and the long exposure, the sky should pass through the original place of the object, at least partially... I do not see it.
The later can be explained by the post processing done to the image*, hence the importance to have the original w/o any manipulation to create interferences. This includes the 'contrail/spider web/scratches' that are sharpened as the sharp mask loves to work with bright, well defined areas.
So a wild goose chase that looked more and more like a setup. I should have paid attention to the photo element signature long before.
Bloomfield Ron Was right, his statement was not supported because
the evidence lied due to PP. quote=rpavich .../... /quote Only one problem the... (
show quote)
.../... But I really don't like being called a lier.../..
quote=English_Wolf quote=rpavich .../... /quote ... (
show quote)
Did not call you a liar, did said the evidence was lying. I did think it was a setup at one point thought because nothing felt 'right'. That is why I kept plugging in. You did not feel like one playing 'head games'. It is only when I finally realized that the image was post processed that I saw what was really going on.
In short, my mistake was not to read the software signature in the first place.
English_Wolf wrote:
Country's Mama wrote:
English_Wolf wrote:
Only one problem the sensor: is not fooled unlike our eyes and when blowing the magnification the optical illusion goes away... So, with the fractional duration of the flash and the long exposure, the sky should pass through the original place of the object, at least partially... I do not see it.
The later can be explained by the post processing done to the image*, hence the importance to have the original w/o any manipulation to create interferences. This includes the 'contrail/spider web/scratches' that are sharpened as the sharp mask loves to work with bright, well defined areas.
So a wild goose chase that looked more and more like a setup. I should have paid attention to the photo element signature long before.
Bloomfield Ron Was right, his statement was not supported because
the evidence lied due to PP. quote=rpavich .../... /quote Only one problem the... (
show quote)
.../... But I really don't like being called a lier.../..
quote=English_Wolf quote=rpavich .../... /quote ... (
show quote)
Did not call you a liar, did said the evidence was lying. I did think it was a setup at one point thought because nothing felt 'right'. That is why I kept plugging in. You did not feel like one playing 'head games'. It is only when I finally realized that the image was post processed that I saw what was really going on.
In short, my mistake was not to read the software signature in the first place.
quote=Country's Mama quote=English_Wolf quote=r... (
show quote)
Ahh..got it...thanks for clearing that up..
Note, as a conclusion, that a 'wild goose chase' is usually due to the hunter that does not pay attention, like losing time finding glasses that are already on your nose... Or looking for car keys you have in your hand.
All the information was there, I did not pay attention. Not sure what made me look it up either.
English_Wolf wrote:
Country's Mama wrote:
English_Wolf wrote:
Only one problem the sensor: is not fooled unlike our eyes and when blowing the magnification the optical illusion goes away... So, with the fractional duration of the flash and the long exposure, the sky should pass through the original place of the object, at least partially... I do not see it.
The later can be explained by the post processing done to the image*, hence the importance to have the original w/o any manipulation to create interferences. This includes the 'contrail/spider web/scratches' that are sharpened as the sharp mask loves to work with bright, well defined areas.
So a wild goose chase that looked more and more like a setup. I should have paid attention to the photo element signature long before.
Bloomfield Ron Was right, his statement was not supported because
the evidence lied due to PP. quote=rpavich .../... /quote Only one problem the... (
show quote)
.../... But I really don't like being called a lier.../..
quote=English_Wolf quote=rpavich .../... /quote ... (
show quote)
Did not call you a liar, did said the evidence was lying. I did think it was a setup at one point thought because nothing felt 'right'. That is why I kept plugging in. You did not feel like one playing 'head games'. It is only when I finally realized that the image was post processed that I saw what was really going on.
In short, my mistake was not to read the software signature in the first place.
quote=Country's Mama quote=English_Wolf quote=r... (
show quote)
No I don't play head games. I find it a waste of everyones time.
No hard feelings. And thank you for your help solving this mystery for me.
Country's Mama wrote:
.../... And thank you for your help solving this mystery for me.
I did not solve anything
Bloomfield Ron did. I just was suborn enough to learn why there were inconsistencies with his statement.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
