01-10-2015, 05:18 PM
Michael Cross Wrote:That image you are so in love with has been heavily altered. Your inability to recognize that confounds the mind. Every time I resign myself to just leave this alone because arguing with a fool is pointless, you post another definitive statement based on fairy dust and duct tape.
Mr Healy IS a photographic expert. If you are a researcher that has any interest in objective fact you should pay attention to him. He's correct.
And I KNOW without having to read it, what your closed minded response will be.
Mr Healy is full of it and obviously using technical contrivances to avoid answering the issue. Drew had no such problem because he wasn't approaching it with a political agenda.
Your statement above is incorrect. The features I'm taking about would be in the original just the same as they are in Duncan's image. Actually, despite your protests, Duncan used valid photographic techniques to bring out the features he was outlining. I have yet to see you give a technical reason why that contrast-shifting technique wasn't valid. However the things we are talking about would be visible in one unaltered frame just as well. The contrast shifting just allowed more emphasis.
Ask Healy to explain what exactly that eyeglass frame that Drew pointed out in detail is? And also ask him, since he's such a photographic expert, why his technical protests make it invalid?
You're not answering the point. All the features Duncan pointed out are equally available in any form of Darnell that you can provide, including the original.
If you examine your response you have yet again failed to answer what the notch is and your technical excuse-making doesn't relieve you of it.