Since the rules state we are not to discuss moderation in the topic that is being moderated, as well as a moderator telling me to stop, I am bringing the issue here, as it's been mentioned before that this is the place to voice moderation issues. Hopefully this post isn't breaking any rules, but this is the correct form to post this as I understand it.
I am unable to understand what Pete's concern here is. Please excuse the length and all the quotes, but I want to be clear about who said what, and my previous attempts in that thread was not met with any success, and I can see that the warnings are continuing in that thread.
The latest warning to the two of us was this.
I addressed a very specific scenario - the GIF featuring the Sun. I was informed that I was wrong in my claims. When I inquired why, I was presented with a bunch of arguments about cars and street lights. If you don't see how that's changing the topic, I can't help you.
I can, however, point out that this kind of petty trolling is extremely common for you two, and I can assure you that it will not continue. If you can't post on topic, don't post.
Here is the first warning I got.
When did I say you can see cars on the Sun?
Well, let's see. As always, context is key. I don't trust you to get it right, so I'll spell it out and provide links. My post quotes a post of yours, which in turn quotes a post by Tom.
An abbreviated timeline of posts is here.
Tom posted several
images of streetlights and car headlights.
I posted a comment about
lens flare, glare and camera settings.Tom replied to my post and
posted about polarized lenses and glare.
I then took and posted this
image of a flood light.
Tom then posted this
gif of the sun and contrast settings.
I then replied
discussing camera settings and the photo I took of the floodlamp.This is where Pete entered the discussion with this.
This is easy to see for yourself. Load my sample image into Photoshop or Paint and try and use contrast and brightness to make either side look like that other. You can't because it is NOT THE SAME as a cameras exposure settings.
Well, yes, you'd probably want to use Lightroom's exposure setting to more accurately mimic a real camera's exposure.
I want to point out that he quoted me talking about my picture of the floodlamp. He did not mention the Sun anywhere in his message. He did not mention the Sun gif and if you look at the time line, the Sun gif was introduced well after the car headlights and streetlamps were being discussed at length.
To continue, I replied to Pete, and once again mentioned my picture and suggesting contrast experiments with it.
This is easy to see for yourself. Load my sample image into Photoshop or Paint and try and use contrast and brightness to make either side look like that other. You can't because it is NOT THE SAME as a cameras exposure settings.
Well, yes, you'd probably want to use Lightroom's exposure setting to more accurately mimic a real camera's exposure.
Lightroom won't work either, you are welcome to try it for yourself. It's not a matter of what program you use or how good it is at modeling a camera, a whiteout means the cameras sensor maxed out and there simply is no data to recover.
I really suggest trying with my sample image. You won't be able to extract the shape of the light from the over exposed image, and you can't make a matching white circle from the correctly exposed image.
I then took some time to take an
post this image because I was unahappy with the quality of my first and wanted to match Tom's first photo better.
This is Pete's next post. You can see above the section he quoted from me was immediately followed by "I really suggest trying with my sample image." making it clear what picture I'm talking about.
a whiteout means the cameras sensor maxed out and there simply is no data to recover.
The image Tom presented clearly doesn't exhibit whiteout throughout.
I replied to him with this. I included a cropped section of photo I was discussing as a reference.
a whiteout means the cameras sensor maxed out and there simply is no data to recover.
The image Tom presented clearly doesn't exhibit whiteout throughout.
I never said it did. The car headlights and the streetlights are whited out as can easily be seen, those parts of the image are overexposed, just as I stated.
Which is the point, you can't measure overexposed lights and assume that's how big the actual lights are. His photos are not showing lights that don't obey the laws of perspective, they simply have overexposed light sources in them.
Pete mentions "The image Tom presented" which doesn't specify which one. In the next reply is where Pete first mentions the Sun. In every post I made, I clearly indicated what photo I was discussing.
This is the first time Pete mentioned the Sun.
The car headlights and the streetlights are whited out as can easily be seen, those parts of the image are overexposed, just as I stated.
You know, claiming to be able to see cars and streetlights on the Sun's surface might just be a new low for you.
Now, I understand that with long multi-page topics it can be confusing what particular point is being discussed, which is why I try to avoid snipping out single sentences and often include more of the previous post than is strictly needed.
I do not see the reason for the warnings given here. I was very clear in what I was discussing. The car and streetlight subject was brought up by Tom first and is clearly on the topic of light sources and how they are seen.
But I wanted to get some feedback here, where did I ever claim you could see cars on the Sun? Pete later mentions that if you follow the comment chain back you get to one with that Sun gif in it, but look at more of the posts and you see the streetlight images and discussions both before and after that Sun picture. And I mentioned my pictures and Toms street light pictures in all of those other messages.
I just don't see the justification for the warnings to stop posting and the accusations of trolling here.