>
> John McWilliams wrote:
>
>> David Kilpatrick wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> John McWilliams wrote:>>
>>
>>>>>> How can one know how much or little any of those images were
>>>>>> adjusted?
>>>
>>> By reading the precise list of adjustments made to the Sigma image in
>>> one case - by the auto adjust function - and comparing it with the
>>> unadjusted image shown right next to it.
>>>
>>> The assumption is that the other camera images were converted or
>>> captured using the default adjustments of the camera and its
>>> software, and so was the Sigma. However, because of the 'shot by
>>> shot' nature of the Sigma auto adjust function, the author has been
>>> careful to show, and to give exact details for, an example.
>>>
>> That seems a large assumption, and how is one to know whether the
>> author of the site has any axe to grind or not? How is one to know
>> whether the list of adjustments is accurate?
>>
> No more so than any other review.
>
> You can't trust me, or anyone else. We all tell lies habitually.
>
> Nothing you see or read on Internet, or in any books ever published, at
> any time, can be trusted. Nor can anything you learned in your entire
> childhood, schooling and life which is based on anything except your own
> observation and experience. Most knowledge is conditional and its truth
> or factuality is a cultural variable.
>
> Language itself prevents the objective tranmission of experience or
> information.
>
> And when it's all in Japanese :-)
>
> Seriously, why mistrust this review any more than another?
David-
I wasn't distrustful of you, not at all, but since I don't read
Japanese, and don't care to babelize the site, I wasn't at all sure who
was doing the review, what connections, etc.
Plus I am curious if the forging of EXIF data is easy or not, since we
have so many willing to forge headers and identities. But I have no
reason to suggest that the above site has done so.
