Dalantech wrote in post #17780213
Sorry SteB, but like most of our conversations I have to get out of this one. Your condescending attitude is rude, unwarranted, and speaks volumes about you as an individual. My last post to this thread.
I have no idea why you are doing this John, as you simply don't have a point. You have made entirely false and seriously misleading claims about my lighting. I have patiently just contradicted what you falsely claimed with evidence, reasoning, and references, and instead of addressing this evidence and these references, you just go on to make more entirely false and completely unsubstantiated assertions.
I will make one last try. No I am not being rude. I initially tried to settle this with you in the most polite and patient way. I simply pointed out why what you said about my light diffusion was mistaken and incorrect. I even tried to do it by PM to save your embarrassment.
In a nutshell the problem is very simple. You falsely claimed the light from my diffusion was "too flat" and "too top down2. This was a mutual contradiction as "flat lighting" means shadowless lighting from the front, and top down lighting is light from an oblique and steep lighting from the top, which leaves shadows under the subject. In other words, lighting can be "flat" or "top down", but not both as the categories are
Over time you have repeatedly made entirely false and misleading claims about my light diffusion. As you are clearly objective wrong, I have no idea of what lies behind this. I do not know whether you simply have no understanding of lighting principles, or there is something else behind your false claims. However, you are seriously misleading the public about the light from my diffusion which I took a long time developing, and have generously shared with people.
It is very simple and clear cut. You first claimed not here, but on Dpreview that the light from my diffusion was "too flat" and "too down". This is a mutual contradiction, because flat lighting is entirely shadowless frontal lighting, and top down lighting is oblique lighting with shadows. In other words top down lighting cannot be flat because the 2 terms are mutually contradictory.
Several months ago I entirely contradicted your claims about the lighting from my diffusion being "too flat" by providing:
1) High magnification crops, which showed clear micro shadows below pits and bumps i.e. modeling - this is where in texture, small shadows below raised parts, brings out this texture.
2) Multiple definitive references in dictionaries and photographic encyclopaedias defining the term "flat lighting". These definitions were remarkably similar in that they describe "flat lighting as "frontal lighting with no shadows".
This proved that right at the beginning you were objectively mistaken by your erroneous claims about "flat lighting". Either you needed to contradict my evidence with reasons, evidence or references, or admit you were mistaken. Anything else would be dishonest.
Unfortunately you just went on to either repeat these claims, and failed to support or substantiate them with reason, evidence, or references, or you just made false claims.
This left me in a very difficult personal position. As you are well aware I have repeatedly defended you. However, it was clear that either you didn't understand basic lighting principles, or you were making malicious false claims about my light modification principles for reasons only you understand.
Throughout I have been more than patient with you, pointing out why you are mistaken, and generally not responding to what are in reality personal attacks.
I had never previously made any comment on your lighting, even though I don't like it, or any comments about your explanations of lighting, which I thought were muddled and mistaken. Unfortunately though you will not stop make critical and snide attacks on my light modification principles and designs. Here, you absurdly criticised the light modifier for a Macro Lite I had designed, and which Kurt mentioned, when you had never even seen it. Yet Kurt had seen it.
The problem is very simple John. You claimed my diffusion produced "flat light". Whereas all the dictionary and encyclopaedia definitions explain "flat lighting" is frontal lighting with "no shadows" and "no modeling" (micro shadows in textured surfaces). I provided a high magnification crop to show these micro shadows, meaning you were objectively wrong and mistaken.
The term flat lighting is an objective fact. In other words, if there are shadows and modelling, the light cannot be flat. You cannot have genuine opinions contrary to objective facts.
It is valid to say I don't like that lighting. However, if you say I don't like that lighting because it is "too flat" and I prove it is not flat lighting, then you are wrong and mistaken, end of story.
Not once since you have tried to justify your false claims have you once addressed or even acknowledged the facts why the dictionary and encyclopaedia definitions of "flat lighting" contradict your apparent definition of flat lighting, which you have never even attempted to define. Nor have you acknowledged that my high magnification crops showed micro shadows which your claim of flat lighting implied were not there.
You are now making further provably false claims about my light diffusion. You have absurdly claimed that on the light from my diffused Macro light, the light from one flash tube, cancels out the shadows from the other side. When I have clearly explained that the tube from one side can be left off, and when left on I generally use it on an 8:1 power ratio for just fill-in.
The question is what are you making provably false and erroneous claims about my light modification principles, repeatedly?
It is perfectly valid for me to address your false claims about my light modification, when you are trying to mislead other photographers about it, months after your mistaken assertion was pointed out to you.
I am generously sharing my light modification principles and designs with people, which are entirely original. I am doing this to help people get good light for very little money, and you are basically repeatedly trolling me by making false and apparently malicious false claims about my lighting. You are an intelligent person. I gave you evidence and references as to why your claims were false many months ago, and you are repeating the same false claims. So this isn't a simple misunderstanding.
