>>3892888>>3892889>>3892890Lad, did you forget reverse image search exists.
Here's the opening paragraph of that page translated into English, pic related. Thank you for dunking on yourself just so you can prove I was correct all along.
>I would like to point out that the majority of users who have misinterpreted this article have done so because they have gone directly to the images without reading the content. I recommend that you do not do this, and before you start looking at the photos keep reading. It is well known that using a high ISO value to achieve a certain exposure gives a worse result in terms of noise and dynamic range than using the lowest ISO possible>>3892891>My intelligence good, what the rest of society thinks is intelligence is bad >:(You realise that this little fantasy land you create and try to force on others, just to allow you to live without being swallowed by the shame of your own failures is cringe af, right?
>>3892898>You're all pathetic for discussing things that this thread was created for discussingWhy are you here then? Why are you trying to inject your anti-intelligence into an objective and scientific conversation?
Could it be your massive insecurities about still not knowing how to use a camera, even though it's been your only hobby for the last 15 years?
