>>2636058>10:30 at night, sure is some strong moonlight.4chan displays when the image (file) was CREATED, not when the picture was TAKEN. Funny enough, while the one you quoted is way off (original is ~20:00) the one which has you particularly brothered is only 10 minutes off.
>Does that sky look like post sunset? NopeOh, my dear stupid namefag, you are showing a complete lack of knowledge of how "sunsets" work outside the UK. While the sun might "set" at ~21 there's still light right until 22:00.
>No, not blown at allInstead of looking at RGB values, you could look at
>>2635299, where you could clearly see there are barely any blown out bits in the whole image.
>What about the streetlights, considering it is definitely past sunset, surely they should be on, nope.Street lights turn on later here in Spain. Something about still being enough light past "sunset" here, remember? See pic related, taken with my phone yesterday. And the photos in the thread are roughly from 14 days ago.
You honestly think an image could look like that if it was taken mid-day (as you said) at 800 iso, f/4 and 1/60?? It'll be almost pure white. Honestly, you know jack shit about photography. Yet pretend to be a hot-shit-know-it-all.
>But how can we tell, without a shadow of a doubt that OP is a lying faggot and you're all fucking morons for listening to him with regards to time of day and light.Look, here's the raw file. See how it looks with all the values set to zero:
https://mega.nz/#!9oFSXI5SFeel free to check the real data and time too, since you don't "take my word for it".
I know you'll come up with some contrived excuse to save face, since you seem stubborn like a mule. But this is basically the definitive proof you are an idiot. Further claims from your side pretending to be right will be dismissed right off the bat.
>>2636089>The sky is not blown, it's overcastIt isn't though. Looks white because sunset light+exposed to ground, not sky. A few masks could change it.
