>>5506181>dots cast shadows>implying your screen is 3d>implicating you can't see 3d figures' grain in imageslol
Sure is fuckwit who doesn't understand how vision works.
>>5506139>They're saying you shooped it because that digital designer guy pointed out some purple shit in the error analysis. You can tell because no one suspected you shooped it until he pointed that out, you can literally go up this thread to see it, so stop trying to twist that.They're just desperately trying to deny anything and will take anyone's word to support their own claim.
There was no digital manipulation with any of these images besides me resizing them and that's why i think it's so funny. They can call the paint job shit now because they think i did something, when in fact, i did nothing.
It's basically one those comedy taste tests where some guy has to say he LOVES his wife's cooking even though he knows its shit. By claiming someone else did it, they can say it's awful right to their wife's face and not even know it.
>someone posting a close up of their own figure, with no visible dotsuhh... what is focus? Those dots exist. No one denies that. What is being denied is if it's noticeable by the naked eye. As I've been saying, even if they couldn't see the individual dots, it would still appear blotchy and grainy, like 3d printed stuff.
More than a few people here have posted their Lukes and you can see the dots (which they always claim they can't see, because their wife is here looking over their shoulder).
>why again did you take a picture where light distortion covers over 3/4s of the face with splotchy shit?because again, it's just to prove that OH SHIT! YOU CAN BUY THINGS IN PERSON AND SEE THEM WITH YOUR OWN EYES BEFORE BUYING THEM, unlike what most basement dwellers here believe. No reason for me to take good pictures when others have.
If i said something about it being a custom, i probably said it in jest, if i ever said anything at all, because i don't remember.
