Did someone order another cunt? Coz, another one's just turned up...

By special delivery, 'Orange Blend' posted the following piece of nonsense on the RPF:

"I don't know CT and I don't know Neill. I haven't seen either of these sonics nor will I ever likely be in a position to buy one so you can trust me when I say that I'm not biased in the evaluations I make.

As a trained Director of Photography I can safely say that the pic on the right is VERY CLEARLY a daylight lit photo. To create that convincing a daylight (I'm talking about color temp and softness, not just brightness) takes some doing. Even if it is artificial lighting it's artificialy set up to daylight specs so the color temp is in the proper range to be considered "daylight" lighting.

As I said, I don't know either of these manufacturers but CT is mistaken if he says the right pic is artificially manufactured to make it look more gold. "

Obviously Orange Blend is a numpty who doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Let me clear up one thing. I have never said Gorton's photo was artificially manufactured. Never. Not once. Maybe I just drowned it out with the sound of my own awesomeness.

Secondly, as a 'trained Director of Photography', he should be fully familiar with histograms, color levels and white balancing. He would also be more familiar with Photoshop than the rudimentary 'color picker/eye dropper' test. A trained DP should know that doesn't prove anything. The color sampler tool should be used as I have done as it gives accurate data in the form of absolute RGB values. He, more than anyone should know that light increases color temperature during the day from angle and height of the sun, dipping at dawn and dusk and then increasing as it gets darker, hence why you have yellow/red light the lower the sun and why sunsets are so spectacular due to blue light scattering. It's far from 'very clear' that it is daylight .

The histograms do not lie. The clearly show an oversaturated pic where red, magenta and yellow display marked clipping meaning they are out of balance and are unusually high. What I believe has happened is that the camera has auto white balanced itself to Neill's hand which has lots of red in it. Normally cameras lock onto a known white source or a 18% grey source to calaibrate itself. In this case, it appears that it has not done so and locked onto the red in the hand and thus knocked white balance off. Do this for yourself: white balance your camera to your hand then shoot a piece of white paper. You will end up with a very yellow piece of paper! As a more extreme example, white balance onto a piece of red paper and then shoot a pic: you will end up with a very peculiar picture.

I have stated that it is a pic where there is a window on the left letting in daylight into an artificially lit room. Without white balancing the camera first and in the absence of a neutral density filter, the high temp daylight will react with the 3500K artificial lighting causing chromatic aberration. Fact. It is also a known fact that auto white balancing does not handle mixed lighting well at all, especially if those sources differ in color temperature.  As a 'trained director of photography' he should know this.

To put this into context, this is the fucking deadhead who wrote the following:

"The photo on the right in Neill's pics is very obviously taken in daylight lighting (5200k+) probably by a large window or even outside whereas Risu's pic is indoors with tungsten lighting (3600k at best). His pic on the left is indoors with flash much like the pic of the replica on the bottom. I think the pic of the replica sonic is a "close enough" lighting comparison to the left pic of the original to show that it's the same colour.

Lower color temps will be more yellow, higher temps will be more blue."

If he thinks the pic could possibly be taken outdoors, where the ground is covered in carpet, then he is an Honours graduate of the 'Ninja' Risu School of Visual Acuity.

Answer me one question, Mr 'Trained Director of Photography', how do you account for the histogram reading that shows low relative blue levels, low relative green levels and high red levels?  After all, "Lower color temps will be more yellow, higher temps will be more blue,"....right?

In case you forgot, here are those histograms again:

Do you want to see a well white balanced photo where all the colors are true? Here is one:

Here is a pic where all the colors are as near to dammit to what the eye actually sees as the light has been properly white balanced and all RGB values are near identical to each other in saturation and hue. Look at the histogram and you will see exactly what I mean:

All values are slightly right of centre which means that brightness is a little high but the important thing to note is that all RGB values are practically equal meaning color saturation is neutral and all colors are true. This being the case, I can categorically state, without equivocation or opinion, that this picture is undoubted the most accurate pic in regards to color yet published. This is not me making a claim: this is cold hard figures. The above histogram does not lie, it has not been altered, it can be confirmed by anyone with Photoshop using the original source file.

Contrast to the previous pic and you will see that the previous pic had serious colour imbalance. Anyone who can deny that especially when presented with a pic where color levels are true, is an idiot. Does this sonic look in the slightest bit 'Heritage Gold'? Anyone?

(Between you, me and the gatepost, I don't think Orange Blend  actually is a 'trained director of photography'. Not sure why I think that, just a hunch....)