I thought I was going mad

Jeez. I had to double check if this was posted on 1 April :( 68.2k likes as well.:D
 
Last edited:
Yeah the "likes" are a mystery.

I kept reading it and feeling sure I must have missed something but couldn't figure out what. It just goes to show you that the internet isn't infallible after all :)
 
Last edited:
They must have been really peed off to find that TalkPhotography was taken so they had to flip it!
 
For those who don't have the time to read the whole thing: the author explains the basic Sunny-16 concept quite well. But then he gets it horribly, unbelievably wrong when he tries to generalise it to lighting conditions other than sunny. For example:

In short, on a sunny day your settings would look like this:
Aperture: f/16
ISO: 200
Shutter Speed: 1/200 seconds

And on a heavily overcast day your settings would look like this:
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO: 200
Shutter Speed: 1/1600 seconds
Click to expand...
 
Nod said:
They must have been really peed off to find that TalkPhotography was taken so they had to flip it!
Click to expand...
Ive read other stuff on there and had to correct it in the past, it really does appear to be run by people who haven’t got a clue and will post content without checking it for accuracy.

There was a copyright article and there’s been another I can’t recall.
 
I have never seen that website before and am happy to give them the benefit of the doubt that they have had a brain fart - I've had many ...

However ... wtf? Even when I have published something public I still go back and double check on it just to make sure ...
 
Phil V said:
Ive read other stuff on there and had to correct it in the past, it really does appear to be run by people who haven’t got a clue and will post content without checking it for accuracy.

There was a copyright article and there’s been another I can’t recall.
Click to expand...

I got curious and looked around and it seemed to me that this article might have been a cut and paste medley from another few online which got mangled. Could explain a lot of the expertise going around since the internet became our source of wisdom
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
For those who don't have the time to read the whole thing: the author explains the basic Sunny-16 concept quite well. But then he gets it horribly, unbelievably wrong when he tries to generalise it to lighting conditions other than sunny. For example:
Click to expand...

I was looking at the end of the article at this section, and was scratching my head, i was half afraid to say anything in case there was sense to it
 
spark303 said:
68.2k likes as well.:D
Click to expand...
68.7k now, allegedly. That's 500 new likes in 3 days, allegedly.

Here's a funny thing though.
Their Facebook page has over 800,000 followers, allegedly, but the number of likes they get on a typical Facebook post is about 20. This article had 131 likes the first time it was posted to Facebook (10/1/17) and 127 likes the second time (19/7/17).
Google+: over 1.6 million followers, allegedly. Typical number of likes: less than 10. Number of likes for this specific post (19/7/17): 14.
Twitter: nearly 300,000 followers, allegedly. Typical number of likes and retweets: less than 10.

That seems like not very much engagement. So where did these 500 likes in 3 days come from? Where did the 68k likes come from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top