> Jon Ellison Wrote (and edited 7 times by time of
> this reply):
Yes edited it seven times on a phone while driving .. Pretty good eh?
The images were not edited other than the inclusion of a yellow arrow.
I advise anyone doubting to see the images on the original sites.
> > Compare the above two images. Note the area
> > the sieve.
> > In the Chapuis image the lower 20mm of the
> > cartouche, (below the sieve), is obscured by
> > out of focus foreground side block. Wide
> > shallow depth of field. Available/ambient light
> > illumination.
> > Low, oblique camera angle and close focusing
> > distance..
> > Both paint runs are below the lower extremity
> > the sieve.
> Please. In the entirety of what Chapuis did
> capture (which includes the heaviest applications
> of paint, the characters within the cartouche),
> there’s not a hint of the paint having run or
> having been noticeably runny.
The paint ran at the beginning of a counterclockwise brush stroke . (the cartouche frame).
Bottom right, counterclockwise to bottom left .
Note the paint is much thinner bottom left .. The end of the stroke . (Unloaded brush)
At the beginning of any brush stroke the brush carries most paint. (Loaded Brush) Prone to dripping . Which is exactly what we see. Drips.. Vertical .. Two
> You’d have us believe that all of the action
> happened in the tiny area hidden by the angle.
> What are the chances?
All the action happened at the beginning of the stroke which is obscured in the Chapuis photo. The lower 20mm is obscured by the side block.
> And you’re making a mountain out of a JPEG, a
> format prone to colour bleeding, which is going to
> play merry hell with what you’re trying to prove
> with it.
The pixelation is entirely consistent with the camera and JPEG processing firmware having recorded an actual event.
It reflected light .. red light .. As does the remainder of the cartouche.
I take it that you accept that the remainder of the cartouche does actually exist and is not a product of imaging malfunction.
Also.. and this is a biggie ..
I'll type slowly because I know you're not too quick on the uptake..
The drips occur on more than one photograph, taken by more than one photographer, from more than one angle using more than one camera with years elapsed between each image.
Now if you are suggesting that your digital JPEG artifacts and colour bleeding somehow intelligently managed to conspire across platforms, space and time .. (As Above), in order to produce identical DRIPS. Then I'd love you to enlighten us all on how this could occur.
> Oh, look, there’s extra stuff, which adds
> nothing on the question of the format and nothing
> on why the paint didn’t run in the nearly all we
> can see of the cartouche—so SNIP.
Loaded and unloaded brush ..
A freshly loaded brush carries more paint and therefore is more prone to dripping .. Fact..
Maybe you have never used a paintbrush ??
The end of the counterclockwise stroke is thinner and less distinct ..
An unloaded brush at the end of its travel .
> > Having said that you probably can't see it ..
> Such is the poverty of your imagination.
The only thing suffering with any kind of poverty here is your failure to grasp the fact that a freshly dipped brush is far more prone to dripping than a brush at the end of it's travel.
This is very, very basic stuff.
Understandably you have difficulty with it .. Most won't
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 21-Jun-16 16:34 by Jon Ellison.