Timeline for What's wrong with this picture?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 19, 2017 at 19:09 | history | edited | Beastly Gerbil | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| Nov 19, 2017 at 18:43 | comment | added | Zdenek | Sorry, English isn't my first language. You are correct that the DOF is technically infinite. But since the picture represents a natural scenery where DOF is to be expected, I insist that it makes sense to judge the realness of the picture by its presence. Which was the topic. | |
| S Nov 19, 2017 at 18:41 | history | suggested | David Richerby | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
exposure, not exposition
|
| Nov 19, 2017 at 16:38 | comment | added | David Richerby | There's no claim that the image is a photograph, so exposure and depth of field aren't really an issue. (Also, you talk about a lack of depth of field but that's not what the term means. The image is in sharp focus from front to back, which indicates a lot of depth of field, not none.) | |
| Nov 19, 2017 at 16:34 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 19, 2017 at 18:41 | |||||
| Nov 18, 2017 at 13:36 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Nov 18, 2017 at 19:10 | |||||
| Nov 18, 2017 at 13:18 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 18, 2017 at 13:33 | |||||
| Nov 18, 2017 at 13:18 | history | answered | Zdenek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |