Posted Without Comment

[Rob C]

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+art+of+photography&qpvt=the+art+of+photography&view=detail&mid=5645620A95561C02D2155645620A95561C02D215&rvsmid=2DD2AF39BDBB1AE2D6DD2DD2AF39BDBB1AE2D6DD&fsscr=-2310&FORM=VDMCNR

[Peter McLennan]

Awww.  Why no comment?   

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Here is a comment:

http://petapixel.com/2016/07/05/huawei-implies-dslr-image-taken-p9-smartphone-gets-slammed/

[Peter McLennan]

HA! An honest mistake?  Hardly.  Anyone can see that image was either shot with a much longer lens than a phone camera, or it's a pretty big crop.

Idiots.

[Zorki5]

Anyone can see that image was either shot with a much longer lens than a phone camera, or it's a pretty big crop.

Idiots.

Well, that'd still require a lesser level of idiocy than posting an image w/o removing EXIF data.

So I personally might give them the benefit of the doubt. Might be a classic case of "it's worse than a crime, it's a mistake".

[Tim Lookingbill]

The part in bold and the words capitalized makes it sort of clear that the Leica didn't take that photo.

"We managed to catch a beautiful sunrise with Deliciously Ella. The #HuaweiP9’s dual Leica cameras makes taking photos in low light conditions LIKE THIS a pleasure. Reinvent smartphone photography and share your sunrise pictures with us. #OO"

Someone must've been reading that quote with a lot of coffee coursing through their veins.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The part in bold and the words capitalized makes it sort of clear that the Leica didn't take that photo.

Huh!? Make up your mind: is it "clear" or is it "sort of"? Can't have it both. Besides, how on Earth can anyone conclude on the basis of the bold text (in your post) what you concluded?

[Paulo Bizarro]

Even worse, said photo was taken with... wait for it... a DR-challenged Canon DSLR!!! The audacity!

[RSL]

Huh!? Make up your mind: is it "clear" or is it "sort of"? Can't have it both. Besides, how on Earth can anyone conclude on the basis of the bold text (in your post) what you concluded?

It's a point of view that's somewhat unique, Slobodan.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

It's a point of view that's somewhat unique, Slobodan.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Huh!? Make up your mind: is it "clear" or is it "sort of"? Can't have it both. Besides, how on Earth can anyone conclude on the basis of the bold text (in your post) what you concluded?

So you're confused by how the words flow in an order of logic? Thanks for confirming I've made my point on the topic!

Now we won't discuss the lack of benefits of subliminal advertising. Don't. Stop. No. Don't stop discussing this topic.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So you're confused by how the words flow in an order of logic? Thanks for confirming I've made my point on the topic!

... subliminal advertising....

Well, maybe (for subliminal), but no (for your earlier point). Your point was something completely different: you stated that it is CLEAR (sort of) from the sentence that "the Leica didn't take that photo." Now you are saying the opposite, that it is CONFUSING.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Then I'll make it clearer.

The quote was written made it sound like the Leica took the pro looking shot of the model, but what it really said (if one were to read slowly and carefully) is that the Leica could take low light shots of scenes similar to the scene depicted in the shot of the model. It didn't specifically say the Leica took that particular shot.

Maybe all this mis-communication could be blamed on ambiguous reference sentence structure. But I would blame it on people reading with too much caffeine in their system.