Feedback - FROWNS

[Parampreet Dhatt]

Dear Admin Bharat Varma,
I did read that NPAN Blog in Bhphotovideo.com. Thank you for sharing that.
I did Long exposure Noise reduction in camera just now, and took test pics. The problem persists.

This is not a "noise" but a defective pixel bunch. It can be dead/hot/stuck, whatever.
It is an array of 24 identifiable damaged pixels, 2 in 6 rows and rest 6 on either side of that.
No matter what we do, its a permanent damage. And I am telling this bcoz I have a bit of technical degrees and understanding of photosites and their working principles.

My point is, that one does not need to zoom into pixel peeping level, a mere 100% zoom in in any RAW processing software, be it Adobe Camera Raw, Lightroom, Capture One, will show this issue. I zoomed in detail, to find exactly how severe the damage is.

As the seller is an experienced photographer and technically well knowledged about photo editing too, such pixel damage could not have escaped his eyes while checking the pics prior to the Sale.

I would not have created this issue if the damaged pixels were spread over different parts of the image. Any new digital sensor could have it. Considering the XE1 camera age, and that it is a second hand buy, I could have been ok with it.
The concern is that is is clustered in one spot.


I also want to keep some clarifications about comments I read from other members.

Firstly, Long exposure Photography is not my special requirement, If I need to do that, I have a Fuji 50R and Phase one cameras to take care.

Secondly, those who have Pointed about GAS, I am sorry, I don't have that.
kindly see my queries to WTS in history, how much I comment on these posts.

Thirdly, yes I do believe second hand equipment will be not "brand new type".
But, there should be a disclosure of those defects atleast if in the sensor of a digital camera.
Here is my point. Mr. Parampreet is a senior member, an experienced photographer and photo editor. Its is very unlikely of him to miss such pixel defects.

Fourth, I did not need to zoom to 800% and pixel peep. A mere 100% zoom will be enough. I zoomed in to find the severity of the issue.

And lastly, I do not have buying remorse. I know this camera was a "killer deal" as pointed by a member, but then, on hindsight, I feel the Seller agreed at that price, bcoz, maybe he knew that it has defective pixels.




This was a deal that did not go through well. first time in my JJMPF history of about 8 years.
I am a JJMPF member when we did not even have such good resolution pics of items to be sold, no name, date, sl. number tags. People relied more on each others honest opinions. Even Phone nos, forget whatsapp, were not allowed on WTS posts.

I should have been more responsible to ask for more test pics before [snip]


If anyone really keen to understand/find/judge who is wrong, kindly take 10 RAF files, some before and couple after the Sale.

Thank you.
I have nothing more to say.

Mod Note:
This post was edited to bring it into compliance with RULE 23a.

Regarding the statement that these "defects" should have been visible to me at 100% magnification, I'm sharing few screenshots of the RAW files in question in Fuji's RAW Converter.

The first screenshot displays the long exposure shared by Mr. Prabal, which has the dead or stuck pixel. I've deliberately placed the mouse cursor below the dead/stuck pixel for reference purposes.
The remaining 6 screenshots show the images clicked by me before the sale. The mouse cursor has been placed at the same position on the images (the area with the dead/stuck pixel) to show how this "damaged" area appears on these images.

There are 3 areas highlighted in red in every screenshot:

• The highlighted portion on the top left corner shows the "Navigator" section of the software, which shows the thumbnail of the image with a selection box showing the area currently zoomed in and displayed on the screen. This is to show that the all images displayed are zoomed into the same area/portion.
• The highlighted portion on the bottom left shows the image magnification percentage (which is set to 100% in all images).
• The highlighted portion on the bottom right shows the X & Y axis position of the mouse cursor on the image. As can be seen, it is set to pixel position 0457 (width) x 2582 (height) in all images. This is to show that the mouse cursor is placed on the same position on all images, just below the area containing the dead/stuck pixel.

The long exposure image shared by Mr. Prabal, which has the dead or stuck pixel:


The other 6 images clicked by me prior to the sale (please note the area around the center of the frame just above the mouse cursor in all these images):













All these screenshots are available for download in larger sizes on the following link:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnCdvhrPSrGfghDoEjri-1wsdB52?e=DPh4cR

Furthermore, there's a difference between doing a post-facto analysis where we are actively looking for evidence of dead pixels compared to a general analysis of the image for acceptable sharpness.
I've owned and sold 6-7 cameras over the past few years, but haven't faced any issue of dead or stuck pixels even once. Hence, when I was looking at the images prior to the sale, I was only looking for signs of acceptable sharpness, which is the criteria most photographers would use to judge whether a camera and/or lens is working fine. I doubt many photographers scan images minutely for things like dead pixels whether during general photography or before posting something on sale.

[cymric]

If you had such a bad experience on the forum, I wonder why you keep posting and buying stuff from here ? ;)
On a serious note I don't think any amount of policing and rules by the moderators can make buyers transaction 100% risk free.

As I said you have to judge your tolerance level and be as nonchalant or meticulous to satisfy your needs.

2. Again, ask the seller to post a wts post

Thanks a lot for your clarifications Vikram.

On point no.2, I suppose I didnt make myself clear. What I meant was the seller already has a WTS in place wherein he is requesting to contact via phone (and not responding to PMs). In effect he is expecting to get a call where his deliberate non-disclosures/supression of facts DONT get recorded (or are NOT admissible evidence even if they are recorded). Such cases are quite common. There are live cases where sellers have accepted a problem on whatsapp/call but are still not updating their WTS post about it ! For such cases of 'wilful withholding of info' should a member report to MOD or just post on the WTS thread ?

There is one more vital issue I would request confirmation on. This is from the sellers perspective. Is the FROWNS sticky limited to feedback about 'completed' transactions only or can feedback also be posted on attempted transactions that highlight the risk/mal practices resorted to by certain parties/lowballers ? I think such feedback would go a long way in minimising the scourge of lowballing/non-starter transactions.

Here, I would also like to say a thing or two about classification of issues as 'trivial'. The very first item I bought on JJMPF, I received the item without a mount cap (it was supposed to be included). When I got back to the seller (an experienced one) he stopped responding to my PMs. If it had been Nikon/Canon mount I could have got one easily from the local market for 100-150 bucks (though I dont see why I should be bearing this cost/time) but this one was alpha mount and I had a hard time getting the cap which I eventually managed to get for 200 bucks after considerable searching. This could have been a trivial issue to some, to me it certainly wasnt. I think the same goes for the extant issue of pixels too. I'm really surprised to see experienced photographers classifying low shutter speed as "specialised requirement" (why landscapists, astro guys, time-lapse guys, night photographers do it all the time especially those who use tripods). I might have been tempted to dismiss 3-4 sporadic pixels as a trivial issue but 24 pixels concentrated in a cluster (assuming the figure is correct, I have not verified the RAF files) - I'm not so sure. Whatever it is, its certainly NOT something to be inadvertently missed by an experienced photographer/editor. The other thing is - if this deal was that good and the pixel issue is that 'trivial', someone should have probably offered to take it from the buyer by now.

[JessePinkmanYo]

2. Again, ask the seller to post a wts post

Thanks a lot for your clarifications Vikram.

On point no.2, I suppose I didnt make myself clear. What I meant was the seller already has a WTS in place wherein he is requesting to contact via phone (and not responding to PMs). In effect he is expecting to get a call where his deliberate non-disclosures/supression of facts DONT get recorded (or are NOT admissible evidence even if they are recorded). Such cases are quite common. There are live cases where sellers have accepted a problem on whatsapp/call but are still not updating their WTS post about it ! For such cases of 'wilful withholding of info' should a member report to MOD or just post on the WTS thread ?

There is one more vital issue I would request confirmation on. This is from the sellers perspective. Is the FROWNS sticky limited to feedback about 'completed' transactions only or can feedback also be posted on attempted transactions that highlight the risk/mal practices resorted to by certain parties/lowballers ? I think such feedback would go a long way in minimising the scourge of lowballing/non-starter transactions.

Here, I would also like to say a thing or two about classification of issues as 'trivial'. The very first item I bought on JJMPF, I received the item without a mount cap (it was supposed to be included). When I got back to the seller (an experienced one) he stopped responding to my PMs. If it had been Nikon/Canon mount I could have got one easily from the local market for 100-150 bucks (though I dont see why I should be bearing this cost/time) but this one was alpha mount and I had a hard time getting the cap which I eventually managed to get for 200 bucks after considerable searching. This could have been a trivial issue to some, to me it certainly wasnt. I think the same goes for the extant issue of pixels too. I'm really surprised to see experienced photographers classifying low shutter speed as "specialised requirement" (why landscapists, astro guys, time-lapse guys, night photographers do it all the time especially those who use tripods). I might have been tempted to dismiss 3-4 sporadic pixels as a trivial issue but 24 pixels concentrated in a cluster (assuming the figure is correct, I have not verified the RAF files) - I'm not so sure. Whatever it is, its certainly NOT something to be inadvertently missed by an experienced photographer/editor. The other thing is - if this deal was that good and the pixel issue is that 'trivial', someone should have probably offered to take it from the buyer by now.

[VikramF]

Dear Mods,

Just wanted to clarify/make a few points that may be of common concern here :-

1) We know a lot of selling actually takes place via WTB posts. Its not hard to see why. Such transactions do NOT get recorded on the forums or PMs as they are usually taken up via phone/whatsapp. Also there are many cases where someone responds to a WTB post and is then contacted by a third party who has interest in the gear. I understand from Vikram's post that such transactions would be classified as off-forum. Kindly confirm.

2) There are many sellers who deliberately veer the negotiation out of the forum (by requesting to contact via phone) for understandable reasons (Tushar just gave an example). Personally I am a big votary for doing all clarification/counter-clarification via PMs and sharing phone no. only when the deal is closed. I do NOT expect to record calls and produce that as evidence when required.

3) Think the MODS might want to consider putting some sort of a limit in place to check reselling/excessive selling, say 2 WTS a day or 5 per week, etc. This is kind of standard for most marketplaces

4) Also a thing about the 'last mentioned price' or 'last asking price'. Again we know that more often than not, items are sold below the 'last mentioned price' and no one bothers to update the actual sale price on the post. Thatway 'last mentioned price' may not have much significance. It might be better if we could request the seller/buyer to indicate 'actual sale price' on the post, not only for record but for reference/price discovery purposes as also check against reselling for profit.

Regards

1. Yes, most of the buying and selling between members of Jjmpf takes place outside the wts or wtb boards. I've said this before and I'll say it again: one should ask the seller to put up a post  if you're not sure. If you are sure and conclude the deal via PMs or WhatsApp or whatever, then it's off-forum.


2. Again, ask the seller to post a wts post


3. Not a feature available on the forum software.


4. As a seller we want to not bother with updating the price sold at and as a buyer we want to just close the deal before someone else buys it. "What's your best price" has become standard. Frankly, I'd rather everyone just puts up the price they expect ... but that's never going to happen.

[VikramF]

I'm not going to comment on the 2/12/16/15000 pixel out of 16 million pixels issue.


The rules state: "Caution!  Buyers must read the Forum Rules and do their own due diligence before buying"
[/size]
Buyers must do their OWN due diligence BEFORE buying. No matter who they are buying from. If they close the deal in a hurry out of even possible fear of losing out on a bargain, well, that's their decision to have bought sight unseen.

If the buyer does due diligence after buying and finds something wrong, well then the buyer needs to take complete ownership of their decisions and not lay it at anyone else's feet,.

[camera crew]

The first identified picture was a long shutter of bridge on river hoogly. That was the very next morning i got thw camera, even before i tried the test pics with lens cap on. After that, i did some tests, bcoz i thought those "damaged pixel spot" was some artifacts or foliage floating on the river.
One of the 2nd lot of RAF files has my self portrait with light painting. There are pictures of foliage, shot in 1/500th of a second.
The most important thing, the RAF files shared by the seller in that link, especially the first one, the damaged pixel is noticable in 50% zoom in Lightroom Classic.
All damaged pixel in one spot is noticable in 50% magnification, forget 100% zoomed pixel peeping.


Kindly PM me your email id. I shall share the RAF of photograpghs of actual scene, tests with lenscap attached and tests today with long exposure noise reduction on, in tge camera after suggested by admin.


Just a small reminder, i have purchased and sold more than 20 items in this forum for last 8 years. Never i have put a frown. Never any seller could point i did a bad deal with them. There have been people who waited months after my part payments.
Never anyone i have sold to, have put a frown. No buyer ever accused me of stating wrong description and incorrect pricing.
Also if i had G.A.S as pointed out, i would have not bought so less and sold so little.

I am keeping three attachments.
First, DSCF6063.RAF is a 50% zoom of the RAW file of long exposure i did where i first noticed this damage pixel.
Second DSCF6030.RAF is the 100% zoom of the RAW file the seller clicked at 1/20th of a sec, pre Sale, as he shared in the post.
Third, DSCF6169.RAF is a test pic with long exposure noise reduction on, clicked today, as suggested by Mr. Bharat.



[attachment deleted by admin]

[mannusingh]

Just one more thing, have you tried taking the actual pictures that you would take on the field and see if this affects your pictures. Just black long shutter releases would also increase a lot of amp noise and make this look a lot worse than it is. I think in actual long shutter pictures these dead pixels will not show up.

[Bharat Varma]

Please send me the test pics that you have just taken.

[camera crew]

Dear Admin Bharat Varma,
I did read that NPAN Blog in Bhphotovideo.com. Thank you for sharing that.
I did Long exposure Noise reduction in camera just now, and took test pics. The problem persists.

This is not a "noise" but a defective pixel bunch. It can be dead/hot/stuck, whatever.
It is an array of 24 identifiable damaged pixels, 2 in 6 rows and rest 6 on either side of that.
No matter what we do, its a permanent damage. And I am telling this bcoz I have a bit of technical degrees and understanding of photosites and their working principles.

My point is, that one does not need to zoom into pixel peeping level, a mere 100% zoom in in any RAW processing software, be it Adobe Camera Raw, Lightroom, Capture One, will show this issue. I zoomed in detail, to find exactly how severe the damage is.

As the seller is an experienced photographer and technically well knowledged about photo editing too, such pixel damage could not have escaped his eyes while checking the pics prior to the Sale.

I would not have created this issue if the damaged pixels were spread over different parts of the image. Any new digital sensor could have it. Considering the XE1 camera age, and that it is a second hand buy, I could have been ok with it.
The concern is that is is clustered in one spot.


I also want to keep some clarifications about comments I read from other members.

Firstly, Long exposure Photography is not my special requirement, If I need to do that, I have a Fuji 50R and Phase one cameras to take care.

Secondly, those who have Pointed about GAS, I am sorry, I don't have that.
kindly see my queries to WTS in history, how much I comment on these posts.

Thirdly, yes I do believe second hand equipment will be not "brand new type".
But, there should be a disclosure of those defects atleast if in the sensor of a digital camera.
Here is my point. Mr. Parampreet is a senior member, an experienced photographer and photo editor. Its is very unlikely of him to miss such pixel defects.

Fourth, I did not need to zoom to 800% and pixel peep. A mere 100% zoom will be enough. I zoomed in to find the severity of the issue.

And lastly, I do not have buying remorse. I know this camera was a "killer deal" as pointed by a member, but then, on hindsight, I feel the Seller agreed at that price, bcoz, maybe he knew that it has defective pixels.




This was a deal that did not go through well. first time in my JJMPF history of about 8 years.
I am a JJMPF member when we did not even have such good resolution pics of items to be sold, no name, date, sl. number tags. People relied more on each others honest opinions. Even Phone nos, forget whatsapp, were not allowed on WTS posts.

I should have been more responsible to ask for more test pics before [snip]


If anyone really keen to understand/find/judge who is wrong, kindly take 10 RAF files, some before and couple after the Sale.

Thank you.
I have nothing more to say.

Mod Note:
This post was edited to bring it into compliance with RULE 23a.

[Parampreet Dhatt]

Just for fun, I thought I'd take a long exposure with my spanking new (1.5 months old) and top of the line Sony a7R III (representing the epitome of mirrorless technology) with the Long Exposure Noise Reduction setting turned off and this is what I got:  :D :D