That's exactly what you said... "HTP. it is a halving of infaling light" are your exact words. Even this last statement from you is not even internally consistent.no I said by using HTP it is like underexpose 1 stop, go away from 100iso by an under exposure which well be equal to a 200iso exposure and thereby make a head room= which later can compensates with gain and curves
Really? You didn't say, "HTP. it is a halving of infaling light," and you're sure about that??
Let's check. You said:
HTP, here you have exposed the motive 1 stop shorter, halving the number of photons and you get a High light head room and then another curve is applied with a lift in lower areas/levels and a softer curve at the top / high lights
Here 100iso are exposed as i where 200iso which means 1 stop shorter exposure , the sensor collect less photons who are converted in to a charge/signal.
...and you then said:
HTP. it is a halving of infaling light
Sure, you also talked about HTP underexposing by a stop. But for you to deny claiming the light was halved is stubborn intransigence, and a complete lie...a particularly foolish one, too, given that your previous statement that you deny making is there for all to read, and easily catch you in your transparent lie of denial. The second one, "HTP. it is a halving of infaling light," I could accept as linguistic confusion...but it followed the earlier statement where you talk about halving the number of photons, the sensor collecting less photons, and a 1-stop shorter exposure being used, all as a description about how HTP achieves the highlight recovery. That's not linguistic semantics and typos as Aglet suggests, that a very concise, understandable description where it's quite clear what you mean...it's just WRONG
But...not only can you not admit being wrong, you deny you even made the statements quoted above.
Moreover, you also stated:
You Neuro and others seems to have a very hard time to admit that you are wrong .
It is manifestly clear that YOU
are the one unable to admit when he is wrong.
At least you were right about one thing:
it is hard to discuss HTP etc if you do not know what it means
You are obviously having a hard time discussing HTP, because while you appear to understand the consequences in terms of highlight recovery and increased shadow noise (or at least, you can parrot the statements of others who understand that), you haven't got a clue
about the image data manipulations that underlie HTP, as clearly shown by your flat out wrong description of a shorter exposure leading to halving the incident light for the exposure.