Red Mammon SKKP 3-4"

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Status
Not open for further replies.
The second set of pictures look good. There are a wide range of reds and red-oranges in the color of the body of the fish, there is no pinkish/purpleish tone to the red and the colors of background objects is normal and not over saturated, especially in the middle pic where the wet fish out of the water causes good specular color to judge from, the specular color there is white. I have no doubts that the parent fish is very red.

And please don't take my post as negative or accusational. I am not being mean. I will admit, perhaps to nit-picking...
 
For the record I made no direct accusations. I simply corrected the photos in accordance with standards used in digital graphic arts. The items that suggested to me that there were enhancements made were, in the first photo, specular color in the driftwood was as red as the fish and in the second photo the specular color was neon purple. "Specular" color is the color of the reflected light that is near to white or in darker colors, off-white because most of that light is reflected instead of one set of frequencies being absorbed. This is often the easiest error to detect in altered photos. Another item that is easily visible is "Saturation". When one color is over-saturated from increasing it to unnatural levels, the color gradient normally decreases to a single color instead of many shades of that color over the body of the object being modified as in the original pictures. Lighting that causes these kinds of effects is just as dishonest as if the photo was altered because the effects are the same. I only corrected the photos to what you would see under 6500*K lighting. Roughly equivalent to daylight frequency(as far as the human eye is concerned . There are many pictures on MFK that are slightly questionable and I would never dream of accusing someone under those circumstances because I have seen even my own pictures come out weird looking some times because I have a cheap camera. However when a photo or set of photos shows insane levels of alteration. I have no qualms about posting corrected photos. I understand that the parent fish my be truly red and the photographer/artist only wanted to reflect the possibility of color that those babies could someday attain under ideal conditions but those fish are not yet at that point.

As to why I would point all this out on his first post? I never even noticed it was his first post. I was sufficiently certain of alterations, either pre-digital or post-digital, to feel comfortable making that post.

For the record you maybe certain, but you are non the less wrong and violating TOS by trying to undermine a sellers thread. As I stated I did see the tank and fish in person when I went to pick my Mammon. The intensity of the color is a result of the lighting being used as I have stated and another poster stated that he was told the same thing by the seller. Don't you think it's possible a tank lit by a red light may make things look red? Major point being you assumed and passed it off as fact in a seller's thread. So you've undermined a thread with no knowledge of the seller the tank or the fish, why or to what end I do not know. I just know that you altered a photo based on your assumption and passed them off as true to life, when I have seen with my own eyes and own one myself. So I'll ask you so I don't assume, why did you alter his photo's and pass them off as unaltered true to life pictures? Why did you try to pass opinion off as fact? Would you appreciate the same treatment? I'm also not sure why you needed to change the size of your font, do you think a larger size lends anything to your position? I read your post fully both times and if you had bothered reading mine, you would have seen me state I've seen the tank and fish and gave you the reason why your assumption was incorrect, that there are lights enhancing their color. So the increased font size can't be because you don't want me to miss something. So why? I'm sorry I just don't understand why pick on someone perhaps affect their selling ability and credibility with no experience with them? Or did you not realize trying to discredit his post and fish would have such an effect?
 
Here's a pic of the Mammon I bought from him under normal aquarium lights. You can see the dull brown of the algae the green of the fake plants and that the noise on the pic is nominal and is an accurate representation of the fish I own. Usually in a pic that gets color enhanced by a poor pic editing program develops excess noise. I know from using a free editing program and seeing the grainy results.
IMG_2513#2.JPGIMG_2805.JPG

IMG_2513#2.JPG

IMG_2805.JPG
 
I almost always use this font and size.

You are correct in that I may have violated the TOS so I have requested the MODs to delete my posts if that's possible and I apologies to the seller for being rude.

I am not going to argue the point any further.
 
I almost always use this font and size.

I am not going to argue the point any further.

Good, because everything you said was based on opinion while mine on fact and whether intentional or not you did effect his validity as already in this thread people are questioning whether to buy from him. So you've damaged someone's reputation with no reason or fact, wronged someone unnecessarily and instead of taking responsibility and apologizing to the OP tried to prove your point with nothing but opinion and then walked away to avoid the responsibility all together. It's why statements like yours aren't permitted in a sell thread and a violation of TOS, but even being aware of the TOS violation you still persisted. Pity I thought speaking to you would help you see your error and how you may have unintentionally effected someone and you would correct the error, apparently I greatly overestimated.

for the record and to be safe anyone would want some proof or at least some feed back from other forums or trader. I would want to buy it, but its seem too risky.

True but realize he isn't offering feedback just his speculation. Only I have offered feedback as I've bought from the seller, again a pity as krustyart's point had no basis on fact and I even offered pics that are obviously not enhanced, based on krustyart's own parameters. Your just proving my point krustyart damaged the OP's reputation with nothing but an opinion based on absolutely nothing.
 
Ok...if any of you guys don't believe that i'm posting the true red mammon..you can ask Liang Jeff, him and his brother operate the Wannang Breeding Farm Taiwan. And for those picture, i did not do any changes to it. I took those pictures with my camera and just upload on MFK. And on those pix posted by Koltsix, I pickup that fish for Keith at the airport on DEC 12th(bottom right).
I think krustyart got alittle misunderstanding. The light i use in this fish tank is pinkish plant light, it is use to enhanced the true color of these red mammons. Red is these red mammons protective color and the only way to enhance is to put this light and black background. Also Red mammon tank has to have driftwood in it, it's for mammon to hide and also for them to fight over caves to hind so they can have hump(KOK). These are the requrements for anyone out there rying to have red mammons. All these informations are provided by the breeder from Wannang breeding farm Taiwan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
MonsterFishKeepers.com