GREEN VIGNETTING Sigma DP-1

Check out shot #10

http://www.sigma-dp1.com/sample-photo/

Some kind of odd angle of incidence issue with the 3 layer sensor?

In article
,
RichA wrote:

Some kind of odd angle of incidence issue with the 3 layer sensor?

it's probably metamerism.

look at #8, with the blotchy purple skies.

http://www.sigma-dp1.com/sample-photo/img/SigmaDP1-008.jpg

On Feb 26, 9:29 pm, nospam wrote:
In article
,

RichA wrote:
Some kind of odd angle of incidence issue with the 3 layer sensor?

it's probably metamerism.

look at #8, with the blotchy purple skies.

http://www.sigma-dp1.com/sample-photo/img/SigmaDP1-008.jpg

Wow, don't they look at them before putting them online?!

"RichA" wrote in message
...
Check out shot #10

http://www.sigma-dp1.com/sample-photo/

Some kind of odd angle of incidence issue with the 3 layer sensor?

So now you're "stealing" from other people's posts on dpreview?

In article , nospam
wrote:

it's probably metamerism.

look at #8, with the blotchy purple skies.

http://www.sigma-dp1.com/sample-photo/img/SigmaDP1-008.jpg

Looks natural to me - *NOT*!

Just more examples of what a piece of **** this thing is...and Foveon
technology in general.

On Feb 26, 7:48 pm, "Pete Stavrakoglou" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

...

Check out shot #10

http://www.sigma-dp1.com/sample-photo/

Some kind of odd angle of incidence issue with the 3 layer sensor?

So now you're "stealing" from other people's posts on dpreview?

Oh! Sorry, I didn't know it was copyrighted. So if a newspaper comes
out in the evening, and a story was reported in a different paper
earlier that afternoon, that evening paper now has to cite the
afternoon paper? The guy who posted DIDN'T take the images.

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Feb 26, 7:48 pm, "Pete Stavrakoglou" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

...

Check out shot #10

http://www.sigma-dp1.com/sample-photo/

Some kind of odd angle of incidence issue with the 3 layer sensor?

So now you're "stealing" from other people's posts on dpreview?

Oh! Sorry, I didn't know it was copyrighted. So if a newspaper comes
out in the evening, and a story was reported in a different paper
earlier that afternoon, that evening paper now has to cite the
afternoon paper? The guy who posted DIDN'T take the images.

Give it a rest and try to come up with an original idea.

In article
,
RichA wrote:

Oh! Sorry, I didn't know it was copyrighted. So if a newspaper comes
out in the evening, and a story was reported in a different paper
earlier that afternoon, that evening paper now has to cite the
afternoon paper? The guy who posted DIDN'T take the images.

Far be it from me to defend RichA, but he didn't say that he took the
pictures...he just posted a link, and commented on how crappy it was.

In article , TRoss
wrote:

Rander pretty much lifted his comment from a thread on dpreview. See
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=26947193

It's not the first time he's taken something from a DPR forum and
reposted it to Usenet without attribution.

Well, bottom line is that the picture sucked. Considering it came out
of a Sigma digital camera, should anyone be surprised?

In article , Mr. Strat
wrote:

Well, bottom line is that the picture sucked. Considering it came out
of a Sigma digital camera, should anyone be surprised?

for what it's worth, they've fixed the image. that means that not only
did they not look at them before initially posting them, but also that
these samples are *processed* files and not directly from the camera.