If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE
David Kilpatrick wrote:
There's so much rubbish circulating here both for and against Sigma SD10 and Foveon that I thought I would place a small clip from an image where it can be viewed. Be aware - I'm using this camera professionally, for stock shots. The image is a highly soft-focus, totally non-sharpened, creative colour shot as an overall pic. And no, I'm not posting the whole pic. It is a small clip from a 3350 x 5025 pixel (larger than 48 megabyte) 16-megapixel resizing from a Sigma SD10 image. Absolutely no reprocessing has been done, in fact the import is using Photoshop CS with detail, luminance noise and colour noise ALL set to zero. It is a straight image, taken with an adaptor-mounted 105mm Super Takumar (1965) at full f2.8 aperture to give me the exact 'glow' which I want. There is a core of sharp detail - bear in mind this is a Sigma image enlarged over 2X from its native resolution - and the smooth quality of the colours and tones, along with the high luminosity and vivid palette, are precisely what I'm looking for in this context (an on-line picture library). URL: http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/poppyclip.jpg The JPEG setting here is quality 8, though normally these files are submitted on CD-R as TIFF images, and that is what the full size shot remains. I do not use the Sigma camera for all shots, but I am able to judge its strengths and make use of the unique feel the Foveon image has. Others do not seem to be able to look beyond whatever system they happen to feel loyalty to - personally, I'll use anything and everything in search of the right final image. You may like to visit: http://www.alamy.com/ And then do a SEARCH using - Icon Digital Featurepix and also David and Shirley Kilpatrick These two copyright names will bring up two sets of images, totalling over 300, with a variety of subjects. It is easy to tell the earliest ones shot on 5 megapixel cameras as they are only small files. Later ones, whether on Nikon D100, Sigma SD10, Minolta 7Hi, Minolta A2, Fuji S2 Pro, Olympus E-1 or Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n are generally larger available file sizes. Examine all these files if you like, and try to identify which of them have the faulty colour (or any other problems) which get ascribed to Sigma SD10. Try to tell which are from ANY particular camera - or even the few (about half a dozen) which are scans from film. They are just snaps - I'm really just a snapshot photographer, don't expect any models or studio sets or incredible locations, I just shoot pix on holiday like anyone else, or round the house. But I do manage to sell a few. David Hello What would have been useful, is a context. Perhaps a screen grab of the portion in relation to the whole. I have to say the displayed this way, it is not very informative. Mike Engles |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE
"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message ... http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/poppyclip.jpg This is a troll pretending to be Kilpatrick taking the **** surely? What an awful collection of pixels. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE
"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message ... readily by any other route. Particularly the colours; most digital images are very lacking in yellow, and my Minolta scanners are I have to say that I think you're digging your own grave here. I don't think it's wise to mention the word yellow in any thread which also mentions the word Sigma in any supposedly positive manner. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE
it also read to me as perhaps too positive on the camera, but at the same
time it seemed candid. the author said that he liked what can be done with the night shot. i happen to think it looks much better before the processing, but this stuff is subjective, and his interpretation gave me the insight that what he likes is not something that i would like. but it really was his conclusion that i found interesting... that he recognizes that sigma can't sell this camera since canon and nikon have strong products and a momentum that sigma can not match... but if sigma had a version of this camera with a minolta lens mount then at least people with minolta glass would be attracted to it. currently their is nothing for them. "Roland Karlsson" wrote in message ... "Christopher Muto" wrote in : i didn't understand what that image was trying to tell me... but looking at your site i found your article on the camera with a very interesting conclusion... perhaps others will also enjoy reading it if they haven't seen it already... http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/sigmaSD10.pdf Hmmmm ... reading this article (and knowing nothing else) you get the impression that the SD10 is the best camera ever made and that the lenses are extra ordinary. It is all backed up in a very trustworhty way with lots of analyzed photos as illustration. Very nice article - but is it true? Is this the article that will get the world to "See the light"? Somehow it looks like a Sigma ad. /Roland |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE
On 2004-06-25, David J Taylor wrote:
So is there the equivalent of a "factory reset" that would restore standard conditions on other digital cameras? I.e. a standard set of parameters to convert Sigma raw data into an image in a standardised fashion? Well, sorta. There are 3 modes: X3F, Auto, and Custom. If you choose X3F mode, it uses the values saved in the X3F file. These start out as 0,0,0,0,0,0. Unless you explicitly tell it to save new settings, X3F mode will always go back to 0. You can also change the "default" for an image to, say, 0.3,-0.3,0.2,0,1.0,0. Then "X3F" mode for this image will always revert to those settings. Of course, you can always go to Custom and select all zeros again to go back to the "factory defaults." And just like with most other cameras, 0 does not neccesarily mean that absolutely no adjustment is made (values range from -2 to +2), just that the it's the baseline amount. E.g., level 0 does not mean no sharpening, that's at level -1 and SPP 2.0 does more sharpening than SPP 1.x did for the level 0 default. -- Erik |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE
I've found it interesting to read the replies, because it looks as if
here I have a totally different purpose and target-point for the image. I don't have any doubts about what I'm doing, and I am continuing with some images which I suspect people here would find absolutely unacceptable. However, I'm not marketing these pictures to photographers. I am marketing them to designers, art buyers, and people looking for graphic or conceptual illustration. I guess the answer is to tread this path and not be over concerned with not complying with certain ideas. Thirty years ago I shot using SLRs without lenses, allowing light to fall on the film by manipulating prisms, mirrors and surfaces. 20 years ago I was creating images using reflective diffraction foils photographed in extreme macro, defocused. All of this was commercially important and saleable. It ended up for packaging and exhibition display and that kind of semi-graphic use. About the article - all my review articles are positive. I just return items which are not of interest to readers, or don't bother to ask for them. I only produce six issues a year, with 52 to 68 pages; it's not a lot and every page counts. Digital cameras can not be reviewed without full page (or full image size at 300 dpi) reproes and that takes a load of space. So I generally only write about what interests me and strikes me as something to RECOMMEND. Just getting reviewed in Freelance (f2) means the product is already past the main hurdle - if it's crap we don't even MENTION it. Very, very rarely we will actually comment on the bad quality of something and I have only been sued once for this, a long time ago. As for any question of bias: Sigma average ad spend per issue: $500 Canon average ad spend per issue: $4,000 rather puts any question of being influenced by advertising into context! David |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE
"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message ... I've found it interesting to read the replies, because it looks as if here I have a totally different purpose and target-point for the image. I don't have any doubts about what I'm doing, and I am continuing with some images which I suspect people here would find absolutely unacceptable. However, I'm not marketing these pictures to photographers. I am marketing them to designers, art buyers, and people looking for graphic or conceptual illustration. I guess the answer is to tread this path and not be over concerned with not complying with certain ideas. Thirty years ago I shot using SLRs without lenses, allowing light to fall on the film by manipulating prisms, mirrors and surfaces. 20 years ago I was creating images using reflective diffraction foils photographed in extreme macro, defocused. All of this was commercially important and saleable. It ended up for packaging and exhibition display and that kind of semi-graphic use. About the article - all my review articles are positive. I just return items which are not of interest to readers, or don't bother to ask for them. I only produce six issues a year, with 52 to 68 pages; it's not a lot and every page counts. Digital cameras can not be reviewed without full page (or full image size at 300 dpi) reproes and that takes a load of space. So I generally only write about what interests me and strikes me as something to RECOMMEND. Just getting reviewed in Freelance (f2) means the product is already past the main hurdle - if it's crap we don't even MENTION it. Very, very rarely we will actually comment on the bad quality of something and I have only been sued once for this, a long time ago. As for any question of bias: Sigma average ad spend per issue: $500 Canon average ad spend per issue: $4,000 rather puts any question of being influenced by advertising into context! That's all very interesting. However, who are you "recommending" this camera to--if not to photographers? As to rarely commenting on bad quality... The rarity of this was just decreased...by this one article. When the photographic world is primarily interested in images that do NOT record reality accurately, then perhaps your article will be useful. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE
"E. Magnuson" wrote in message
... [] Well, sorta. There are 3 modes: X3F, Auto, and Custom. If you choose X3F mode, it uses the values saved in the X3F file. These start out as 0,0,0,0,0,0. Unless you explicitly tell it to save new settings, X3F mode will always go back to 0. You can also change the "default" for an image to, say, 0.3,-0.3,0.2,0,1.0,0. Then "X3F" mode for this image will always revert to those settings. Of course, you can always go to Custom and select all zeros again to go back to the "factory defaults." And just like with most other cameras, 0 does not neccesarily mean that absolutely no adjustment is made (values range from -2 to +2), just that the it's the baseline amount. E.g., level 0 does not mean no sharpening, that's at level -1 and SPP 2.0 does more sharpening than SPP 1.x did for the level 0 default. -- Erik Thanks for that, Erik. Yes, I appreciate that "0" may not mean "no adjustment", but at least if everyone starts from the same baseline it could help comparisons! Cheers, David |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE
Mark M wrote: When the photographic world is primarily interested in images that do NOT record reality accurately, then perhaps your article will be useful. The photographic world has rarely been concerned with images that record reality accurately. In fact it's obsessed with the reverse. M. Coquin would not have enjoyed many sales, David Douglas Duncan would have been ignored, and as for Man Ray, David Bailey, Hockney, Lartigue, Helmut Newton, Ansel Adams... clearly of no interest! I'll admit that William Egglestone, August Sander, George Washington Wilson and a many others have recorded reality as accurately and objectively as the technology of their day permitted. But from the time of the Photo-Secession onwards, it has been the artefacts, effects and stylisation of photographic images - the odd effects of lenses, processes, and even of mistakes (pseudosolarization, cross processing) - which have interested creative photographers more. David |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE
Mark M wrote: That's all very interesting. However, who are you "recommending" this camera to--if not to photographers? As to rarely commenting on bad quality... The rarity of this was just decreased...by this one article. Don't misunderstand me; I'm careful to flag up potential problems. At the time I reviewed the Sigma, I was not reading this NG, and because no-one had primed me to look for things in the Sigma/Foveon images which others seem to be obsessed by, I was judging them as an 'innocent'. I simply wrote about what I found, and what I saw in the images. RPD is a bit of a poisoned well. I find myself now unable to review some equipment - for example the Nikon D70 - because I am primed to look for certain faults. If I had experienced all the RPD negative opinion on the Foveon/SD10, I would probably not have bothered even to review it, or I would have set it straight to ISO 800, photographed a blue sky and looked for the crap which results. Fortunately for Sigma, I got the review camera and used it before encountering the Foveon demonology. I have advised most photographers against buying the Sigma SD10. Their concerns in life are different, and their knowledge of digital imaging often limited by and to specific tasks. I would never suggest the SD10 for weddings and that's probably the one subject which concerns my readers more than any other. It strikes me as a very good tool for green landscape, architectural exteriors (only with the 12-24mm lens though), objets trouvés, macro, photomicrography, astrophotography, textile-driven fashion, hairstyling (but not hair and beauty), text capture, copystand work, opthalmic and medical, archaeological record, food, jewellery, pet portraits and some wildlife, and some travel work. I don't think I would like it for mountain or desert landscape, marine, horticultural, events and parties, direct flash in general, concerts, sports, news or celebrity, lifestyle interiors, location-driven fashion or catwalk, portraiture (except male and genre, corporate or theatrical), safari or wilderness, glamour/nude, family snaps, children, snow scenes or skiing/alpine, low light work generally. David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|