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

"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.

"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.

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

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

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

"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.

"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

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

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