Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
[]
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.
[]
David

The very act of "resizing" _is_ reprocessing - what about posting the
original, pixel by pixel as it came from the camera?

Cheers,
David

"Christopher Muto" wrote in message
...
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

I find the obvious exclusion of ANY people pictures in the article (as
in...*skin tones*...) interesting and perhaps revealing. Instead we see
only scenes and items with which nobody can identify accuracy or inaccuracy
of color.

Also, note the overwhelming presense of YELLOW in each and every picture
included here.

How convenient.

Interesting that the author seems to feel that turning a night street scene
into a neon-yellow image that looks like someone got carried away with a
hi-lighter pen an "improvement" to street lights on asphalt.

In spite of my long-standing hope that theFoveon would prove truly great
(thus pushing the big-two manufacturers to do even better), Sigma is still
failing to persuade anyone credible.
--While this piece may come in a tidy Acrobat package, the content and
examples don't go even ONE STEP beyond Sigma propaganda.

David J Taylor wrote:

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
[]

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.

[]

David


The very act of "resizing" _is_ reprocessing - what about posting the
original, pixel by pixel as it came from the camera?


I'll post something which is closer to the aesthetic of a few critics
and uses a sharp bit of glass, which the S Takumar is not at full bore.
The Foveon captures the sharp core of the image and the subtle focus and
softening artefacts very faithfully; I guess what I'm looking for is a
sort of digital equivalent to lens bokeh, the contribution made by the
imaging system to the structure of the image.

The points which people don't like in the image I posted the clip from
are exactly why the image has worked for me - and what I can't get
readily by any other route. Particularly the colours; most digital
images are very lacking in yellow, and my Minolta scanners are
especially bad at this. One of the best points about the Foveon colour
palette is a faithful rendering of the golden/green/clear jewel-like
sort of light we get in the Borders - and even in Edinburgh these days
now there's so much less air pollution.

Someone commented on not seeing 'neon' colours in flowers. They may look
like neon colours in sRGB, which the original even brighter Adobe RGB
file was converted to when I made the clip. However, once properly
mapped to CMYK process inks (the eventualy fate of 99 per cent of my
images) they will not look neon at all. The way to see the colours are
they will be is to convert to CMYK in Photoshop, or place on an InDesign
page with colour management enabled and then use 'Proof Colours' for a
simulation. Alamy, the library this shot is destined for, uses AdobeRGB
for all delivered files.

Most digital camera shots, for reasons connected with the characteristic
curve of the process and the colour management involved, look slightly
flat and dull on the printed page unless great care is taken with them.
I've been reproducing digicam images a long time and I know more or less
what to tweak. With Sigma, I don't touch the colour saturation; with
most other cameras, Photoshop Hue/Sat controls to between +10 and +20
Saturation unless there is a very good reason not to. Or raw import
controls set to a similar saturation boost.

David

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
The points which people don't like in the image I posted the clip from
are exactly why the image has worked for me - and what I can't get
readily by any other route. Particularly the colours; most digital
images are very lacking in yellow

Then you picked the right camera, my friend.
If you like yellow, the Sigma will INSERT it for you...even where it doesn't
belong.
Please post something that persuades me differently.
I really would like to see that my assessment is incorrect.

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
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.

URL:

http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/poppyclip.jpg


I think you haven't done Sigma or Foveon any favours with this.
I'm seeing fuzz, I'm seeing flare, I'm seeing weak colours, and in
particular I'm seeing CA.
I really am trying to be objective, but there's no merit to this image.

"David J Taylor" writes:

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
[]
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.
[]
David

The very act of "resizing" _is_ reprocessing - what about posting the
original, pixel by pixel as it came from the camera?

Bear in mind with Sigma, the camera only produces a RAW format. You have to do
post processing to get a more standard JPG or TIFF image.

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

"Michael Meissner" wrote in message
...
[]
The very act of "resizing" _is_ reprocessing - what about posting the
original, pixel by pixel as it came from the camera?

Bear in mind with Sigma, the camera only produces a RAW format. You
have to do
post processing to get a more standard JPG or TIFF image.

--
Michael Meissner

So every image from a Sigma will be different according to the conversion
options that the user chooses. OK. That's a major problem!

But it was the resizing that I was really pointing out, due the the
current arguments about just how many pixels the camera actually has.
Posting a link to an image with an artifically increased number of pixels
seems to me to make direct appreciation of the camera's qualities (or
otherwise) somewhat more difficult, as the interpolation process may
produce colour values not present in the original image.

Cheers,
David

On 2004-06-25, David J Taylor wrote:
So every image from a Sigma will be different according to the conversion
options that the user chooses.

Since just about every digital camera that I know allows most of the
same adjustments even in camera (e.g. exposure, white balance,
constrast, sharpening, etc), this hardly seems like a unique Sigma
issue. (One nice thing is that starting with SPP 2.0, Sigma stores the
conversion settings in the Exif info.)

--
Erik

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
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.


Excellent 'Dave' - That's one of the best Foreveron **** takes yet !

"E. Magnuson" wrote in message
om...
On 2004-06-25, David J Taylor
wrote:
So every image from a Sigma will be different according to the
conversion
options that the user chooses.

Since just about every digital camera that I know allows most of the
same adjustments even in camera (e.g. exposure, white balance,
constrast, sharpening, etc), this hardly seems like a unique Sigma
issue. (One nice thing is that starting with SPP 2.0, Sigma stores the
conversion settings in the Exif info.)

--
Erik

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?

Cheers,
David