p.61 #1 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?
Well, just had a play with the demo version, and two Sigma files—it's a very nice interface and much more intuitive than SPP. Too early to say, but if this can handle the Foveon and X-Trans files, we could have a winner here.
p.61 #4 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?
Kit Laughlin wrote:
to cjrpostma, from the BHPhotovideo ad for the MeFoto:
An Arca-Swiss style quick release plate is included.
I cannot guarantee this, and someone else might be able to confirm, but I believe the RRS bracket is the same width and profile. A quick email to B&H should confirm this.
P.S., the titanium finish is the only one I'd be comfortable with, and it's the one I have.
Thanks, Kit. I saw that on B&H and did some searching but didn't come up with a definitive answer. It certainly looks like it will work based on the pictures. If I can be happy with the MeFoto it will save me a lot of money compared to the other option that has my eye, a Gitzo with a Really Right Stuff ball head.
p.61 #5 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?
Can someone point me to where SPP's "Fill Light" is explained? SPP's Help files are—well, they feel like they are written to protect the IP rather than to help the user actually use the software! For example, I have noticed that if there are over-exposed areas in the image, adding Fill Light pulls these back (this to me is hugely counter-intuitive; adding light would worsen this problem, you'd think), but clearly Fill Light does more than fill.
p.61 #8 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?
Playing more with Iridient: compared to Aperture and SPP, the shadows tool only provides a small fraction of the adjustability of most other Raw developers. There is no equivalent to SPP's 'Fill Light' (and I would love someone to explain to me what this does, or point me to a place that can). More to come (if I can make the time tomorrow, I will take difficult file and run it through SPP and Iridient).
p.61 #9 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?
Yes, i also noticed this behavior. When you're opening the shadows, you're simultaneously pulling back the highlights. I wonder if the highlight slider does anything...it doesn't seem to have any effect.
I don't think any raw converter will be able to provide SPP's fill functionality.
It looks like customized for Foveon, with an understanding of the sensor behavior. It really seems to do much more than pull the shadows and highlights.
Kit Laughlin wrote:
Can someone point me to where SPP's "Fill Light" is explained? SPP's Help files are—well, they feel like they are written to protect the IP rather than to help the user actually use the software! For example, I have noticed that if there are over-exposed areas in the image, adding Fill Light pulls these back (this to me is hugely counter-intuitive; adding light would worsen this problem, you'd think), but clearly Fill Light does more than fill.
p.61 #13 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?
Kit Laughlin wrote:
Playing more with Iridient: compared to Aperture and SPP, the shadows tool only provides a small fraction of the adjustability of most other Raw developers. There is no equivalent to SPP's 'Fill Light' (and I would love someone to explain to me what this does, or point me to a place that can). More to come (if I can make the time tomorrow, I will take difficult file and run it through SPP and Iridient).
Hi Kit,
From what I can see, SPP processing has lot to do with what most folks associate with the foveon look - perhaps even moreso than the sensor. Below are some example crops comparing SPP with Raw Developer (Iridient Developer).
Basically, it appears that SPP automatically clips the deepest shadows in order to hide noise that would otherwise be pretty noticeable. It also applies a highlight mask and increases local contrast in both the highlights and mid tones. This effect is what most people associate with the foveon look I think. Anyway, there is a lot of processing going on which probably helps explain why SPP is so slow compared to other raw developers.
p.61 #14 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?
I´ve this very odd question and really would like your opinions because I love this work and this type of focal view.
I never ever used a wide lens as I mention before and would like to understand if this is achievable with the DP1M (28mm) or if I need a wider lens.
20, 21, 25 or 28m? What´s your opinion friends? How were these nice images made?
p.61 #15 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?
They aren't all done with the same focal length, I think, but most of them are done with something quite wide, maybe 21mm or 24mm, I would guess. 28mm would give you something similar in a pinch, but from what I have read here, I doubt the Sigmas would make great street cameras.
p.61 #16 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?
Yes, I think it´s more on the 21, 24mm range, maybe 20mm (there´s a Voightlander; an example). Two cities maybe different cameras and lenses.
I don´t think it´s a zoom.
28mm isn´t that wide as some of those photos are?!
p.61 #17 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?
To Tariq: brilliant—and saves me doing it. Very clear—and a strong argument for continuing to use SPP.
Do you know what the Fill Light does or how it works, by any chance? The most interesting explanation I found over at DPR (this from Kendall Gelner):
Fill light is really different, because it draws values in from the extreme edges of the histogram (incidentally reducing high-end clipping in a number of cases in the process) while drawing values in from the high and low end to meet in the center.
That really does seem to sum up what I see, but do you have anything to add?
Re. the lovely marcatkins images: They could be made with a 28mm equivalent, I feel, but the Sigma DP1M would definitely not be my first choice. I use a CV 12/5.6 on a Fuji X-E1 (18mm EFOV) for this kind of work and it is surely a case of "ƒ8 and be there" (with the manual distance scale set to 1–1.5m). And that lens on the X-E1 is spectacular.
p.61 #18 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?
Hi Kit,
That sounds about right just based on what I'm seeing. The X3 Fill Light appears to behave just like using both "Fill" and "Recovery" together from the older versions of Adobe Camera Raw (pre Photoshop CS6). This creates an automatic mask for both the highlights and shadows...and the strength of both increases simultaneously as the numerical value of X3 Fill Light increases. I'm not sure just why both effects were not broken out into two separate tools. What's odd - and what I was pointing out earlier - is that the fill effect in the shadows seems to have an artificially imposed "floor" whereby it will force clipping, seemingly in order to hide noise.
p.61 #20 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?
Tariq, yes—I completely got what you were saying before, and I think your assessment of the Foveon 'look' is at least in part due to this—that, and because that pair of effects looks more filmic. Darker shadows, and lots of room in the highlights.
