It is photographs like these and not any amount of ( admittedly interesting) discussion, that have me about to press the 'place order' button. Many many of the examples that I see here and on other sites display an absolutely unique 'look' that may or may not be 'natural' but is ( I find,) extremely attractive.
On another note, the stochastic screening adopted by digital lithography these days is one possible answer to sensor arrays that preclude moire and give wide DR. However like the Fuji and Sigma approches it is the difficulty in interpretation of the RAW data produced that makes it currently very difficult to extract the maximum performance, this however will change as processing speeds increase and software improves, the future is indeed, very exiting!

MorrieC wrote:
I have not had the DP2M very long and am still learning how to use it. This is a shot from a few days ago.
Thanks for looking
Morrie

Interesting scene, Morrie.

In PP there are two things you could change, I think. In SPP; Try to put the white balance spot in another direction out of the blue area towards green/yellow or even red. It is trial and error. And it is overexposed or more likely you used to much of the Fill light, which gives it the HDR look. Could also be partly due to a to high contrast. -1 or -2 is mostly appropiate.

These are the main things I do in SPP;
check contrast
White balance
Fill light, I actually don't touch so much. Once it is on the right spot means that it is usually good for most shots.
Then save TIFF and open in your Raw workflow where you can make a few more adjustments to your taste.

Michiel

kosmoskatten wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
Luis Cunha wrote:
Is there such thing as "right color"?

This is not an easy question to answer as colour does not exist in nature as a physical entity. It only appears in our brain as perception. Now, if you were talking to a printer or screen manufacture the answer would be "Absolutely" but if you talk to people then the answer will be more heterogeneous as we interpret THIS particular colour in a slightly different way.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


Yes Yakim, but still you have to have some sort of way of reproducing color as true to the original as possible, regardless of using perceptual, relative or absolute colorimetrics. If you do not agree with how your camera sensor interprets colors as you see them you need to adjust either your own preference or tweak the results.

The "right" color for me is the one that is as close to my recollection of the actual color as I saw it. Some sensors do it better than others but I am not sure of any single sensor does it perfectly as I can't judge all colors and claim that I know which ones are right or not unless I could compare the scene and output instantly and in fixed/invariable light during the process.

Of course, but my point is that the way you see THAT particular shade of colour (i.e. wavelength frequency) and the way that you remember it is not exactly the same as mine. Therefore, the right colour for you will not necessarily be the right colour for me. There are conventions of course, but at least as humans are concerned, no absolute terms.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

I enjoy seeing your shots on the previous page, Michiel, Morrie, and Neil.

As there is some discussion of black and white Foveon images, I would like to post some examples later today from work. The look can change radically when adjusting in SPP the X3 Fill Light slider.

I find that turning exposure to -2.0 and fill light to +2.0 gives an instant HDR hyper sharpened look. That is not normally a look I go for however it is very interesting to see in this case. If using this look, a strange "shadow halo" as I will call it can form in certain areas. It is therefore best to do a dual raw conversion and selectively apply the effect. I'll make an effort to post two conversions of the same image later today.

Yes Yakim, I think I get your point and I can agree with that.

I have a difference in color rendering between my right and my left eye, my right eye being a bit "warmer" in perception than the other.

I know people might chime in and say it is "impossible" but from years of louping slides on a light table I know it is so. It is also regardless of which eye I start out with on the light table and I know the difference is just about the same as a BW KR1.5 (1A) filter.

Perhaps it is due to my eye surgery (Lasik) and perhaps because I didn't do both eyes at the same time. I don't know and I don't really care that much but. I even forgot which was which since I haven't louped slides in a while but even in front of the macbook (alu) I can make out that my perception is warmer on my right eye.

In everyday/practical it means nothing as both eyes both contribute to the perception as a whole. Perhaps my right eye has developed a tint to my preference after years of peering through binoculars and cameras. Everything just looks a little nicer.

Regardless of that sidetrack I think what I prefer is a sensor/camera that agrees with how I interpret a scene so I don't have to second guess colors and hues as much in post pro as I have to do with some other sensors/cameras.

And to finish off on topic: I have seen some very nice DP Merrill samples but in some instances I see color deviations in open shades and other peculiar transitions. I don't know what to make of it yet as I haven't worked any files yet.

cjrpostma wrote:
I enjoy seeing your shots on the previous page, Michiel, Morrie, and Neil.

As there is some discussion of black and white Foveon images, I would like to post some examples later today from work. The look can change radically when adjusting in SPP the X3 Fill Light slider.

I find that turning exposure to -2.0 and fill light to +2.0 gives an instant HDR hyper sharpened look. That is not normally a look I go for however it is very interesting to see in this case. If using this look, a strange "shadow halo" as I will call it can form in certain areas. It is therefore best to do a dual raw conversion and selectively apply the effect. I'll make an effort to post two conversions of the same image later today.

Looking forward to see your B&W .-) examples.

A confession:
I´m tired of digital races. I wish I could do everything from wide (I like wide) to tele (tele stops for me on 100mm) and macro (macro is fundamental for me) with the most compact, pro quality camera possible.

It´s obvious that I can´t gave up from my FFrame DSLR (maybe and only because the macro aspect) and stay just with one or two Merrill cameras but the temptation is big. Very big.

I´m tired of big, heavy cameras that became obsolete in 3 years or less.
I do pro work for screen and offset print and I dream of a tiny camera that solve all my problems without a Leica price.
I´m a dreamer and crazy? Yes I am ;-)

Luis, the E-E1 can do macro. I was a full-frame shooter for all the years that they have been around (and 20 years more with film). The X-E1 is, for me, the first non-FF camera whose images I really like.

I use the excellent CV 12/5.6 on an adapter for wide; Fuji's 35/1.4 as my normal (and it has been favourably compared with Leica's best lenses; all I know is that it's good enough for me), and a number of Rokkors for medium tele, and the 60/2.4 for macro.

One X-E1 is heavier than one DP Merrill, but less than two. And the X-E1's EVF works well—as well as an optical finder? No, but well enough.

And there will be excellent raw processors very soon, too.

Or, for you: a DP2 Merrill and an X-E1. This is the choice I have made, and am happy with it.

neilvan
One of the problems with the DPMs is that they sometimes don't reproduce well on the small screem. Those of us who have one can usually mentally extrapolate what we see to what we know must be there. Your photo of the moss covered tree does not demand the use of our imagination. It is brilliant just the way it is! Fantastic!

Thanks sandycrane! I was rather happy with that one myself, those mossy trees are difficult to capture nicely (I find it difficult anyway) and that one just stood out as I was walking by...

Check out the pixel-peeping 100% crop, very little PP, zero sharpening. 1/5 sec @ f/4.0, ISO 100, Shade WB

That's what this sensor is all about! Looks great and you don't need a telelens

neilvan - Beautiful image of that moss covered tree! Caught some great light.

Just think what would happen if Sigma would put this sensor in MILC....

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Fuji and Sigma should make a camera together.
Rangefinder style with foveon sensor.
Still dreaming... ,-)

Luis Cunha wrote:
Fuji and Sigma should make a camera together.
Rangefinder style with foveon sensor.
Still dreaming... ,-)


Leica-Foveon

Better; but the price... 8-E True rangefinder.
Fuji-Foveon as a start ,-)

If Sigma is clever they would produce a mirrorless Foveon camera themselves with interchangable lensmounts. Would be a nr 1 hit! But they don't. Why? I don't know.

Yakim Peled wrote:
Just think what would happen if Sigma would put this sensor in MILC....

Breathtakingly egregious color shift and smearing when used with anything except specially designed, slow aperture / extra telecentric lenses?

Luis Cunha wrote:
Fuji and Sigma should make a camera together.
Rangefinder style with foveon sensor.
Still dreaming... ,-)

Given the current need for careful matching between sensor and lens design, perhaps it would make more sense for Sigma to partner with Ricoh to produce a few GXR modules.

Not bad.