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.

From Luminous Landscape forum...

http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper_history.html

Share some comments if you try it.

Was expecting for this ,-)

Awesome, thanks for the heads up...going to download the update tonight and kick the tires.

-Tim

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.

Only for Mac' s

Jede wrote:
.....

Here's the scene which I intentionally edited to "unrealistic" look.



Smoke

what a great image!

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.

Thanks again for the response.

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.

TIA, KL

to cjrpostma: try their Live help; it works well if the time zones suit.

Some frozen grass near a slough from today...(sharing online at these resolutions just does not do this camera justice!)

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).

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.

TIA, KL

.

neilvan wrote:
Some frozen grass near a slough from today...(sharing online at these resolutions just does not do this camera justice!)

First light on my new foveon sensor....


WSM by Jeaunse23, on Flickr

No adjustment in SPP just conversion to TIFF and export to LR4 for a few tweaks.

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.

Default SPP processing:

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?

Here is the link:
http://marcatkins.com/parisandlondon/ParisandLondon.html

Thanks in advance for your kind help.

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.

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?!