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.

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.

Why is there a highlight slider...isn't it for recovery?

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.

Kit Laughlin wrote:

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.

Thank´s Kit for your opinion.
Don´t you think that 28mm seems not to be wide enough at least on some of Marc´s images (and yes they´re lovely)?

Why not you first choice (DP1M)? The 28mm or the other camera characteristics that aren´t the best for street photography?

I know that a 5DMII isn´t the usual street camera but what if a use just a light (200g) small lens like this one?
http://www.voigtlander.com/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_fdih7pyj4a.html

To Luis: far better to pair a wider lens with the X-E1 than that lens on the 5DII; completely different size/shape/handling proposition.

No to DP1M simply because of the very slow file writing times; for street photography, this is important. My "CV 12/5.6 on a Fuji X-E1 (18mm EFOV)" approach is about a third of the weight, and half the size. IQ? better on the X-E1, in my view.

What is latest verdict on optimum ISO? I've read ISO 200 for max DR, and ISO 100 for best noise characteristics. Is this true? Maybe somewhere in the middle (ISO 125/160 anyone)?

Apparently Sigma considers ISO 200 as the default (native?) sinced its Auto ISO feature first goes to ISO 200 before dropping toward 100.

Chrissearle wrote:
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.

Wonderful first image Christopher!!
Congrats.

A few images more


_SDI0453 por John Loves, en Flickr


_SDI0442 por John Loves, en Flickr


_SDI0448 por John Loves, en Flickr


_SDI0449 por John Loves, en Flickr


_SDI0450 por John Loves, en Flickr


_SDI0445 por John Loves, en Flickr

Sorry for the replay...

Kit Laughlin wrote:
To Luis: far better to pair a wider lens with the X-E1 than that lens on the 5DII; completely different size/shape/handling proposition.

No to DP1M simply because of the very slow file writing times; for street photography, this is important. My "CV 12/5.6 on a Fuji X-E1 (18mm EFOV)" approach is about a third of the weight, and half the size. IQ? better on the X-E1, in my view.

I guess you´re right the combo 5D+20mm is still heavy and big.
The Sigma is a slow camera.
What do you mean by "CV 12/5.6"?
Thanks.

Luis: CV = Cosina Voigtlaender 12/5.6 lens. Quite small lens.
I have the cousin, the CV15/4.5, a nice and small lens too. Great performers.

Pardon my ignorance. I know the brand but not by "CV" ,-)
Yes Cosina+Voightlander; great glass. I think now it´s just Voightlander, so the lens you and Kit refer are older lens?

No, current (when you can find them). Cosina began leasing the Voigtländer name in the late 90s, from memory. Some refer to these lenses by just "Voigtländer", but many refer to the lenses with both names. The 12/5.6 is a small lens, as is the 15. And the 12 I bought new last year came with a filter attachment, too. I have a 77mm Cokin ring screwed into mine, and I use grad filters for most outdoors images.

You can see the whole range HERE.

The optical quality of the 12/5.6 is stellar, and I have shot many interiors with it. Distortion is less than the now-fabled Nikon 14–24/2.8 (I owned two copies of this lens and know it well) at the wide end.

For the work you were considering, either the 12 or the 15 would be very suitable, I feel.

.-) thank you. Very relevant info indeed.

Kit Laughlin wrote:
My "CV 12/5.6 on a Fuji X-E1 (18mm EFOV)"

With an adapter?
Voightlander is M mount.
So an M>Fuji adapter? Any brand?
Thanks.

Maybe Kit you use one of these?
http://www.metabones.com/product/fuji-x/leica-m-detail

V. Heliar M39 mount or bajonett?

nandadevieast wrote:
Why is there a highlight slider...isn't it for recovery?

The highlight slider interestingly enough does not recover highlights at all (when reduced). Both highlight/shadow sliders in SPP are only about shifting the upper/lower ranges of tones towards whatever direction you move the slider. You can see why they don't recover anything if you look at how the controls adjust the histogram, bringing Highlights down kind of stretches the highlights toward the middle while keeping higher values pinned to the end of the histogram (and the opposite is also true for Shadow).

The two things that do effect recovery of highlights are Exposure (the main control I use) and Fill Light (which as noted in earlier messages brings down highlights). However too much fill light can give you a strong HDR effect so my general rule of thumb is no more than +0.3 on that.

The "Recovery" adjustment under the main controls affects the color of recovered data - slide to the left and recovered details go monochrome. I guess you might use that if the recovered highlights were wrong in color but I've not seen that happen (or at least not a case where I preferred monochrome recovery).

For some extreme recovery (where you are near -2.0 exp in highlight recovery) you may be better off bringing exposure down in SPP to recover all the highlights, adding +0.3 fill light and then exporting a 16-bit tiff - you can then bring that tiff file into something like Aperture or Lightroom, and bring back up exposure. At that point the recovery sliders will generally work (in Aperture at least) where it would not with an overexposed 16-bit TIFF file from SPP, you may also want to bring back up exposure again or use curves to bring back the darker regions.

The nice thing about overexposing slightly with the Merrill sensor cameras is that you can recover the highlights totally, and the shadows are cleaner. I shoot at +0.7 exp almost all the time (and for something like a very white scene would adjust that further to +1.7 or whatever is needed).

Appreciate
These are your observation, or you read somewhere?
It will be good to have a online resource on SPP...i don't know of any yet...

kgelner wrote:
nandadevieast wrote:
Why is there a highlight slider...isn't it for recovery?

The highlight slider interestingly enough does not recover highlights at all (when reduced). Both highlight/shadow sliders in SPP are only about shifting the upper/lower ranges of tones towards whatever direction you move the slider. You can see why they don't recover anything if you look at how the controls adjust the histogram, bringing Highlights down kind of stretches the highlights toward the middle while keeping higher values pinned to the end of the histogram (and the opposite is also true for Shadow).

The two things that do effect recovery of highlights are Exposure (the main control I use) and Fill Light (which as noted in earlier messages brings down highlights). However too much fill light can give you a strong HDR effect so my general rule of thumb is no more than +0.3 on that.

The "Recovery" adjustment under the main controls affects the color of recovered data - slide to the left and recovered details go monochrome. I guess you might use that if the recovered highlights were wrong in color but I've not seen that happen (or at least not a case where I preferred monochrome recovery).

For some extreme recovery (where you are near -2.0 exp in highlight recovery) you may be better off bringing exposure down in SPP to recover all the highlights, adding +0.3 fill light and then exporting a 16-bit tiff - you can then bring that tiff file into something like Aperture or Lightroom, and bring back up exposure. At that point the recovery sliders will generally work (in Aperture at least) where it would not with an overexposed 16-bit TIFF file from SPP, you may also want to bring back up exposure again or use curves to bring back the darker regions.

The nice thing about overexposing slightly with the Merrill sensor cameras is that you can recover the highlights totally, and the shadows are cleaner. I shoot at +0.7 exp almost all the time (and for something like a very white scene would adjust that further to +1.7 or whatever is needed).

Treeline


Barn