Julian, I am still getting a feel for using the color filters, but they seem to work similar to BW film. If I get a chance I will post some test shots I did between the yellow, red and unfiltered.
edwinIII wrote:
Julian, I am still getting a feel for using the color filters, but they seem to work similar to BW film. If I get a chance I will post some test shots I did between the yellow, red and unfiltered.
Edwin
That would be brilliant if you have the time to do. I have heard mention of filters being combined with the use of the Foveon sensor. Your results above are for eyes a visual treat especially the red filter.
Former Sigma/Foveon owner jumping in here with questions. No pics to post. Not yet, anyway.
1) A great many of the images posted here are startling in their levels of detail and sharpness. But I can't help but sense that these same images ... most of them anyway ... seem sharper than in real life. I'm not judging that. After all, Richard Avedon's classic portraits revealed every skin pore and nose hair. But the Foveon images do have a "sharpness character" that, to my eyes, can often overshadow the subject matter. That is ... the technical aspect of the shot becomes more of an allure than the subject itself. Thoughts?
2) There's a definite "granular" quality to so many of the images posted ... like ultra-small sprinkles of pepper or, more accurately, like super-fine film grain. Is this the DP camera at work or is this effect created in p/p? Is it just plain and simple noise (although I doubt it; I think it's too fine and way too orderly to be Foveon noise). Like my "sharpness" comment above, the fine granular quality sometimes overshadows the subject matter and brings technique to the forefront. Is that intentional?
BTW: I'm thinking of investing in a DP2. I have my reservations about the Foveon cameras in general ... high ISO noise being my most overriding concern ... but I might give it a try anyway. Hard to resist ....
Veroman, if you are looking of a high iso capable camera you may not be happy. There is always an option, rent one and try it again. Lensrentals.com rents them. I did the test trial that Sigma had about the DP2 Quattro and decided that I could use it as a "niche" camera. It is a quite a capable sensor as long as you use it in the areas where it performs well. Low light, high ISO is not really one of them. But YMMV.
For me I like it enough to actually order a DP2Q when it became available and then bought a DP3M.
I have a question for quattro shoots. So I updated my pro photo to 6.6 and I've noticed that I no longer get the nice rich blues. Photos i the preview have the nice original blue but after opening the file blues turn to gray. It's really bugging me because before I updated I was much happier with the color. So I'm wondering if anyone has experienced this or anyway to bring the blues back? Thanks
deadhumpy wrote:
I have a question for quattro shoots. So I updated my pro photo to 6.6 and I've noticed that I no longer get the nice rich blues. Photos i the preview have the nice original blue but after opening the file blues turn to gray. It's really bugging me because before I updated I was much happier with the color. So I'm wondering if anyone has experienced this or anyway to bring the blues back? Thanks
Hi Humpy,
I at first mistook what you were asking. But then thought this. Have you tried re setting all the parameters to defualt?
You may have something like fringing set which will dull the colours?
veroman wrote:
Former Sigma/Foveon owner jumping in here with questions. No pics to post. Not yet, anyway.
1) A great many of the images posted here are startling in their levels of detail and sharpness. But I can't help but sense that these same images ... most of them anyway ... seem sharper than in real life. I'm not judging that. After all, Richard Avedon's classic portraits revealed every skin pore and nose hair. But the Foveon images do have a "sharpness character" that, to my eyes, can often overshadow the subject matter. That is ... the technical aspect of the shot becomes more of an allure than the subject itself. Thoughts?
2) There's a definite "granular" quality to so many of the images posted ... like ultra-small sprinkles of pepper or, more accurately, like super-fine film grain. Is this the DP camera at work or is this effect created in p/p? Is it just plain and simple noise (although I doubt it; I think it's too fine and way too orderly to be Foveon noise). Like my "sharpness" comment above, the fine granular quality sometimes overshadows the subject matter and brings technique to the forefront. Is that intentional?
BTW: I'm thinking of investing in a DP2. I have my reservations about the Foveon cameras in general ... high ISO noise being my most overriding concern ... but I might give it a try anyway. Hard to resist ....
Steve , a very good question and something I think over often. I love the Sigma Dp Merrill's but have no hesitation in acknowledging where they fail as well or at least where you have to have a lot of input to get something decent at times. I feel it is worth it. They are slow, but I have actually come to like that. Shooting high iso and I mean above 200 iso for untroubled colour is very difficult. It's saviour is you can shoot iso 3000 and above and use the luminance from the top blue layer of the sensor and get great B+W images. Very little noise at all.
Forgive me I digress. The good question about the sharp /clarity of images. They can get a bit prickly as I see it if not careful and yes you can find you sometimes take images simply to see the detail and get drawn into that. Guilty on all counts and many good reviews have made that point about the camera. Sometimes though posting here the compression does sometimes does make them appear sharper than the larger image, the same one viewed from my hard drive. Sometimes I therefore try to soften the image for the web.
No you cannot see anything that's not their , it is the fine micro contrast the Foveon sensor achieves. Also there is not the interpolation that goes on in a Bayer. So you get what you see.
When frst getting these cameras which was not long ago, I used the words that best described these cameras to myself and that was they are very analytical . I do shoot a lot of images that edge more toward the analytical need than most of my images, hence why I have the camera. There is often those who love the idea that their camera is the sharpest, best IQ, best resolution, you've heard it, read it I am sure. It doe not interest me at all and one type of imagery I do I actually am looking for less IQ and resolution so use a cheap lens on my 5D Mk2 or EM-5.
The Sigma's do respond very well to light and the transitions are as good as any camera, although the lenses on these Merrill's and Quattro's only open to f2.8.
I'd really suggest if you wish to shoot higher than iso 400, it is not the camera for you, or wait 10 or more seconds after shooting of 7 raw shots, or sit and deal with 50 or more raw files in an evening within SSP. ( I am fortunate and find SSP very quick but the majority for some reason dont) Raw files are around the 50 plus MB each.
If you don't like viewing through the back LCD screen which in any decent light is hard to view, I could go on and the list of what is perceived as negatives by many I forgive the camera, mainly because it fascinates me as it is so different to any other camera I have ever used. The 5D MK2 stays on the shelf with all the L lenses until someone asks me to photograph something for them and I have to come up with the goods.
I really like this shot Julian, would you care to elaborate on the technique used take this shot? It looks possibly like a slight pan to the right while exposing with the ND filter. I am curious as to the technique and what processing steps you took. Works well for me.
veroman wrote:
1) A great many of the images posted here are startling in their levels of detail and sharpness. But I can't help but sense that these same images ... most of them anyway ... seem sharper than in real life. I'm not judging that. After all, Richard Avedon's classic portraits revealed every skin pore and nose hair. But the Foveon images do have a "sharpness character" that, to my eyes, can often overshadow the subject matter. That is ... the technical aspect of the shot becomes more of an allure than the subject itself. Thoughts?
This is actually a huge part of the attraction for me, an almost surreal level of texture and detail. My eyes are less than 20/20 so I naturally view a scene, and then how I can see a shot on my 27" monitor are two difference experiences.
I find the Merrill reveals fine details I never would of noticed in most shots. For example, a scenic shot of a skyline reveals that there are actually some window washers working on the side of a building. A tiny spec viewed a normal size turns out to actually be a distinct bird or insect that was flying through my shot.
I actually find myself taking pictures of things just because I'm excited to come home and view them in full detail on the screen lol
Shooting the A7s is the same way, (but different than the M of course!) its so good in low light, that it opened up new options of what scenes look like without what I would normally consider enough lights to shoot by (or not needing a tripod) What normally would be a dark alley magically transform into an interesting environmental portrait location via a single streetlight thanks to ISO 40,000.
I know some people like cameras to show the world as we actually see it, but I rather enjoy cameras that let me see and show a world that exist beyond just what I normally can observe with my less than perfect, aging eyes.
IR modded cam's, super low light cams, super high detail rendering cams...I love em all! lol
Intimistic, great shot, really does look good. The sky color looks good to me. Lovely detail in the leaves and tree. What may ask did you do different than you normally do? I find the post processing to be my biggest weakness, always willing to learn something.
apsphoto wrote:
I really like this shot Julian, would you care to elaborate on the technique used take this shot? It looks possibly like a slight pan to the right while exposing with the ND filter. I am curious as to the technique and what processing steps you took. Works well for me.
Thanks and you time is very much appreciated.
Best,
Alan
Alan you described what I do it is simple. There is a group site on Flickr called ICM, which stands for Intentional Camera Movement.
Although the results from the DP camera's are very different from say my OM-D EM-5. It maybe the ND filter I have just works better on a Bayer sensor. FLICKR ICM GROUP
oooh Thank you Alan excellent. Downloaded it straight away. I do notice that it is faster even though each version was very fast on my computer as it was. Like a blink of the eye now. Maybe two blinks must not exaggerate.
My first convert in SSP 6.1, needed a challenge iso 2000 in colour.
I have had one chance/day to use the "Manfrotto Compact Monopod Advanced Black", it did work out quite well. It was a sunny day but a strong wind. The monopod provided the necesarry stabilisation.
I do think it needs a adjustable head but the Joby ballhead I bought is a bit heavy for the Merrills. With hindsight the Novoflex Ball 19P would be more appropiate/lighter. The Joby is nice though, but more then twice as expensive as the Monopod.
But I'll be using it more intensive in the next few weeks.
