aman74
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.29 #18 · Foveon Sensor Images Thread (Official?) | |
No, certainly not all of them. I know it can be an issue with the sensor, so I like to ask about some pics in particular to see if it might have been a PP choice or a image hosting issue as seems to be largely the case here now that we've heard from the poster, or if it's the sensor. For me, it's very subject dependent on when it bothers me. Close up textures and such, it's almost an asset. Landscape shots with a lot of high frequency detail (is that the correct term?), is where it seems to show up the most and also be the most intrusive to me. For a broader range of subjects it's hit or miss for me. Sometimes I think it helps and other times I wish things were toned down a bit, but that's why we have certain tools for certain jobs.
I don't have much experience. Unfortunately, due to a lot going on in my life, I've barely used my DP2M. I hope that changes, especially as the weather breaks and I hope to join the thread more actively and learn and maybe contribute if I can.
---------------------------------------------...Show more →
Yes it is a downside as I see it as well, not though unique to Foveon alone as my Sony and canon sensors can on occasions express in a similar manner. I would say though that the Merrils are the most problematic. I am guilty at times, most often when rushing or tired and post without viewing the results as one aught.
There is a catch 22 when processing, the fill slider can be pulled back to soften the image , which I attempt on each image, but in doing so you lose dynamic range. I search from a happy medium and attempt to find a solution on many images but yet to solve it. I do not sharpen at all now, and use a touch of noise reduction, sometimes, although I dislike noise reduction.
There is one great solution I have found which is restrictive and that is to shoot in those blue and golden hours, but that does create restrictions. Having said that many images are ok, just not as many as I'd like. But sadly every camera and system have their big faults, even film. Enjoying using the Merrils so much it is something worth at least attempting to work around.
I also notice some images look great at home full size yet take on a prickly appearance when compressed for the web, which is a pain, not certain if the Merrill files have less tolerance with compression or not..
Thanks for your take. I've especially enjoyed your photos and PP, so always glad to have a tip from someone who may share a similar aesthetic as myself.
---------------------------------------------
When I process them they do not look that crunchy, I think it is something that flickr does, here are the exact same images on dpreview and if you click and go to 100% they are not as crunchy, so it is something to do with the flickr site. I guess I will have to spend some time figuring out how best to do upload to flickr. I do very little sharpening, a little after downsizing but very lightly and often not at all. Here is the dpreview link:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3792936
Thanks,
Alan
Thanks, yes they look much better on DPreview once you make the way too many clicks needed to get to the "large" image file.  God I hate their forum software and how do the dedicated photo sites have such a hard time with display? You think it would be a focus for them? Pun intended...Pictures look pretty good hear I think, but admins don't reply...ever....Dpreviews pics always look bad in the thread in my browser and only get better if someone has a large size in their gallery or you can click on "original"...I'm not sure of the difference actually in that case....if it says original does that mean the poster must have it hosted?
I don't think I've ever used multiquote here before and fear I messed it up. It appeared to have included my original quote in each section and I was trying to cut it down...hope I didn't mess it up too terribly.
|
