Sigma SD10 sample clip JPEG + MORE

There's so much rubbish circulating here both for and against Sigma SD10
and Foveon that I thought I would place a small clip from an image where
it can be viewed.

Be aware - I'm using this camera professionally, for stock shots. The
image is a highly soft-focus, totally non-sharpened, creative colour
shot as an overall pic. And no, I'm not posting the whole pic.

It is a small clip from a 3350 x 5025 pixel (larger than 48 megabyte)
16-megapixel resizing from a Sigma SD10 image. Absolutely no
reprocessing has been done, in fact the import is using Photoshop CS
with detail, luminance noise and colour noise ALL set to zero. It is a
straight image, taken with an adaptor-mounted 105mm Super Takumar (1965)
at full f2.8 aperture to give me the exact 'glow' which I want. There is
a core of sharp detail - bear in mind this is a Sigma image enlarged
over 2X from its native resolution - and the smooth quality of the
colours and tones, along with the high luminosity and vivid palette, are
precisely what I'm looking for in this context (an on-line picture library).

URL:

http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/poppyclip.jpg

The JPEG setting here is quality 8, though normally these files are
submitted on CD-R as TIFF images, and that is what the full size shot
remains.

I do not use the Sigma camera for all shots, but I am able to judge its
strengths and make use of the unique feel the Foveon image has. Others
do not seem to be able to look beyond whatever system they happen to
feel loyalty to - personally, I'll use anything and everything in search
of the right final image.

You may like to visit:

http://www.alamy.com/

And then do a SEARCH using -

Icon Digital Featurepix

and also

David and Shirley Kilpatrick

These two copyright names will bring up two sets of images, totalling
over 300, with a variety of subjects. It is easy to tell the earliest
ones shot on 5 megapixel cameras as they are only small files. Later
ones, whether on Nikon D100, Sigma SD10, Minolta 7Hi, Minolta A2, Fuji
S2 Pro, Olympus E-1 or Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n are generally larger
available file sizes.

Examine all these files if you like, and try to identify which of them
have the faulty colour (or any other problems) which get ascribed to
Sigma SD10. Try to tell which are from ANY particular camera - or even
the few (about half a dozen) which are scans from film.

They are just snaps - I'm really just a snapshot photographer, don't
expect any models or studio sets or incredible locations, I just shoot
pix on holiday like anyone else, or round the house. But I do manage to
sell a few.

David

David Kilpatrick writes:

You may like to visit:

http://www.alamy.com/

And then do a SEARCH using -

Icon Digital Featurepix

and also

David and Shirley Kilpatrick

Thanks *very* much for posting this. It's nice to see one of the
locals doing okay, for one thing :-). And to get to see a wide
sample of your professional work. And to find another useful stock
site; I've had occasional needs to buy stock for web design, and more
sources are good.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
There's so much rubbish circulating here both for and against Sigma SD10
and Foveon that I thought I would place a small clip from an image where
it can be viewed.

Be aware - I'm using this camera professionally, for stock shots. The
image is a highly soft-focus, totally non-sharpened, creative colour
shot as an overall pic. And no, I'm not posting the whole pic.

It is a small clip from a 3350 x 5025 pixel (larger than 48 megabyte)
16-megapixel resizing from a Sigma SD10 image. Absolutely no
reprocessing has been done, in fact the import is using Photoshop CS
with detail, luminance noise and colour noise ALL set to zero. It is a
straight image, taken with an adaptor-mounted 105mm Super Takumar (1965)
at full f2.8 aperture to give me the exact 'glow' which I want. There is
a core of sharp detail - bear in mind this is a Sigma image enlarged
over 2X from its native resolution - and the smooth quality of the
colours and tones, along with the high luminosity and vivid palette, are
precisely what I'm looking for in this context (an on-line picture
library).

URL:

http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/poppyclip.jpg

What does this clip suggest to you about the Foveon?
I am assuming, based on viewing this shot, that you were intending this
image to show it's failings. If this was somehow your desired effect, then
I apologize...but it looks like a big mess to me. You mention intending a
"glow." There's a glow, alright, but it seems to be the "glow" of optical
or sensor failures rather than an intended technique.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:05:28 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
There's so much rubbish circulating here both for and against Sigma SD10
and Foveon that I thought I would place a small clip from an image where
it can be viewed.

Be aware - I'm using this camera professionally, for stock shots. The
image is a highly soft-focus, totally non-sharpened, creative colour
shot as an overall pic. And no, I'm not posting the whole pic.

It is a small clip from a 3350 x 5025 pixel (larger than 48 megabyte)
16-megapixel resizing from a Sigma SD10 image. Absolutely no
reprocessing has been done, in fact the import is using Photoshop CS
with detail, luminance noise and colour noise ALL set to zero. It is a
straight image, taken with an adaptor-mounted 105mm Super Takumar (1965)
at full f2.8 aperture to give me the exact 'glow' which I want. There is
a core of sharp detail - bear in mind this is a Sigma image enlarged
over 2X from its native resolution - and the smooth quality of the
colours and tones, along with the high luminosity and vivid palette, are
precisely what I'm looking for in this context (an on-line picture
library).

URL:

http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/poppyclip.jpg

What does this clip suggest to you about the Foveon?
I am assuming, based on viewing this shot, that you were intending this
image to show it's failings. If this was somehow your desired effect, then
I apologize...but it looks like a big mess to me. You mention intending a
"glow." There's a glow, alright, but it seems to be the "glow" of optical
or sensor failures rather than an intended technique.

You have to zoom out about 800%...

(It's total ****e. What was the point again, indeed?)

David Kilpatrick wrote in :

Others
do not seem to be able to look beyond whatever system they happen to
feel loyalty to

Except for the three Foveon freaks, I see very little brand loyalty here.
Almost none I would say - which is refreshing and unusual.

- personally, I'll use anything and everything in earch
of the right final image.

Yeah! I have used pinhole cameras, carbon printing, etc, etc ..
I have used rasters, lith developers, solarisation, ...

But I have also use large format cameras, and I love the resolution
and smoothness you get. Unfortunately, digital cameras with the same
kind of quality is far outside my reach though.




/Roland

"Mark M" wrote in
news:sTKCc.87$_h.8@fed1read07:

What does this clip suggest to you about the Foveon?
I am assuming, based on viewing this shot, that you were intending
this image to show it's failings. If this was somehow your desired
effect, then I apologize...but it looks like a big mess to me. You
mention intending a "glow." There's a glow, alright, but it seems to
be the "glow" of optical or sensor failures rather than an intended
technique.

This picture say nothing about Foveon. It is a fuzzy picture
that can be made from a Bayer or a Foveon. The colors are
wrong, but that can be made in Photoshop. The old lens might
be the reason for the fuzziness, or is it the upscaling algorithm.
Both Bayer and Foveon take sharper pictures than this.


/Roland

Hello, posterization!

"Roland Karlsson" wrote in message
...
"Mark M" wrote in
news:sTKCc.87$_h.8@fed1read07:

What does this clip suggest to you about the Foveon?
I am assuming, based on viewing this shot, that you were intending
this image to show it's failings. If this was somehow your desired
effect, then I apologize...but it looks like a big mess to me. You
mention intending a "glow." There's a glow, alright, but it seems to
be the "glow" of optical or sensor failures rather than an intended
technique.

This picture say nothing about Foveon. It is a fuzzy picture
that can be made from a Bayer or a Foveon. The colors are
wrong, but that can be made in Photoshop. The old lens might
be the reason for the fuzziness, or is it the upscaling algorithm.
Both Bayer and Foveon take sharper pictures than this.

This is why I asked the question as to what it suggests to him.
I fail to see any point to it.
It looks bad on numberous levels...
-Color rentition (I don't know of any neon-colored flowers)
-CA problems
-General fuzziness that is beyond the simple limitations of resolution.

So... What was the point of it?
I don't know.

i didn't understand what that image was trying to tell me... but looking at
your site i found your article on the camera with a very interesting
conclusion... perhaps others will also enjoy reading it if they haven't seen
it already... http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/sigmaSD10.pdf

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
There's so much rubbish circulating here both for and against Sigma SD10
and Foveon that I thought I would place a small clip from an image where
it can be viewed.

Be aware - I'm using this camera professionally, for stock shots. The
image is a highly soft-focus, totally non-sharpened, creative colour
shot as an overall pic. And no, I'm not posting the whole pic.

It is a small clip from a 3350 x 5025 pixel (larger than 48 megabyte)
16-megapixel resizing from a Sigma SD10 image. Absolutely no
reprocessing has been done, in fact the import is using Photoshop CS
with detail, luminance noise and colour noise ALL set to zero. It is a
straight image, taken with an adaptor-mounted 105mm Super Takumar (1965)
at full f2.8 aperture to give me the exact 'glow' which I want. There is
a core of sharp detail - bear in mind this is a Sigma image enlarged
over 2X from its native resolution - and the smooth quality of the
colours and tones, along with the high luminosity and vivid palette, are
precisely what I'm looking for in this context (an on-line picture
library).

URL:

http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/poppyclip.jpg

The JPEG setting here is quality 8, though normally these files are
submitted on CD-R as TIFF images, and that is what the full size shot
remains.

I do not use the Sigma camera for all shots, but I am able to judge its
strengths and make use of the unique feel the Foveon image has. Others
do not seem to be able to look beyond whatever system they happen to
feel loyalty to - personally, I'll use anything and everything in search
of the right final image.

You may like to visit:

http://www.alamy.com/

And then do a SEARCH using -

Icon Digital Featurepix

and also

David and Shirley Kilpatrick

These two copyright names will bring up two sets of images, totalling
over 300, with a variety of subjects. It is easy to tell the earliest
ones shot on 5 megapixel cameras as they are only small files. Later
ones, whether on Nikon D100, Sigma SD10, Minolta 7Hi, Minolta A2, Fuji
S2 Pro, Olympus E-1 or Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n are generally larger
available file sizes.

Examine all these files if you like, and try to identify which of them
have the faulty colour (or any other problems) which get ascribed to
Sigma SD10. Try to tell which are from ANY particular camera - or even
the few (about half a dozen) which are scans from film.

They are just snaps - I'm really just a snapshot photographer, don't
expect any models or studio sets or incredible locations, I just shoot
pix on holiday like anyone else, or round the house. But I do manage to
sell a few.

David

"Christopher Muto" wrote in
:

i didn't understand what that image was trying to tell me... but
looking at your site i found your article on the camera with a very
interesting conclusion... perhaps others will also enjoy reading it if
they haven't seen it already...
http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/sigmaSD10.pdf


Hmmmm ... reading this article (and knowing nothing else) you
get the impression that the SD10 is the best camera ever made
and that the lenses are extra ordinary. It is all backed up in
a very trustworhty way with lots of analyzed photos as illustration.

Very nice article - but is it true?

Is this the article that will get the world to "See the light"?

Somehow it looks like a Sigma ad.


/Roland