Sigma ads in photo mags

That's the ad I mean. Just can't imagine why they picked such a
strange colored skin tone to use in the ad...surely the cameras
produce better and they would want to put the best foot forward...




The ad currently running in the magazines - the closeup of the face -
looks like something in a wax museum...crappy skin tones and odd skin
texture.

In article , Peter A.
Stavrakoglou wrote:

Thus sayeth one of the clueless ones.

Let's see...3.42MP, proprietary lenses, crappy skin tones...I've seen
enough, thank you.

In article , Caleb Thomas
wrote:

That's the ad I mean. Just can't imagine why they picked such a
strange colored skin tone to use in the ad...surely the cameras
produce better and they would want to put the best foot forward...

Actually, that's typical of the Sigmas. The images that come out of
them just don't look right.

In article , Caleb Thomas
wrote:

That's the ad I mean. Just can't imagine why they picked such a
strange colored skin tone to use in the ad...surely the cameras
produce better and they would want to put the best foot forward...

Actually, that's typical of the Sigmas. The images that come out of
them just don't look right.

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , Peter A.
Stavrakoglou wrote:

Thus sayeth one of the clueless ones.

Let's see...3.42MP, proprietary lenses, crappy skin tones...I've seen
enough, thank you.

And we've all heard enough from you.

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message
t...
"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , Peter A.
Stavrakoglou wrote:

Thus sayeth one of the clueless ones.

Let's see...3.42MP, proprietary lenses, crappy skin tones...I've seen
enough, thank you.

And we've all heard enough from you.

You're either Preddy with a new name...or...you're preddy's new pal.

In article wLo6d.87$Hz.11@fed1read04, Mark M
wrote:

You're either Preddy with a new name...or...you're preddy's new pal.

He's been singing Sigma's praises around here for a little while. He's
obviously never seen a "real" camera.

In article wLo6d.87$Hz.11@fed1read04, Mark M
wrote:

You're either Preddy with a new name...or...you're preddy's new pal.

He's been singing Sigma's praises around here for a little while. He's
obviously never seen a "real" camera.

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article wLo6d.87$Hz.11@fed1read04, Mark M
wrote:

You're either Preddy with a new name...or...you're preddy's new pal.

He's been singing Sigma's praises around here for a little while. He's
obviously never seen a "real" camera.

What Preddy has never recognized is that most of the same folks who note how
incredibly BAD the images from Sigma are actually would WELCOME a huge
success from the Foveon! If it was truly revolutionary---**WITH SUCCESS..as
in new found all-around quality--it would be GREAT for all of us.

For this reason, he can rest assured that it isn't simply Sigma-bashing.
People with trained eyes are honestly and with good reason simply find these
images severely lacking in the essentials. Sharpness is great, but not at
the cost of accuracy of texture, color rendition, and images that cannot
even be corrected to standard.

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message et...
"Caleb Thomas" wrote in message
...
Has anyone noticed the skin color in the Sigma camera ads? The only
thing I can think of when I see one is of a wax museum...

Do they really look that way out of the camera?

I'll duck now..

Unless you've seen the subject in person it would be hard to judge whether
the color is accurate or not. I have an SD9 and get fine skintones from it,
despite what a few clueless posters in this group have to say.

The SD9 has the best skin tones of any digital SLR, and I've used all
the decent ones. It's default WB is warmer than most, which is highly
desirable for a portrait shooter, but that remains completely
changable. SPP v2.1 makes for gorgeous people shots. Here are two
skin tone comparision samples from the SD9 and Canon 10D, both
straight out of the camera (set monitor color temp to 6000-6500 first,
most are set too blue at 9300)...

http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing...24381/original
http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing...95832/original