I Can't Ask More....

From the Oxturd English Dictionary: Peeping (noun of the gerund persuasion): To look minutely (vs. hourly) at something usually by squinting, lecherous viewing through bedroom windows or computer screens, the sound of baby bird voices outside these bedroom windows, a given name usually given (redundancy redundancy! ) to those having the surname Tom, the old capital of China in pre-Peking days.

Pretty impressive, Lin. Richly detailed, contrasting textures, all in a color image. Well done to you and the camera.

Member said:

--

learntomakeslidshows.net

Click to expand...

A veritable tour-de-foveon.

Only 9/10 for the link in your signature though . . ;-)

Hi Ted,

Just a tree, but the DP2 M seems to do what I bought it for very well.

Best regards,

Lin

Member said:

Lin Evans wrote:

Click to expand...

" I'm not going to pixel peep the image, nor answer any silly pixel peeping questions or entertain any "this is wrong, why didn't you, means nothing, how can you, it's oversharpened, it's too soft, the colors don't look right to me" comments. It's just what it is. An accurate, detailed and quite satisfactory representation which is all I ask from my equipment."

I actually understand here where you are coming from. I really do. I only would wish that you don't apply double standards and have given me the same courtesy in the past when you threw in your "credentials" on how you know that other technologies are not capable of matching something similar at least in some situations as I had posted in the past and proceeded to decompose by the very pixel peeping you preemptively criticize now (DP2/ Olympus, back then).

That said, I am glad you are happy with the results you are getting. I have no doubt the DP2M in full spectrum light at low ISO is great, though to be frank, I am not seeing anything special about the shot you are showing (tech wise or or otherwise) and I can totally see many cameras getting a reasonable representation of the subject in question.

- Raist

Member said:

Best regards,

Lin



--
learntomakeslidshows.net

Click to expand...

--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...

Member said:

Lin Evans wrote:

Maybe because I said I'm not commenting on pixel peeping. It "looks" exactly like it looked when I snapped the shutter.

Click to expand...

You must have digital eyes if you normally see aliasing when looking at subjects to photograph.. I sure don't

Member said:

Best regards,

Lin

Click to expand...

It is, what it is: "An accurate, detailed and quite satisfactory representation which is all I ask from my equipment"

Best regards,

Lin

It looks fine to me and it prints perfectly. Apparently you and David Millier see aliasing everywhere you look and that bothers you. When I look at enlargements of my CFA captures I see the smear effects of the blur filter and that bothers me. If you don't like the looks of the Foveon captures, then don't use a Sigma for your photography. If you enlarge any digital photo enough you will see pixels. The real world isn't made up of tiny squares or rectangles, nor is it made of various sized "dots" or grains as we see in photos. Until some "perfect" technology comes along we work with the tools which we have and we choose the ones which produce results which we like.

Continuing to harp about this or that technology is not going to change anyone's mind about one technology or the other. I don't spend time on CFA camera forums harping about the smear of the AA filter. The technology is what it is - take it or leave it but please stop the constant and irritating practice of repeating yourself. It's quite easy to predict what you will have to say in each post just as it is what David Millier is going to say - it's like a broken record. You see purple and/or green blotching and alliasing - nearly every post you make is a comment on this. I get it, you have made yourself perfect clear over and again and again already!

Best regards,

Lin