Reading mode: Light Dark

DP2 Quattro, now and then

Go to last post
T

The Voyageur

Member
Messages
14
Reaction score
6
Hello there,

I've posted about my Quattro experience here before, and my travel photography on The Voyageur. I was an early adopter of the Quattro, for better and worse (I'm talking about you Sigma Photo Pro).

I've struggled with earlier versions of SPP and ended up thinking that despite all its qualities the Quattro could not really have that particular Foveon look that I had with my Merrill.

A few months and versions of SPP later, I'm happy to say that almost all is well again in the (slow) world of SPP. That 6.2 version really made a difference, the images are much more defined and the noise reduction tools (Chrominance and Luminance) are very powerful when you want a picture to either be softer or sharper.

I've really noticed the difference when I tried to re-develop pictures I took in a quarry last summer. This was the kind of mineral landscapes in which the Merrill would have been excellent but I was disappointed with the results of my Quattro.

I let you observe the difference.

b76ff70aeb8c4f62ab64967ef49c8ab4


previous SPP version



SPP 6.2
SPP 6.2



previous SPP version
previous SPP version



SPP 6.2
SPP 6.2



Apart from that, I have to admit that processing speed has improved and is now the same as with Merrill files. I still have another grief wihich is that I sometimes get some sort of "hacthed noise" on low-light pictures that I feel could be improved.... In other words wating for the 6.3!
 
Are all the settings the same between the two versions? If not can you provide samples from both versions with exactly the same settings?

I can definitely see quite a difference.

Mike
 
Hi Mike,

The X3f settings are not the same. Unfortunately I can't repost them with the same settings since I don't have that old version of SPP anymore.

Here are the detailed x3f for the first two pictures (for some reasons the X3f info is missing on the other one).

previous SPP version

Exposure: +0,9

Contrast: +1,3

Shadow: -0,1

Highlight: -1,6

Saturation: -0,2

Sharpness: 0.0

X3 Fill Light: +0,3

Overexposure Correction: -

Highlight Control: +1,0

Color Adjustment: B2,5 M0,5

Noise Reduction: Chroma NR: 0,75

Luminance NR: 0,00

Banding Noise: -

Chromatic Aberration Correction: Lens Profile: OFF

Manual : OFF

Fringe Correction : Green Hue : 0,66

Hue Range : 0,0

Amount : 0,0

Fringe Correction : Magenta Hue : -

Hue Range : -

Amount : -

Aspect Ratio: 3:2

Color Space: sRGB

JPEG Quality: 6

Adjustment Mode: Custom

SPP 6.2

Saved X3F Settings

Exposure: 0.0

Contrast: +2,0

Shadow: -0,4

Highlight: +0,4

Saturation: 0.0

Sharpness: +0,3

X3 Fill Light: +0,8

Overexposure Correction: -

Highlight Control: 0.0

Color Adjustment: ABGM0

Noise Reduction: Chroma NR: 0,50

Luminance NR: 0,50

Chromatic Aberration Correction: Lens Profile: OFF

Manual : OFF

Fringe Correction : Green Hue : 0,46

Hue Range : 0,9

Amount : 0,5

Aspect Ratio: 3:2

Color Space: AppleRGB

JPEG Quality: 6

Adjustment Mode: Custom
 
Are you on a mac or pc? I have 6.0.5 and 6.0.6 for the mac. Perhaps someone else will have the software. A well controlled comparison where the same features of each version are being used will be of more benefit for assessing the progress.

thanks for bringing this up and providing the images.

Mike
 
Last edited:
hello voyageur, saw your fotos are amazing! very very full of light.

love your style of fotos and processing and feel very inspiring to me.

question please, using sigma dpmerril, how do you expose for fotos?

my mean is the light airy fotos in your site? do you do overexpose on camera

meter? or using external light meter? sorry my question maybe begginer..

but i want taking fotos with same light quality.
 
You are right, the 6.2 processing is much better, the difference is most obvious in the 3th and 4th photo at 100% view.

Thank you very much for posting. I had my doubts about the Quattro sensor, but now I see that the software caused the trouble, not the sensor.

Jozef
 
Thank you for posting. Here are my observations:

1. The new processing makes the images look much noisier.

2. The old processing seems to make the plants look better (more realistic and possibly even more detailed)

3. The old processing seems to make the machines look "better" to me. (e.g. the grey tanks at the top edge of the image, just right of the machine in the top left corner look more realistic in the older version of the image showing the machines working)

4. The exposure looks different from one to the other, which appears to be the case, based on the settings you listed.

I wonder what color mode you used for the different versions. Have you tried using Neutral vs. Landscape and Portrait? I believe those show the biggest differences in the "look" of images from thoe oldest versions of SPP to the latest version 6.2.

I would love to play with the raw files of these two images.

My guess is that if you used the same settings in SPP 6.0.0 you could get a similar look, but without trying it I can't say for sure what it would look like. I wonder if maybe you've become used to seeing the noise, and now are not having such a bad reaction to it, because the new versions you have posted here look much noisier than the old versions.
 
Last edited:
Hi Mike,

Thanks for your feedback!

I'm not passionate enough about adjustements to go through the process again with an old version though.

best,

Pauline
 
Hello Amesiu,

With the Merril I rarely overexposed when I took the picture because there was too much loss in the light parts. The Quattro seem to work more nicely with overexposure because the look is a bit softer.

Pauline
 
Hi Scottely,

Thank you so much for your comments, you put your finger on something I hadn't really rationalized yet!

1. The new processing makes the images look much noisier.

Definitely yes, the now "standard" mode of SPP with chroma and luminance at 0 is way grainy than before.

2. The old processing seems to make the plants look better (more realistic and possibly even more detailed)

3. The old processing seems to make the machines look "better" to me. (e.g. the grey tanks at the top edge of the image, just right of the machine in the top left corner look more realistic in the older version of the image showing the machines working)

I agree, this is why I originally thought when I got the Quattro : this is going to be great for nature but I will keep my Merill to do deserts/architecture.

I wonder what color mode you used for the different versions. Have you tried using Neutral vs. Landscape and Portrait? I believe those show the biggest differences in the "look" of images from thoe oldest versions of SPP to the latest version 6.2.

I have to confess that I never use these options, maybe I should look into it...

I would love to play with the raw files of these two images.

I will send you the raw by mp.

My guess is that if you used the same settings in SPP 6.0.0 you could get a similar look, but without trying it I can't say for sure what it would look like. I wonder if maybe you've become used to seeing the noise, and now are not having such a bad reaction to it, because the new versions you have posted here look much noisier than the old versions.

Here are my thoughts about the noise:

- With the Merrill I was used to a slight grain, which had almost an analog look, and I liked it

- Since I had the last version of SPP I noticed a lot of noise when I was zooming in and wasn't too happy about it, but since I use my pictures for the web in 1500x1000 it was hard to detect in the final use.

- I have now found out that you really have to push the Luminance if you want a smooth look, which wasn't the case in previous SPP versions where pushing the Luminance would have gotten you a much much softer look.

- I will now have to revise the way I make my adjustements and probably use more Luminance than Chroma, while it was the other way around before!

________

I made a quick test below, with the same picture and the following presets :

first : Chroma and Luminance at zero

second : Chroma at max and Luminance at zero

third : Chroma at zero and Luminance at max

I don't think there is necessery a good or bad option, it depends on the picture and the look you're looking for...But it shows these are definitely powerful options.

Chroma 0 / Luminance 0
Chroma 0 / Luminance 0

Chroma max / Luminance 0
Chroma max / Luminance 0

Chroma 0 / Luminance max
Chroma 0 / Luminance max
 
Scottelly said:
My guess is that if you used the same settings in SPP 6.0.0 you could get a similar look, but without trying it I can't say for sure what it would look like. I wonder if maybe you've become used to seeing the noise, and now are not having such a bad reaction to it, because the new versions you have posted here look much noisier than the old versions.
Click to expand...
No, 6.0.0 applies more/different luminance NR and possibly less chroma NR at the same settings compared to 6.0.6 and later versions. The difference is as striking as above except for Portrait color mode which retains a more delicate/smooth rendering.

Personally I develop most DP2Q photos with the in camera RAW developer these days. Vivid mode with reduced saturation and contrast is similar to Portrait in tone but with plenty of detail.
 
Hello Johan,

I didn't know about Camera Raw working with Quattro files! I use it sometimes with my old DP1 files but that's all.

I see that there are a lot of possible adjustements, including luminance and color noise reduction, do you think it's as powerful and adapted to the x3f file than SPP?

This would be awesome, because the processing speed is so...2014!

Pauline
 
The Voyageur said:
Hello Johan,
Click to expand...
The Voyageur said:
I didn't know about Camera Raw working with Quattro files!
Click to expand...
It doesn't. I referred to the Quattro's IN CAMERA RAW converter: Develop multiple JPEG versions from a RAW file on the camera itself.

I use a Toshiba FlashAir wi-fi memory card, so when I'm traveling I can tweak the photo on the Quattro and quickly upload to my phone or tablet for viewing or sharing. Quite practical and the quality of the camera's JPEG engine is so good that I sometimes prefer it over SPP.
 
The Voyageur said:
Hi Scottely,

Thank you so much for your comments, you put your finger on something I hadn't really rationalized yet!

1. The new processing makes the images look much noisier.

Definitely yes, the now "standard" mode of SPP with chroma and luminance at 0 is way grainy than before.

2. The old processing seems to make the plants look better (more realistic and possibly even more detailed)

3. The old processing seems to make the machines look "better" to me. (e.g. the grey tanks at the top edge of the image, just right of the machine in the top left corner look more realistic in the older version of the image showing the machines working)

I agree, this is why I originally thought when I got the Quattro : this is going to be great for nature but I will keep my Merill to do deserts/architecture.

I wonder what color mode you used for the different versions. Have you tried using Neutral vs. Landscape and Portrait? I believe those show the biggest differences in the "look" of images from thoe oldest versions of SPP to the latest version 6.2.

I have to confess that I never use these options, maybe I should look into it...

I would love to play with the raw files of these two images.

I will send you the raw by mp.

My guess is that if you used the same settings in SPP 6.0.0 you could get a similar look, but without trying it I can't say for sure what it would look like. I wonder if maybe you've become used to seeing the noise, and now are not having such a bad reaction to it, because the new versions you have posted here look much noisier than the old versions.

Here are my thoughts about the noise:

- With the Merrill I was used to a slight grain, which had almost an analog look, and I liked it

- Since I had the last version of SPP I noticed a lot of noise when I was zooming in and wasn't too happy about it, but since I use my pictures for the web in 1500x1000 it was hard to detect in the final use.

- I have now found out that you really have to push the Luminance if you want a smooth look, which wasn't the case in previous SPP versions where pushing the Luminance would have gotten you a much much softer look.

- I will now have to revise the way I make my adjustements and probably use more Luminance than Chroma, while it was the other way around before!

________

I made a quick test below, with the same picture and the following presets :

first : Chroma and Luminance at zero

second : Chroma at max and Luminance at zero

third : Chroma at zero and Luminance at max

I don't think there is necessery a good or bad option, it depends on the picture and the look you're looking for...But it shows these are definitely powerful options.

Chroma 0 / Luminance 0
Chroma 0 / Luminance 0

Chroma max / Luminance 0
Chroma max / Luminance 0

Chroma 0 / Luminance max
Chroma 0 / Luminance max
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting those! The red color in the berries is almost completely gone in the second image. That's the affect of maximum chroma noise reduction, I guess. Weird. I guess it thinks that red color on those berries is those red blotches we have seen in some Quattro photos. I wonder what maximum chroma noise reduction would do to a photo of a kid with lots of freckles.

The luminance noise reduction set on maximum does exactly what I would expect. It makes the image look blurry. Not good . . . unless you're trying to mimic a soft focus lens. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top