About IQ, and looking at Quattro photos.

Hello Forum Members,

is this image ok?

(Please don't take this thread (too) serious ... I apologise here in advance.)

Jozef.

No. There is tooooo much yellow color in that image. I guess you need to change the white balance setting.

No, too much brightening of the shadows. The buildings needed a couple of stops more exposure and the sky needed less.

I think this scene needed a sensor with a greater dynamic range, or SFD mode on the Sigma.

Detail is good and sharp. It might work in B&W. Try a touch of Adobe's "Clarity" slider too.

Jozef M said:

Hello Forum Members,

is this image ok?

Click to expand...

It depends what "ok" means
It doesn't look like a processed X3F. It looks like a DNG processing. (artifacts)
Is that correct?

cheers
B.

These building are yellow, look at the cars, correct color. Always a difficult situation with a bright background.

You know what is not good? The new Leica CL, not for that money!

Jan Rietsema said:

These building are yellow, look at the cars, correct color. Always a difficult situation with a bright background.

Click to expand...

Indeed the street paving is very close to neutral, according to RT's CIELAB color-picker.

The front car's hood is quite close to gray with a slight trend toward green and blue (a*,b* = about -4,-4).

Pardon me for mentioning an alien color space. ;-)

Jan Rietsema said:

You know what is not good? The new Leica CL, not for that money!

Click to expand...

I totally agree! 24 MP is old. I can't believe they didn't use the sensor made by Samsung or make a new, even higher resolution sensor. The 20 MP m4/3 sensors seem to be doing just fine, as far as noise and stuff like that goes, so why not use the same pixel pitch as those have? If they did that, here is the way the numbers would look:

17.3x13=224.9 sq.mm. (total square mm of area for m4/3 sensor)

20,000,000/224.9=88,928 pixels per sq.mm. (that's a pretty high density)

APS-C sensor size is 23.5x15.7=368.95 sq.mm. x 88,928 = 32,809,985 pixels on an APS-C sensor with the same density of pixels as a modern m4/3 sensor.

So Leica COULD have made an APS-C sensor camera that captures 32 MP photos and makes amazing pixel-shift images. THAT would be something new and interesting . . . IMNSHO. If they used the same pixel density of the 1" sensors in the smaller Canons, Nikons, and super-zoom Panasonics and Sony RX10 and RX100 series cameras, then the pixel count (maximum possible resolution) would be even higher, because those sensors have about 172,000 pixels per sq.mm. instead of about 89,000 (which is what the 20 MP m4/3 sensors seem to have).

Leica makes very good lenses. Why not make cameras with sensors that take advantage of what those lenses can do?

Another thing Leica could do is incorporate more exotic materials in their cameras. Why not make a titanium camera? They could machine a billet of titanium into a camera body. That's basically what Apple does with aluminum for their unibody notebook computers. Titanium is hard and difficult to work with, but not impossible. Many titanium parts are made, and I even have a titanium revolver that was made in Brazil, so it is obviously a material that can be worked with quite successfully.

I know people will spend the money because it's a Leica, but when the Sony A6500 is basically better, offering all that the Leica CL offers, and in almost the same size and weight (453 grams vs 403 grams), but for less than half the money, I just can't understand the mindset. Oh, and the Sony includes a flash and tilt screen, which the Leica lacks.

Scottelly said:

[Sigma's] APS-C sensor size is 23.5x15.7=368.95 sq.mm. x 88,928 = 32,809,985 pixels on a [Sigma] APS-C sensor with the same density of pixels as a modern m4/3 sensor.

Click to expand...

Pardon my edit Scott.

Personally, the image is only sort of okay, but that's because (to me) there is no mystery, or allure, or charm, or drama, in the image. It looks like a pleasant enough street, and well maintained. The only darkish "shadow" is under the cars. The color is off a little, maybe, but so what?

But part of the question asked has to do with purpose, as I see it. Why does the image exist? What is it supposed to do, or say? Does it do what it is supposed to do, or fit with your intention? Does it do something else, even if it doesn't do any of that? Do you like it?

The image seems to direct attention to the church at the end of the street...

It strikes me that (Possibly?) the image is an exercise in shadow lifting/removal, but the result is not fully okay, except to prove that perhaps too dark shadows (an issue of personal discretion) can be made too light (another personal decision...). And the image proves that the Q sensor is really sharp, and I know that already, but still the results of my own shooting have left me amazed each time I open a new "Q" image.

Richard

Jozef M said:

Hello Forum Members,

is this image ok?

(Please don't take this thread (too) serious ... I apologise here in advance.)

Jozef.

Click to expand...

Hi Jozef

Yes it is okay. I wouldn't want to look at it in detail because it is not that kind of photo. Although it can be interesting to shoot a street so that it looks like it comes from Google street view, it's not the kind of photo that really works for me personally, as you really want to see people in the space giving it some life.

I am pretty sure I have stood on that spot in the past and been in the church- so I'd love to know where it is, I'd guess Salzburg, but I have a feeling it is not there but somewhere else near to the German border?? The towers aren't quite fully formed Zwiebelturm so it has to be somewhere in that area. Somewhere where everyone has a diet involving eggs, sugar and marzipan. And sausages.

Spill the beans! :-D

James

lots of details

looks good to me except a green thing at the top of one cross

hope that it's not a typical artefact

rd

Jan Rietsema said:

These building are yellow, look at the cars, correct color. Always a difficult situation with a bright background.

Click to expand...

Our country is so poor that we can only paint our buildings with pee. This explains the general smell too.

Roland_d said:

lots of details

looks good to me except a green thing at the top of one cross

hope that it's not a typical artefact

Click to expand...

I'm guessing this is not an artifact. The whole cross is in need of re-plating, which appears to have been done on the other one.

I notice more noise suppression than I prefer, with textures on walls etc less apparent. I would reduce noise suppression for a large print. I think the colors have been pushed a little bit too much, overall, but I wasn't there pressing the shutter button so I really don't know what the scene actually looked like.

Artistically, I would have shot the church closer, but then the leading lines of street and cars would be less of a factor in the image. It's a judgement call of course.

Jozef M said:

Hello Forum Members,

is this image ok?

(Please don't take this thread (too) serious ... I apologise here in advance.)

Jozef.

Click to expand...

The image looks good from here.

I suspect that the colors are pretty close to correct, given the color of the copper on the roofs.

The verticals look good, and are off by only a little.

If anything, parts of the sky look to be overexposed. If you had a tripod along, SFD mode would have been a good choice, or dial back the exposure compensation just a touch.

I like the photo. I like the sky. Great detail on the street part.

There are some strange artefacts in the image, though. It looks a bit like an image that has been de-interlaced. One can see stripes around the cables across the street, in the light spot on the right roof-edge and in the spot on the left side of the left church spire.

Then there is a pretty strong halo around the top of the church.

Also the street seems to have been brightened up heavily.

xpatUSA said:

Scottelly said:

[Sigma's] APS-C sensor size is 23.5x15.7=368.95 sq.mm. x 88,928 = 32,809,985 pixels on a [Sigma] APS-C sensor with the same density of pixels as a modern m4/3 sensor.

Click to expand...

Pardon my edit Scott.

--
Ted

Click to expand...

Actually I was using the numbers from the sensor size specs. of the Nikon D500 listed at B&H for that APS-C sensor size Ted. I used the G9 sensor size specs. for the m4/3 calculations and the Sony RX10 IV sensor size specs. for the 1" sensor density calculations.

I guess it would be about the same for the Sigma Quattro APS-C size sensor too though. They're all 20 MP sensors (or at least the top layer of the Quattro is about 20 MP).



--
Scott Barton Kennelly
http://www.bigprintphotos.com

Jan Rietsema said:

These building are yellow, look at the cars, correct color. Always a difficult situation with a bright background.

Click to expand...

No . . . definitely too yellow. No city has yellow buildings that look so yellow. The blue sky is missing too. Maybe if the exposure wasn't so high, then the yellow buildings in this photo would be the real brown color they're supposed to be.

Yes, it's OK. But it seems there were problems with the exposure buildings/sky. I'd guess a blown sky and too much use of fill light in the buildings. A vapour trail top left suggests a bright blue sky and there are signs of repair/cloning in the silhouette especially on the cables between the buildings.

Nothing Serious .......