richard stone wrote:
Scottelly wrote:
TN Args wrote:
Scott, life is too short for this kind of discussion. I can only say that over the years I've shot and processed thousands of Merrill files and at least two thousand Quattro files - OF MY OWN - learning as I went. All I have learned is that I can fairly easily produce images that make me very happy if I get the exposure right in the first place. You seem to rely on SPP, Gimp et al to fix poor exposure technique, OK, if that works for you .......
I remember a QvM thread that @docmaas started, where the image had the entire central subject horribly, horribly underexposed. IIRC you had to boost it by 3 or more stops just to represent the main subject as dark midtones. I moved on pretty quickly, after pointing out that a decent modern Bayer camera would slaughter both the Q and M in such conditions. Know how to get the best out of your camera, then DO THAT.
Nothing in these images is "horribly underexposed" guys. I'm trying to figure out why you think the photos are exposed wrong. Just look at the middle of the scene and at the flattened Fuji film box in the top right of the scene. The colors in both parts look pretty much perfectly exposed. The red patches of cloth on the left do too - not too bright and not too dark - a nice red. Sure, you could expose the scene 1 stop more, but then the photo would look washed out and the Fuji film box would be the wrong color green (too light). If you reduce the exposure setting you end up with the photo in the middle looking too dark, and most everything, including the white board, would look too dark. The exact same goes for the Merrill images, which are exposed the exact same amount of time, aperture, and ISO settings.
Try setting the white balance to Auto, and it's amazing how much more the Merrill image looks like the Quattro image. That's just because the Merrill camera handles white balance differently. I wanted to make sure I used the same settings in both cameras though, so I set them both to Daylight white balance, when I saw that the SD Quattro H produces good color when in Daylight white balance setting. I certainly wasn't going to let the cameras choose the white balance setting by using the Auto white balance setting. Then both would have different white balance settings. Besides, I think it's interesting that the images show the differences between the way the two cameras treat color in Sunlight white balance mode.
I would like to know what measurement makes anyone here think the exposures were done wrong. It would be interesting to know what people figure is "correct exposure" and what they think isn't.
I can tell you one thing . . . clicking Auto in the Adjustment Mode section of SPP causes the image to look WAY too dark, so you sure can't go by what THAT setting does.
Scott
I think what is interesting here is the way SPP plays into all this, and why.
It seems obvious to me that SPP, as much or more than the sensors, whether (for the sake of some brevity) M or Q, really "produces" the images. And that includes what the different settings do on, or to, or for, the output from two different types of sensors.
At this point I am beginning to think that the various controls on SPP could use some version of something like full disclosure...
I can only tell you of my surprise, and amusement, when I first used "auto" as opposed to custom or X3F, when opening one image of a series of images I made on a day with very dull lighting: Complete overcast, just finished raining.
Guess what, after SPP auto: Wow, vibrant colors and intensity! Nothing like what I saw. Better? Yes, sort of, maybe, I guess. More fun? More "alive?" Yes, clearly. But "Accurate?" No. Not even close. The "auto" setting resulted mainly in reduced exposure and increased contrast. The result was wildly increased saturation and brightness in the red end of things.
Now, after some use of SPP, I know what that "auto" setting does to images. Similarly, the "auto" white balance setting does something interesting as well, making things much "cooler" in the image. Good? Maybe. I think I may come to like "Daylight" better, when combined with Neutral, not Standard. Not sure yet.
And I don't mean this as criticism, exactly, because the Q output probably really is ( I think) different from the M output, and so SPP for the Q must be different, indeed we could say it has to be different, to cope with the different sensor output. And Sigma may have even changed its view of what SPP should do.
And each image is of course different. Auto may not even be close to what a thoughtful person, or "artist," might desire. Indeed, it probably is not. Still, it might be helpful, sometimes, to see what an algorithm can do, and does, to what's in the file.
And of course we each see things differently in terms of what we want an image to look like, meaning what we want the image to document, or express. Technical test images, in my view, can or should reflect similar exposure settings and the same scene, with processing intended to keep the results mainly reflecting the sensor output. But what's the point of that if the SPP settings are so unknown in terms of effect and processes. How can anyone say that they have held other factors consistent? Or that they should even try to do that?
Yeah . . . it's a bit of a mystery, and I can see how someone would think I'm purposely giving a disadvantage to the Merrill by reducing the sharpness from 0.0 to -1.5 (and maybe I AM disadvantaging the Merrill by doing that).
One approach could legitimately be to do the best one can on each such test image, using SPP alone, and another approach could possibly even include PP work, as long as all that work is duly described.
Again, agreed. Maybe I should do what Noel does . . . or even get him to process both images to the best of his ability . . . if he has time. Maybe someone else here has some excellent technique with Quattro files, and I can get that person to process the Quattro file, while I sharpen the Merrill file my usual way, which appears to me as good as just about anyone else's method (good detail with virtually no halos, except what can be seen when viewed at 200% on a huge screen).
And another issue is the amount of work involved: At some point it is simply not worth the trouble, regardless of of how fabulous the final outcome might be.
For a single test image from each camera that work might be worth doing though. I guess people will always claim that something more could be done to the xxxxxx image to make it look superior though.
Why should the user have to work like crazy to get a decent image?
I think that's the way users of Bayer pattern CFA sensors think.
That seems wildly annoying. But it is reasonable, in my view, that SPP 6.6 (as an example) does different things (and we hope better) compared to versions 6.5 or even 5.X.
I think it's reasonable too.
And even with all that, it still seems entirely legitimate (if not entirely reasonable) for someone to say they like the M results/images better than the Q, even as much as I disagree, even as much as we may be able to properly describe and show the Q as having better detail and better color (and fewer artifacts) than the M.
I actually still prefer the M resuts myself . . . even though they don't hold the same detail. I like them more because I have grown to love Merrill clouds and the Merrill's ability to "see" through haze. To me the fact that we can see things in Merrill photos that are not apparent in images from much higher resolution images (meaning total megapixels) from CFA cameras makes the little Merrill an amazing performer . . . even if it is somehow "fake" detail that isn't really there. (Of course I don't really believe that it isn't really there.)
Some would say this is an example of detail that isn't really there:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sigma_dp1m&attr13_1=nikon_d7200&attr13_2=nikon_d850&attr13_3=phaseone_xf100mp&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=64&attr16_3=50&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.5818677768559438&y=-0.24225777308719754
But when you look at the 100 MP image from the Phase One XF in the bottom right corner, you will see that the details really ARE there . . . and ONLY the lowly Sigma DP1 Merrill was able to "see" them . . . until the 100 MP Phase One XF came along. The Merrill sensor punches WAY above its weight class . . . even more so than the Quattro sensors can, in my opinion.
Here's one more:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sigma_dp1m&attr13_1=pentax_k1&attr13_2=fujifilm_gfx50s&attr13_3=phaseone_xf100mp&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=50&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.5847657946831234&y=0.27642553120425223
Maybe they "love" the look, and it's just another version of love is blind?
I don't think the love is blind. I think the love is just willing to see what's really there and see past all the faults to the inner beauty of the Merrill.
I do appreciate the work you have done here, and thanks for your posts.
Thank you for the appreciation Richard. You're welcome. I'm glad I can offer something that is hopefully at least thought provoking, if not particularly useful.
Richard
