… Sigma and Wabi Sabi

xpatUSA wrote:

DMillier wrote:

If that is true for all cameras, I would say that it is quite important how gracefully the camera handles these errors - i.e. does the overall result look plausible and pleasant to the eye. On average, my experience of the SD9 and the SD14 is that colours sometimes go weird looking to an extant it can't be overlooked. More so than my experience with Bayer cameras.

If Sigma can eventually refine Foveon colour to keep its strengths and avoid the odd breakdowns, it would be a significant step forward.

An example:

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481/photos/500199/img02778

Colour can be striking in a special effect kind of way, but this just doesn't look natural to me.

Thanks for the example:

The end of the bale facing the camera and the nearby grass is well-saturated: some fully saturated:

Perhaps that would explain some of the unnatural look?

Unnatural or not, I think it looks great.  I find it interesting that the Foveon color so lauded that it brought me here to check it out is also highly critiqued within the community here.  So much so that Iain wants to sell his 14 despite being enthralled by Foveon color in general. Anyway, I like the pic and find it, like many of the Foveon images I like, has sort of an analogue quality.  Like the photographers have used a certain type of film.  Whether an image is natural or not is of no concern to me.  How can I know since I was not there?  The best I can say is it seems or feels natural.  That can be a high compliment for me but that natural feeling is not necessary for me to enjoy an image. Like here.  If I say an image gives me an impression of film, that is also usually a compliment. There are also Foveon images I would say feel natural. Not sure what makes the difference.  Now if I say an image feels unnatural, that is a negative and I often blame on over processing--not the camera itself.