A few shots on the streets of Hermosillo

So I live in a very sunny (or scorching really) weather, and light conditions are mostly very harsh. Took my DP1s to the streets the other day and here are a couple of shots that I liked. All are edited in Lightroom Classic CC

Interesting shots.

I like them.

I live in the tropics, with lots of harsh light, and heat too. Sometimes it's not exactly pretty and lovely.

Thanks.

Richard

You have some interesting, artistic shots there. Keep up the good work Xavier. I look forward to when you post some portraits shot with that camera here. I think your portrait work has a lot of potential.

Thanks for stopping by and comment, do you use the DP1s, as well?

Hey, many thanks, I have a very limited amount of street portraits with this camera, I'll share a gallery when I do some more. Thanks for stopping by.

xfajardo wrote:

Thanks for stopping by and comment, do you use the DP1s, as well?

I have the SD10 and sdQ, along with the 30mm and 17-50 and some M42 lenses.

The thing is that in the tropics the softer light of morning and evening passes very quickly, and much of  the day consists of very harsh lighting: bright sun and dark shadows. The usual "temperate" and Northern climate side-lit images can seem difficult to produce.

The older DP series cameras used (I think) a sensor not too different from the one in the SD10. Excellent color and not much edge-roll-off, just sharp three color per-pixel definition.

In theory the sdQ on lo-res should behave somewhat similarly, but, in terms of reality I'm not so sure about that.

Richard

richard stone wrote:

The older DP series cameras used (I think) a sensor not too different from the one in the SD10. Excellent color and not much edge-roll-off, just sharp three color per-pixel definition.

Yes, they had the DP13 sensor - same as the SD14/15 cameras but with different micro-lenses and a built-in UV/IR blocking filter.

In theory the sdQ on lo-res should behave somewhat similarly, but, in terms of reality I'm not so sure about that.

Nobody knows for sure (meaning no Sigma references) how they do that.

You would think that they use pixel-binning 2x2 on the top layer and pre-Quattro raw conversion but that has yet to be proven to me.

xpatUSA wrote:

richard stone wrote:

The older DP series cameras used (I think) a sensor not too different from the one in the SD10. Excellent color and not much edge-roll-off, just sharp three color per-pixel definition.

Yes, they had the DP13 sensor - same as the SD14/15 cameras but with different micro-lenses and a built-in UV/IR blocking filter.

In theory the sdQ on lo-res should behave somewhat similarly, but, in terms of reality I'm not so sure about that.

Nobody knows for sure (meaning no Sigma references) how they do that.

You would think that they use pixel-binning 2x2 on the top layer and pre-Quattro raw conversion but that has yet to be proven to me.

Oh my, I didn't quite understood anything

xfajardo wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

richard stone wrote:

The older DP series cameras used (I think) a sensor not too different from the one in the SD10. Excellent color and not much edge-roll-off, just sharp three color per-pixel definition.

Yes, they had the DP13 sensor - same as the SD14/15 cameras but with different micro-lenses and a built-in UV/IR blocking filter.

In theory the sdQ on lo-res should behave somewhat similarly, but, in terms of reality I'm not so sure about that.

Nobody knows for sure (meaning no Sigma references) how they do that.

You would think that they use pixel-binning 2x2 on the top layer and pre-Quattro raw conversion but that has yet to be proven to me.

Oh my, I didn't quite understood anything

Xavier una vez más:

It all depends on what is meant by "not too different" ...

For example, the DP1s and SD10 sensors are the same size (20.7 x 13.8mm) and both have three layers.

But they have a different number of pixels, different fill factors, different micro-lenses, different firmware, different UV/IR blocking filters, different raw-to-color conversion multipliers and . . different sensor part numbers and data sheets.

Are they "not too different" or are they just "different"?

P.S. For "pixel-binning", please see: http://www.foveon.com/article.php?a=71

xpatUSA wrote:

xfajardo wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

richard stone wrote:

The older DP series cameras used (I think) a sensor not too different from the one in the SD10. Excellent color and not much edge-roll-off, just sharp three color per-pixel definition.

Yes, they had the DP13 sensor - same as the SD14/15 cameras but with different micro-lenses and a built-in UV/IR blocking filter.

In theory the sdQ on lo-res should behave somewhat similarly, but, in terms of reality I'm not so sure about that.

Nobody knows for sure (meaning no Sigma references) how they do that.

You would think that they use pixel-binning 2x2 on the top layer and pre-Quattro raw conversion but that has yet to be proven to me.

Oh my, I didn't quite understood anything

Xavier una vez más:

It all depends on what is meant by "not too different" ...

For example, the DP1s and SD10 sensors are the same size (20.7 x 13.8mm) and both have three layers.

But they have a different number of pixels, different fill factors, different micro-lenses, different firmware, different UV/IR blocking filters, different raw-to-color conversion multipliers and . . different sensor part numbers and data sheets.

Are they "not too different" or are they just "different"?

P.S. For "pixel-binning", please see: http://www.foveon.com/article.php?a=71

Ted

I know you're right on the technical aspects.

I just remember, years ago, looking at the same scenes shot with the SD10 and then the SD15, comparing the detail in each image and the result was, as I saw it at the time...not much difference. If any really. I know the pixels on the SD15 are "better," compared to the SD10, but there are not that many more of them. At the time I had been reading Norman Koren's site on a regular basis, and his wish, as expressed on that site was for a Foveon sensor with many more pixels. Meaning enough to easily see a difference.

That's one reason why I just stuck with the SD10. My current sense of the SD10 is that it works great in daylight and with good flash, but it produces some odd results in certain lighting situations. I was using the SD10 last year or so, with good results: Vibrant colors, excellent crisp details.

In any event, the SD15 is, in the end, as I see it, only slightly different in terms of results, but probably a lot easier to use, and more versatile.

I know that the DP series using that (SD15 type) sensor produces some great images too.

Richard

richard stone wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

xfajardo wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

richard stone wrote:

The older DP series cameras used (I think) a sensor not too different from the one in the SD10. Excellent color and not much edge-roll-off, just sharp three color per-pixel definition.

Yes, they had the DP13 sensor - same as the SD14/15 cameras but with different micro-lenses and a built-in UV/IR blocking filter.

In theory the sdQ on lo-res should behave somewhat similarly, but, in terms of reality I'm not so sure about that.

Nobody knows for sure (meaning no Sigma references) how they do that.

You would think that they use pixel-binning 2x2 on the top layer and pre-Quattro raw conversion but that has yet to be proven to me.

Oh my, I didn't quite understood anything

Xavier una vez más:

It all depends on what is meant by "not too different" ...

For example, the DP1s and SD10 sensors are the same size (20.7 x 13.8mm) and both have three layers.

But they have a different number of pixels, different fill factors, different micro-lenses, different firmware, different UV/IR blocking filters, different raw-to-color conversion multipliers and . . different sensor part numbers and data sheets.

Are they "not too different" or are they just "different"?

P.S. For "pixel-binning", please see: http://www.foveon.com/article.php?a=71

Ted

I know you're right on the technical aspects.

I just remember, years ago, looking at the same scenes shot with the SD10 and then the SD15, comparing the detail in each image and the result was, as I saw it at the time...not much difference. If any really. I know the pixels on the SD15 are "better," compared to the SD10, but there are not that many more of them. At the time I had been reading Norman Koren's site on a regular basis, and his wish, as expressed on that site was for a Foveon sensor with many more pixels. Meaning enough to easily see a difference.

One significant difference between my SD10 images and my SD14/DP2s is detail contrast, Richard. The smaller the pixel, the more "detail contrast".

Interestingly, SD10 edges or lattices have "clarity" but lower contrast. As a consequence, an SD10 image can appear to be soft when it is just "dull" - especially in FastStone or in RawDigger. Koren explains that with a sinc formula where the size of the pixel is a factor.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF2.html

Did you ever see: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59664792

Fortunately, RT can make up that difference in a flash with CBDL.

xpatUSA wrote:

richard stone wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

xfajardo wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

richard stone wrote:

The older DP series cameras used (I think) a sensor not too different from the one in the SD10. Excellent color and not much edge-roll-off, just sharp three color per-pixel definition.

Yes, they had the DP13 sensor - same as the SD14/15 cameras but with different micro-lenses and a built-in UV/IR blocking filter.

In theory the sdQ on lo-res should behave somewhat similarly, but, in terms of reality I'm not so sure about that.

Nobody knows for sure (meaning no Sigma references) how they do that.

You would think that they use pixel-binning 2x2 on the top layer and pre-Quattro raw conversion but that has yet to be proven to me.

Oh my, I didn't quite understood anything

Xavier una vez más:

It all depends on what is meant by "not too different" ...

For example, the DP1s and SD10 sensors are the same size (20.7 x 13.8mm) and both have three layers.

But they have a different number of pixels, different fill factors, different micro-lenses, different firmware, different UV/IR blocking filters, different raw-to-color conversion multipliers and . . different sensor part numbers and data sheets.

Are they "not too different" or are they just "different"?

P.S. For "pixel-binning", please see: http://www.foveon.com/article.php?a=71

Ted

I know you're right on the technical aspects.

I just remember, years ago, looking at the same scenes shot with the SD10 and then the SD15, comparing the detail in each image and the result was, as I saw it at the time...not much difference. If any really. I know the pixels on the SD15 are "better," compared to the SD10, but there are not that many more of them. At the time I had been reading Norman Koren's site on a regular basis, and his wish, as expressed on that site was for a Foveon sensor with many more pixels. Meaning enough to easily see a difference.

One significant difference between my SD10 images and my SD14/DP2s is detail contrast, Richard. The smaller the pixel, the more "detail contrast".

Interestingly, SD10 edges or lattices have "clarity" but lower contrast. As a consequence, an SD10 image can appear to be soft when it is just "dull" - especially in FastStone or in RawDigger. Koren explains that with a sinc formula where the size of the pixel is a factor.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF2.html

Did you ever see: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59664792

Fortunately, RT can make up that difference in a flash with CBDL.

Ted

Thank you for your post and information. Yes, I checked your references, after looking into CBDL (Contrast By Detail Level) in RT. I have not used that function in RT yet. I have been using RT on some of the sdQ images. I don't think the sdQ images  need more detail, or more or less grittiness, as a general rule, but I am curious about making some sdQ images look more like Merrill images. Curious, but not desperate or determined.

I recall reading the Koren section long ago, and your earlier post more recently, but I did not see a direct use for that information in the pictures I was producing with the SD10 at the time. I tend not to crop the SD10 images much. Or examine them too much at 100-200%. What I have noticed in those SD10 images is that the printer programs seem to remove (or somehow fix) the jaggies. I also recall the great unhappiness of some Merrill users who wanted Sigma to stay on the gritty Merrill path, forever and always.

From what I could see in the CBDL-related threads, and as I recall from some initial threads regarding the Merrill sensor and cameras, the detail and sharpness of the Merrill sensors can present "grittiness" issues in portraits and skin in general. If there is such a thing in optics and cameras and images as (somehow defined) grittiness. Removing or reducing grittiness is probably desirable in portraits. For other images "grittiness" may be, or contribute to, the unique Merrill "look" that "makes" those images. I tend to see grittiness in the nature of an artifact.

I will try RT and CBDL on some of the SD10 shots. Combined with the better lenses I have now (The 30mm 1.4 is really very sharp.) it should make the SD10 more like a newer digital camera. Alternatively I could look into the results on sdQ images shot on the low resolution setting.

I would imagine RT and CBDL could be helpful on the older DP cameras too.

Richard

richard stone wrote:

Ted

Thank you for your post and information. Yes, I checked your references, after looking into CBDL (Contrast By Detail Level) in RT. I have not used that function in RT yet.

I will try RT and CBDL on some of the SD10 shots. Combined with the better lenses I have now (The 30mm 1.4 is really very sharp.) it should make the SD10 more like a newer digital camera. Alternatively I could look into the results on sdQ images shot on the low resolution setting.

I would imagine RT and CBDL could be helpful on the older DP cameras too.

Yes, the good thing is being able to adjust fine (micro) detail independently of larger detail:

"Contrast by Detail Levels uses wavelet decomposition to decompose the image into six levels, each adjusted by a slider. Slider 0 (Finest) has a pixel radius of 1, sliders 1 to 5 have a pixel radius of approximately 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32 pixels. Giving a slider a value less than 1.0 decreases local contrast at that level, while giving it a higher value increases it. Thus you can use it to increase perceived sharpness of an image, to increase local contrast, or to mitigate certain levels of detail."

'mitigate certain levels of detail' means that you can go negative, i.e. reduce skin pores and keep the beauty spots.

Lots more here:

http://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Contrast_by_Detail_Levels

For most images I'll click once on the + button (moves all the sliders to the right a bit); then move up and enable the impulse noise reduction as-is; then move up to the top and select and enable RL deconvolution if I want to sharpen - generally 0.4 to 0.6px radius and about 65% amount; the other two sliders left as-is.

xpatUSA wrote:

richard stone wrote:

Ted

Thank you for your post and information. Yes, I checked your references, after looking into CBDL (Contrast By Detail Level) in RT. I have not used that function in RT yet.

I will try RT and CBDL on some of the SD10 shots. Combined with the better lenses I have now (The 30mm 1.4 is really very sharp.) it should make the SD10 more like a newer digital camera. Alternatively I could look into the results on sdQ images shot on the low resolution setting.

I would imagine RT and CBDL could be helpful on the older DP cameras too.

Yes, the good thing is being able to adjust fine (micro) detail independently of larger detail:

"Contrast by Detail Levels uses wavelet decomposition to decompose the image into six levels, each adjusted by a slider. Slider 0 (Finest) has a pixel radius of 1, sliders 1 to 5 have a pixel radius of approximately 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32 pixels. Giving a slider a value less than 1.0 decreases local contrast at that level, while giving it a higher value increases it. Thus you can use it to increase perceived sharpness of an image, to increase local contrast, or to mitigate certain levels of detail."

'mitigate certain levels of detail' means that you can go negative, i.e. reduce skin pores and keep the beauty spots.

Lots more here:

http://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Contrast_by_Detail_Levels

For most images I'll click once on the + button (moves all the sliders to the right a bit); then move up and enable the impulse noise reduction as-is; then move up to the top and select and enable RL deconvolution if I want to sharpen - generally 0.4 to 0.6px radius and about 65% amount; the other two sliders left as-is.

Ted,

Thanks for the information and references.

Richard