… Sigma and Wabi Sabi

… The Japanese “wabi sabi” is roughly the inclusion of a deliberate flaw in a masterpiece. A point being to create understanding that nothing in life is perfect.

… As I put my SD14 up for sale, it strikes me that this may be something true about every Sigma camera model. The SD14 is a magnificient camera, with brilliant images. Except that it has a fatal WB/ hue flaw that spoils it for me.

.. Perhaps all the models are deliberately so, in one way or another. Imperfect. Like life.

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… The Japanese “wabi sabi” is roughly the inclusion of a deliberate flaw in a masterpiece. A point being to create understanding that nothing in life is perfect.

… As I put my SD14 up for sale, it strikes me that this may be something true about every Sigma camera model. The SD14 is a magnificient camera, with brilliant images. Except that it has a fatal WB/ hue flaw that spoils it for me.

.. Perhaps all the models are deliberately so, in one way or another. Imperfect. Like life.

Interesting post; it rang an immediate bell!

I used to fix watches and am familiar with the term when used to describe 'wear honorably earned' and/or 'less than perfect production'.

Not so sure about "deliberate flaw" - but I am less familiar with the Japanese production/design ethic.

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… As I put my SD14 up for sale, it strikes me that this may be something true about every Sigma camera model. The SD14 is a magnificient camera, with brilliant images. Except that it has a fatal WB/ hue flaw that spoils it for me.

I posted about that flaw five years ago:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59386490

If you can stand taking a Custom WB, you may not have to sell the SD14 ...

… Appreciate that. Though, I can still see the hue issues in the corrected image. One thing I am certain of is that the creepy “dust filter” over the sensor is distorting the colour and image. It has to be. Especially shooting into the light.

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… Appreciate that. Though, I can still see the hue issues in the corrected image.

It is true that the Custom WB only creates a correction matrix for the neutral object imaged. So there is no guarantee that the Custom WB will fix all the other hues in the capture.

The need for anything closer to perfection leads us into the realm of DNG and DCP profiles based on the X-rite 24-patch card and I certainly can't be bothered with that. But you should know that Adobe's raw to DNG converter will work on SD14 X3Fs, thereby opening up another avenue in a quest for perfect color ...

This might be of interest:

http://kronometric.org/phot/color/Not%20all%20white%20balances%20are%20created%20equal%20-%20X3%20magazine.htm

One thing I am certain of is that the creepy “dust filter” over the sensor is distorting the colour and image. It has to be. Especially shooting into the light.

If I recall correctly, the "dust filter" was different than the SD14's in later cameras.

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… Appreciate that. Though, I can still see the hue issues in the corrected image. One thing I am certain of is that the creepy “dust filter” over the sensor is distorting the colour and image. It has to be. Especially shooting into the light.

I'd be interested in seeing any evidence you have to support that claim.

David

xpatUSA wrote:

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… Appreciate that. Though, I can still see the hue issues in the corrected image.

It is true that the Custom WB only creates a correction matrix for the neutral object imaged. So there is no guarantee that the Custom WB will fix all the other hues in the capture.

The need for anything closer to perfection leads us into the realm of DNG and DCP profiles based on the X-rite 24-patch card and I certainly can't be bothered with that. But you should know that Adobe's raw to DNG converter will work on SD14 X3Fs, thereby opening up another avenue in a quest for perfect color ...

Making a profile from a Color Checker is simple, and the profiles have given very good results on all the cameras I've tried it on. That includes the sdQH and the fp. (The Merrill cameras can't be used with Adobe Camera Raw.)

This lady gives a run-down on using profiles in Photoshop Elements:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NuWGe0gNK4

This might be of interest:

http://kronometric.org/phot/color/Not%20all%20white%20balances%20are%20created%20equal%20-%20X3%20magazine.htm

One thing I am certain of is that the creepy “dust filter” over the sensor is distorting the colour and image. It has to be. Especially shooting into the light.

If I recall correctly, the "dust filter" was different than the SD14's in later cameras.

Don

… Appreciate the good suggestions for working with WB. Though, I know the issues would still be there. Issues that I never had to deal with in 20 years of Nikons.

… My crusade is that the vintage Foveons are perfectable… or at least measurably improved. Believe that their flaws discouraged all but the most patient, technical photographers, relegating their brilliant and unique cameras to essential obscurity.

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… The Japanese “wabi sabi” is roughly the inclusion of a deliberate flaw in a masterpiece. A point being to create understanding that nothing in life is perfect.

… As I put my SD14 up for sale, it strikes me that this may be something true about every Sigma camera model. The SD14 is a magnificient camera, with brilliant images. Except that it has a fatal WB/ hue flaw that spoils it for me.

Hi lain:  Don't give up. on the SD14.  I had the same problems a greenish hue in my images that was difficult to correct.  I started using a custom white balance on the camera and the issue was fixed.  The SD24 produced extraordinary images there after!  Give it a try I think you will love the results of the SD14 afterwards  

.. Perhaps all the models are deliberately so, in one way or another. Imperfect. Like life.

… OK. With the encouragement of Larry, Don, and Xpat… I must get over my instinctive laziness and study up on the custom WB. Thanks all.

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… OK. With the encouragement of Larry, Don, and Xpat… I must get over my instinctive laziness and study up on the custom WB. Thanks all.

Change is hard.  And, for that reason, rare.  I plod along doing the same thing when processing images as I have always done.  A new feature here.  Another plug-in there.  But, all incorporated into the same basic workflow.  Easy peasy.  So, for you to actually create a custom wb is a big deal.  Not for me though.  Too easy just to use the wb dropper or adjust hue/sat/lightness or use an auto color correction feature or change the camera profile in raw or hit some other switch.  Nirvana is . . . inertia.  For me. But, you shall overcome!

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… The Japanese “wabi sabi” is roughly the inclusion of a deliberate flaw in a masterpiece. A point being to create understanding that nothing in life is perfect.

… As I put my SD14 up for sale, it strikes me that this may be something true about every Sigma camera model. The SD14 is a magnificient camera, with brilliant images. Except that it has a fatal WB/ hue flaw that spoils it for me.

.. Perhaps all the models are deliberately so, in one way or another. Imperfect. Like life.

Iain,

I use my SD14 for IR only. I never liked the colour cast problem in that camera, but as others have said it can be overcome. I think Adobe Camera Raw is good with it.

My colour hue/cast was solved  when I got the SD15 which was a very successful camera for me, netting me best photography in a major competition some years ago.  It's still working and I use it occasionally when larger files are not required. One of my favourites ever.

S

I think that's how it is with every product, whether it be Sigma, Sony, Nikon, Japanese, German, Chinese, English (i.e. Cooke lenses), etc. No product is perfect, just as no person is perfect - all have flaws. That's life. You put up with the flaws, or you don't, and I don't think it matters either way. I think there are good reasons to do either, and one can improve their work, no matter which philosophy they follow, because both ways of doing things have their advantages and their disadvantages.

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… Appreciate the good suggestions for working with WB. Though, I know the issues would still be there. Issues that I never had to deal with in 20 years of Nikons.

… My crusade is that the vintage Foveons are perfectable… or at least measurably improved. Believe that their flaws discouraged all but the most patient, technical photographers, relegating their brilliant and unique cameras to essential obscurity.

I think the problem is/was that there was a host of "issues" with Sigma digital cameras. When I first looked into them I didn't realise how slow they work. If I did, at that time I would have seen the slow operational speed as their Achiles heel . . . but at the time I was trying to decide between switching from Canon, or sticking with Canon DSLRs. I wanted the biggest raw shooting buffer I could get, so it was the Canon 5D that I eventually decided to get. My 20D was broken, and I waited for two months, while the repair shop had it. Even after all that time waiting they never got the part. I stupidly rewarded Canon for that debacle, though not immediately, because I was fed up with it, and decided to get a Sony R1, which I used on and off for many years.

Eventually I did get a used Sigma SD14, and I regretted not getting it sooner. Still, the feature set, resolutiin, and speed of operation led me to my Sony A55, and eventually three Sony A65 bodies (I still have one). I even tried a Sony A77. None of my cameras were perfect (the A65 was close, but lacked weather seals, and its raw shooting buffer isn't big enough).

I believe an L mount SD Quattro rH with a more powerful processor, an articulating tilt screen, wi-fi, and a buffer with twice the capacity would be a great camera (but it would have to focus better, so it could compete with the likes of Canon, Nikon, and Sony). I really like Quattro image quality. To compete with the crowd though, Foveon has to step up to another level, so it can perform reasonably well at ISO 3200 and above, where some sports shooters HAVE to shoot, and many other people do shoot, just because they can (with a Canon 7D, for instance, shooting available light glamor indoors or documentary family photos in available light after sunset).

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… Appreciate that. Though, I can still see the hue issues in the corrected image. One thing I am certain of is that the creepy “dust filter” over the sensor is distorting the colour and image.

Why do you call it creepy? My own perspective is that it's a great idea to have a removable IR-cut filter, because it gives photographers more options (i.e. the ability to shoot IR or full spectrum photos, without having to pay money to permanently modify a camera).

It has to be. Especially shooting into the light.

I don't see why it would perform worse than what other manufacturers put on their sensors to block IR light.

-- hide signature --

... “Photographers have been gaslighted by camera companies to obsess about every leaf on the trees, and have lost sight of the forest.” IGF

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… OK. With the encouragement of Larry, Don, and Xpat… I must get over my instinctive laziness and study up on the custom WB. Thanks all.

Is the green cast as bad as this Iain?

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/131130/22/529ad3fa14677.jpg

I think I used shade white balance when I shot that with my Sony R1. Ultimately the easy fix for that particular photo would be to reduce the greens or just desaturate to B&W. No camera works flawlessly though. That's why I shoot in raw, and why I use manual everything.

-- hide signature --

... “Photographers have been gaslighted by camera companies to obsess about every leaf on the trees, and have lost sight of the forest.” IGF

Scottelly wrote:

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… OK. With the encouragement of Larry, Don, and Xpat… I must get over my instinctive laziness and study up on the custom WB. Thanks all.

Is the green cast as bad as this Iain?

… Well, it does have a natural green cast. The problem is that it is not simply a matter of correcting WB. Sure, you can pull WB away from green, or reduce green, but it simply tilts the imbalance of hues in another direction.

… Which can be interesting, unusual, artistic, or creative. But, after enough time with the images, it is predictably disturbing. And, it is an obvious flaw that the company knew about when they released the camera.

… My own entirely amateur opinion is that the vintage Foveon sensor layers worked perfectly… brilliantly. It was the sensor’s processing of the layers that was insufficient. Processing that could be radically improved with today’s technology.

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… My own entirely amateur opinion is that the vintage Foveon sensor layers worked perfectly… brilliantly. It was the sensor’s processing of the layers that was insufficient. Processing that could be radically improved with today’s technology.

Sorry, I don't understand "the sensor's processing of the layers"?

My understanding is that the only "processing" by the sensor itself is to convert the charge on each sub-pixel into a voltage at the sensor's layer output connection.

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… My own entirely amateur opinion is that the vintage Foveon sensor layers worked perfectly… brilliantly. It was the sensor’s processing of the layers that was insufficient. Processing that could be radically improved with today’s technology.

Strictly speaking, the processing isn't done by the sensor (which just gives a voltage for each pixel) but by the "TRUE II" Image Processing chips, after conversion from analog voltages to digital numbers.

If you use raw files, the colour profiles are calculated in SPP.

Don