State of the union in SD-1 processing...

[Paul Petersen]

Darn right Bob, I can't afford a SD1 but like all technology it will trickle down to where I can afford it. Its fun watching thing evolve.
Pete
--
A bad day of train chasing is better than a good day at work.
http://peterzpicts.smugmug.com/

 

[BobNL]

Forgot one more question. What colorspace do you use in SPP itself? And does it affect processing a lot?

--
Bob van Ooik
V-studio
----------------------------------------------
http://vstudio-magazine.de/
http://www.x3magazine.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobnl/

 

[D Cox]

Hi all,

I wanted to have a thread where people simply got together and discussed current techniques for processing SD-1 images.

Rather an esoteric gathering. An extremely limited one too, I'll warrant.

The person you really want to join this discussion is the guy who writes the SPP software. Without him, a lot of what people say will be guesswork.

 

[D Cox]

Bloody hell! You must spend most of your time at the computer instead of being out taking photos.

In film days, many good photographers spent a lot of time in the darkroom. Others relied on specialised expert printers - but this is possible only if you are selling prints for high prices.

A good print doesn't just happen.

 

[RKGoth]

Sharpening - depends on what I want. Usually -1, sometimes -0.7

Noise reduction - ISO 100-400, off, 400-800, first stop, sometimes second for luminance, 800-1600 default, > 1600 I'm probably going to monochrome it anyway.

General: I want SD1 support for Lightroom or Capture One more than anything else in my entire digital workflow. I know it's not always been the best processor, but I want my whole process in one, not to be using different applications and formats at each stage.

--
GeekGoth, Writer
http://www.geextreme.com/

 

[D Cox]

Maybe it is time to start a SD1 user forum... At least I am getting pretty sick and tired of this complaining and not "allowing" us to discuss SD1 topics and issues.

--

So am I, and I am not even a Sigma user, let alone SD1.

 

[RKGoth]

Nice examples, particularly between -2 on both sets - you're clearly losing detail in 5.2 by that stage, whereas -2 on the previous version retains a bit of subtlety in the textures but hasn't got to the point of softening the diagonal line.

I rarely zoom in so much on my images, so I tend to assess them as a whole. The difference is less pronounced, but I did tend to veer to -1.7 with the earlier software to feel like I'd got a natural yet crisp result.

--
GeekGoth, Writer
http://www.geextreme.com/

 

[RKGoth]

Bloody hell! You must spend most of your time at the computer instead of being out taking photos.

Funny thing, there - and I'm not disagreeing with your statement, as it's totally true from the perspective of the DSLR "snapper".

Workflows like just bunging stuff in Lightroom are frequently "good enough".

When I'm trying to get the best out of a camera, I can spend ages learning what settings will really show off (or wreck) a camera's output. But default profiles are quite often enough to go "that'll do" and hit export.

It's not that the SD1 or any other camera (using Nikon, Canon or Pentax's software is an equal "chore" to me) is requiring more processing, it's that we're far too used to some very powerful tools and some fairly indiscriminate standards.

I'd probably shoot a lot more on the SD1 if I could just dump the images into my existing workflow. And it'd be worse for it, I expect.

--
GeekGoth, Writer
http://www.geextreme.com/

 

[Kendall Helmstetter Gelner]

Bloody hell! You must spend most of your time at the computer instead of being out taking photos.

That is true currently.

The point of my post though is I want to re-do- my workflow so that it's settled in to be the best it can be. More importantly, I want anyone processing SD-1 images (not necessarily limited to those owning the camera) to have the best information possible as to processing, not just me - there have been bits of good advice here and there scattered as responses in threads but some of that is out of date (the -2.0 thing) and I wanted everyone to have a centralized location for helpful and current processing information.

This sort of effort is good to undergo once in a while even though it pulls you away from shooting, since there are so many ways technically you can improve images. The effort to learn may seem large but the thing is you only have to do it once, then it applies to all your photography going forward - spreading the apparently large cost in time over many images in the end makes it insignificant.

For those that know what it means... O(1).

--
---> Kendall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home

 

[Kendall Helmstetter Gelner]

What color mode are you guys using?

I always use Neutral.

Then I export the image as a 16bit TIFF in the Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB Color space.

Same here but ProPhotoRGB. Any big difference you've found between the two? I stopped using the JPG output from SPP altogether. It produces really bad posterization artifacts

I also only output JPG from Aperture, not SPP (I had not noticed posterization from that).

One more question I have; what are your thoughts about the color modes and how do you use them/not use them?

As noted, I just use Neutral - I think Rick uses the other color modes at times.

What colorspace do you use in SPP itself? And does it affect processing a lot?

I have the "Working Color Space" set to ProPhoto as I figured it would offer the most latitude for edits made... but I have never tested for difference between using a more limited working color space to see if you can really introduce posterization with edits in a smaller space...

--
---> Kendall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home

 

[Kendall Helmstetter Gelner]

That is an AWESOME comparison, something I wanted to do but did not have time.

The most striking difference (to me) lies in the difference between 0 level sharpening (base) between 5.0.1 and 5.1.2 - as I thought, the older software looked overdone leading to harsh edges and details, but the more recent version looks pretty decent.

I also don't know if anything changed in 5.1 but I don't think it did. I saw almost right away when I was reprocessing some images for large prints that something had changed.

That (and the discussion of settings used) is exactly the kind of thing I hoped to get out of this thread, for the benefit of all.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home

 

[maceoQ]

That is an AWESOME comparison

Thanks Kendall

I still think that the method of sharpening in SPP isn't good.
Its better in SPP 5.2 because its not that strong anymore, but the
radius of USM (or what ever they use) is too big.

Did you see the full resolution image, processed with sharpening -2 and then sharpened in photoshop?

Its a pitty, the '70mm macro' is the only lens i have that could deliver such results.

The '17-50' and '8-16' are ok but not outstanding, and the 10-20 which i liked on my SD 15 is kind of disappointing on the SD1.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/713519/SD1_resolution/SD1_70mm_macro.jpg

 

[Chuck Lantz]

As far as sharpness goes, I cant see any difference between the two versions of SPP from your samples...Are you sure your not imagining it?

This is what is known as an "Aha!" moment.

--

"If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough" - I thought this was original, but it's very close to what someone else said. Oh, well.

"Not to compete whole-heartedly, with a will to win, degrades the sport and insults the competition" - anonymous Olympic long-distance runner

"Mongo not know ... Mongo just pawn in game of life." - Mongo

http://www.ChuckLantz.com

 

[Chuck Lantz]

Are you seriously interested in discussing SD1 processing techniques or is this a thread devoted to bragging rights for the handful of people who could afford an SD1? Due to the SD1 being substantially unaffordable for almost everyone on this forum, how many people do you think this is going to help?

Why do you care? I don't own an SD1, but I was able to borrow one for awhile. Even if I never own one, I'm interested in the process, which can also be used to some extent with other Sigma cameras.

Someone else mentioned something about "wasting time" discussing process, rather than simply going out and shooting. I'll fire that question right back at you; ... why are you wasting time posting negative comments on a thread not aimed at you?

BTW, thanks to Kendall and the others for taking the time to start and continue this thread in a positive and informative manner. I also admire your patience with the usual trolls.

 

[Mostly Lurking]

stupid, but I suspect my post-processig technique for the SD-10, -14, and -15 might apply to the -1 as well. Here it is: I watch the image as I adjust the sliders, levels, curves, hue, saturation, etc. It's very rare that I adjust them to a set value, as I find that every image is at least slightly different. I usually start out converting the raws to 16-bit TIFFs with SPP, although sometimes I use Adobe's Camera Raw when I can't get close with SPP. Since my monitor only covers 98% of Adobe RGB (1998), that's the color mode I convert to. My non-technical brain figures that if you can't display colors outside of the monitor's capability, you have no way of knowing what they truly are. Speaking of colors, I always edit them in all three of Photoshop's modes: Lab, (untagged) CMYK, and (Adobe) RGB. (Sometimes I use one or more of those modes more than once. Yes, I spend a lot of time at the computer, but I find the results are well worth it. By the way, I find the SD-15 needs much less editing than its predecessors.

Happy shooting!
--
William Wilgus

 

[Park70]

Photos from a Sigma DP2

Apart from one extra function for the SD1 all others are available to all of us.

Two sliders not mentioned yet are the Shadow and Highlight, in the examples below the first is set at 0.0 as taken, the second has the Shadow set at +1.0 and then the Fill Light does not need to raised as much to open the shadows.

Contrast is lowered with this method but can be raised with the Contrast slider.

Some warmth was added with the Colour Wheel.

The Highlight Slider can be used to lower highlights, also try raising Highlight and lowering Shadows = more contrast and colour.

All sliders set at 0.0





Sliders set to suit.

 

[Mostly Lurking]

I also watch the histograms where appropriate. I never change the WB in SPP or use its color wheel. (you can open TIFFs with Adobe's Camera Raw and adjust tyhe WB with a slider.) I always shoot with AWB and with the -15, I use the 'natural' mode. (I don't change it in SPP either.) I very rarely let SPP do any noise reduction, I do that in Photshop, primarily in the Lab mode's 'Light' channel and the (untagged) CMYK mode's Black channel. Sharpening is usually the last thing I do, and primarily in the two channels I just mentioned. I save my work as 16-bit Adobe RBG TIFFs with no compression.

The most important thing you can do in post-processing is learn either from others or experimentation. However, remember that what gives one person the results they desire may not give the results you desire.

Regards!
--
William Wilgus

 

[Kendall Helmstetter Gelner]

That is an AWESOME comparison

Thanks Kendall

I still think that the method of sharpening in SPP isn't good.
Its better in SPP 5.2 because its not that strong anymore, but the
radius of USM (or what ever they use) is too big.

Did you see the full resolution image, processed with sharpening -2 and then sharpened in photoshop?

I agree, I still use Nik sharpening from a -2.0 base for some things that I want really sharp.

Its a pitty, the '70mm macro' is the only lens i have that could deliver such results.

The '17-50' and '8-16' are ok but not outstanding, and the 10-20 which i liked on my SD 15 is kind of disappointing on the SD1.

I don't think the 17-50 fares well personally though some still like it. I think the 8-16 fares OK, especially if you zoom in just a bit to 10mm or more and are really careful about focus (focus at infinity seems to overshoot).

The 24-70 is my choice of replacements for the 17-50. Ok the edges are not perfect, but the center area can be pretty sharp.

I totally agree about the 70mm, still a fantastic lens!!!

Another one I know is good, though I do not have it anymore is the 120-300. The old one was really good, the new one just amazing!! So huge though, I'm not sure if it's practical to shoot with for most of what I do.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home

 

[Kendall Helmstetter Gelner]

The person you really want to join this discussion is the guy who writes the SPP software. Without him, a lot of what people say will be guesswork.

Not guesswork at all, systematic examination and reverse engineering - like the excellent example showing the difference in sharpening.

Any black box can be approximated by enough study of inputs and outputs.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home

 

[Kendall Helmstetter Gelner]

stupid, but I suspect my post-processig technique for the SD-10, -14, and -15 might apply to the -1 as well.

Thanks for those guides, the actual editing as you say is very similar to previous cameras, which is why I was focused more initially on the sort of surrounding settings (like noise reduction), and I'm pretty sure the sharpening SPP does for the SD-1 is different from the previous cameras.

The only difference is I think in terms of real editing is what each of the cameras will do in terms of range. I feel like the SD-1 is a bit more like the SD-14 to edit than the SD-15, as the highlights have more room than the 15 seems to have - the 15 has better shadows, though the SD-1 has OK shadows as well they can't come up generally as far as you can bring highlights down.

--
---> Kendall
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home