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

[BobNL]

Sorry, but since you posted the image to the public, you might as well be opened to what other people see...

Of course, I expect no less. That is why I publish them.

This image at 0 sharpening has the same bayer look i talked about in the other thread...do you really think this image is any sharper or detailed than a 20mp bayer sensor camera?...

Definitely sharper than a 20MP bayer

Bo11ocks. You've obviously not seen anything from a D3X or from an M9 for that matter.

Bo11ocks. I do use Sony a900 on almost daily basis. The SD1 is capable of producing better/deeper/sharper shots. You've obviously have not been using a SD1.

Bo11ocks back. I said a D3X, NOT an A900. Same sensor but very different output.

No - Haven't used an SD1. I'm not part of the innter circle, nor am I privileged enough to have been given one.

Yiihaaa! we have a game! Bo11ocks back!

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

 

[Kendall Helmstetter Gelner]

The left one is the original (standard) position.
The middle is corrected using "neutralize" position.
And the right one is after removing the color cast in photoshop.

Without this slider it would look like the left (first) sample.

I was a bit confused about that too, the headers I think were attached to the wrong images? On top of the leftmost one the sider is set to "recover".

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

 

[Kendall Helmstetter Gelner]

The 'Highlight Correction' slider works only in 'clipped' areas, like overexposed skies. (Best visible after trying to save the sky with fill light or after pulling down exposure.)
Unfortunately it can produce color cast.

In thinking it over more, it seems more like extreme clipping recovery simply lacks color (or possibly saturation), and you need to add it back in in places... in clouds neutrally colored, it would not be an issue but since your clouds had a purple tinge you could see it.

Is that more the issue than an actual color cast being added?

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

 

[maceoQ]

I was a bit confused about that too, the headers I think were attached to the wrong images? On top of the leftmost one the sider is set to "recover".

Yes, because the normal position is always set to "restore" when you open a X3F from the SD1.
Previous SPP versions without this feature also always "restore" highlights.
New is the possibility to "neutralize" the highlights.

The color cast is not a problem in general, as you said its because the sky already has a magenta cast.

 

[worldcup1982]

I was a bit confused about that too, the headers I think were attached to the wrong images? On top of the leftmost one the sider is set to "recover".

Yes, because the normal position is always set to "restore" when you open a X3F from the SD1.
Previous SPP versions without this feature also always "restore" highlights.

Thats bad engine. thats all. Doesnt happen with my DP1s...only with SD1 images?

New is the possibility to "neutralize" the highlights.

So i was right...the new option is actually "leave as it is". Much better than this awful restore highlights.

The color cast is not a problem in general, as you said its because the sky already has a magenta cast.

Magenta cast on the sky? Either it has a tone or not. Cast? never saw it.

 

[maceoQ]

It can happen with all sigma cameras. Also with the DP1s. Especially with ISO 50.

With the SD1 its seldom because it has a great dynamic range in the highlights. With the SD15 it happens "all the time".

Unfortunately the SD15 is not supported to "neutralize" highlights with this feature.

 

[Jaelkay]

Bo11ocks. I do use Sony a900 on almost daily basis. The SD1 is capable of producing better/deeper/sharper shots. You've obviously have not been using a SD1.

Bo11ocks back. I said a D3X, NOT an A900. Same sensor but very different output.

No - Haven't used an SD1. I'm not part of the innter circle, nor am I privileged enough to have been given one.

Yiihaaa! we have a game! Bo11ocks back!

--
Bob van Ooik
V-studio

OK. Silliness noted. Do you accept images from the A900 are very different from images from the D3x despite their both using the same sensor?

 

[BobNL]

Bo11ocks. I do use Sony a900 on almost daily basis. The SD1 is capable of producing better/deeper/sharper shots. You've obviously have not been using a SD1.

Bo11ocks back. I said a D3X, NOT an A900. Same sensor but very different output.

No - Haven't used an SD1. I'm not part of the innter circle, nor am I privileged enough to have been given one.

Yiihaaa! we have a game! Bo11ocks back!

--
Bob van Ooik
V-studio

OK. Silliness noted. Do you accept images from the A900 are very different from images from the D3x despite their both using the same sensor?

yes and no... there is a difference but I want not qualify it as "very". D3X is probably closer to SD1 but still has a very different nature to it's files. Just to be clear I am not stating they are bad. They are different. In general those cameras are more universally usable than the SD1. The M9 on the other hand is not that easy to use. And I am not too crazy about it's output, it's overrated IMHO.

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

 

[Chuck Lantz]

Don't bit my head off, but I saw the images from the SD1 you posted (they were fine) but I'm absolutely buggered if I could see any difference between those images and the images you have previously posted from your other Sigma cameras.

The brutal truth is that an extra $6k or so is NOT going to make anyone's photos look like magic.

For what it's worth, I can see a difference. And the truly brutal truth is that the > SD1 images I posted were crops.

Rightoh. Whatever you say.

Whatever I say? How about whatever I show?

Here's one of the crops, and the original. You will let me know if it's "rightoh" enough for you, OK?

 

[larryj]

I am still working toward that end. So far this is the approach I use. Develop the RAW file in SPP 5.2, export an 8 or 16 bit tif file, using using ProPhoto RGB color space, to either Aperture or LightRoom 4. I finish the pp and export as a jpg in sRGB space for web display or a Tif in adobeRGB color space for printing.
--
Cheers,
larryj

If you can see the light, you can photograph it
Quote from Myron Woods

 

[Mostly Lurking]

--
William Wilgus

 

[larryj]

I sometimes pp in PSE, which does not allow some processing steps 16 bit Tif files, in which case I have to convert the 16 bit tif to 8 bit.
--
Cheers,
larryj

If you can see the light, you can photograph it
Quote from Myron Woods

 

[worldcup1982]

It can happen with all sigma cameras. Also with the DP1s. Especially with ISO 50.

I was talking about the SPP bug, not the camera behavior. I do edtit my files on SPP 3 and this does not happen.

With the SD1 its seldom because it has a great dynamic range in the highlights. With the SD15 it happens "all the time".

DR is just one, not highlights or shadows...you do have best results with some cameras, protecting the highlights and lifting the sahdows, because the sensor has little noise in the shadows...not sigmas case.

Unfortunately the SD15 is not supported to "neutralize" highlights with this feature.

Restore or neutralize must be something only SPP5 has

 

[worldcup1982]

if you prefer:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/547953
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdea50_photoshop-elements-secrets-16-bit-f_tech

i know you probably have LR or CS5, but the tip is good for the rest of the people (including me) that only have PS...

I sometimes pp in PSE, which does not allow some processing steps 16 bit Tif files, in which case I have to convert the 16 bit tif to 8 bit.
--
Cheers,
larryj

If you can see the light, you can photograph it
Quote from Myron Woods

 

[maceoQ]

I was talking about the SPP bug, not the camera behavior. I do edtit my files on SPP 3 and this does not happen.

Believe me, it can happen if you want to save clipped highlights by pulling down exposure and adding filllight.

DP1 crop, processed with SPP 3:

 

[Roland Karlsson]

if you prefer:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/547953
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdea50_photoshop-elements-secrets-16-bit-f_tech

I nearly fell off my chair. They are funny - commercial companies. They make crippleware, and then clever persons circumvent the limits.

Why not sell the full thing for non commercial license, a home license? Even Microsoft do it. So why not Adobe?

Seems like a win-win situation.

Now lots of people make pirate copies of Photoshop instead of buying Elements. Better then to sell Homeware than Crippleware.

It will also make it simpler for those making plugins. Less versions to test against.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

 

[rainbyrd]

Hi all,

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

I appreciate any thoughts anyone has, and I think it will help everyone else.

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

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?

word -cheap promo for the 10 sponsored posterboyz with a free sd1

 

[worldcup1982]

if you prefer:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/547953
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdea50_photoshop-elements-secrets-16-bit-f_tech

I nearly fell off my chair. They are funny - commercial companies. They make crippleware, and then clever persons circumvent the limits.

lol

Why not sell the full thing for non commercial license, a home license? Even Microsoft do it. So why not Adobe?

totally agree with the above and below....

Seems like a win-win situation.

Now lots of people make pirate copies of Photoshop instead of buying Elements. Better then to sell Homeware than Crippleware.

It will also make it simpler for those making plugins. Less versions to test against.

Yep..many plugins are not compatible with elements, only CS5...i have DXO filmpack..not working with PSE9 now..as working before the dxo update...if i can only go back in time...

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

 

[Chuck Lantz]

word -cheap promo for the 10 sponsored posterboyz with a free sd1

First step towards becoming one of the posterboyz yourself:

... Refrain from dissing the existing posterboyz.