Polaroid, Foveon X3, 4.5Mp (hmm..)????

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:sMXVd.6907$5m2.255@fe11.lga...
> "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:42277b61$0$28977$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
> <snip>
>> or after "correction":
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/23094312
>
> This is a good image for you to link, it's from a real pro who uses
> a Sigma camera
> http://www.photographic.com/phototechniques/1104career/

Yes, he's a talented photographer. Unfortunately he didn't avoid
creating blue whites of the eye in the process of correcting yellow
skin color.

Bart

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42286d9b$0$28988$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Bart van der
Wolf <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

> Yes, he's a talented photographer. Unfortunately he didn't avoid
> creating blue whites of the eye in the process of correcting yellow
> skin color.

Picky, picky, picky...

Nothing like spending over $1,000 for a 3.42MP kiddie toy that only
takes the manufacturer's lenses.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<clutch@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:112ean0kovfgv24@news.supernews.com...
> chrlz@go.com wrote:
>
>>Well, you can't say they don't keep trying... Strangely, it seems to
>>be out of stock...... but you never know:
>>
>>http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&langId=-1&catalogId=3151&productId=129866&Trail=C$cip=22129%3EC$Brand=Polaroid&categoryId=22129
>>
>>(O:
>>
>>Sorry about long link - if it doesn't work, just go to www.argos.co.uk,
>>Photography, and look around a bit..
>
>
> Are you Preddy?

Please, if you think he and I are the same person you've not read many of my
posts.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
news:4227352d$0$28979$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:CNCVd.11935$JH4.7775@fe10.lga...
> SNIP
>> Yellow skin tones are a problem occassionally but easily correctible, I
>> suspect it's a problem with the raw converter rather than the sensor.
>
> It's more likely to be a sensor issue, for two reasons that have been
> discussed here about a year ago. One reason is the lack of a "color
> optimum pre-filter" to correct for the color difference between human
> color matching functions and spectral sensor sensitivity. It could have
> been corrected, but Foveon/Sigma chose to not include it (perhaps to save
> cost, and prevent further loss of sensitivity).
> See page 352 (page 4) in the following
> http://www.foveon.com/docs/Century.pdf .
>

I'm no technical wiz, you obviously have ahandle on things of this nature.
Have you ever converted an X3F file using Sigma PhotoPro? If you were to
get yellow skintones in a photo you would get them after conversion - the
raw image has no yellow skintone. This leads some of us users to believe
that it is a software issue rather than a hardware issue.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:030320050542298150%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <CNCVd.11935$JH4.7775@fe10.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
> <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> I've not claimed that the camera is perfect and without issues, I just
>> don't
>> let the idiotic comments of Randall and the like go by without comment
>> which
>> any subjective person can tell are over the top. No one can accuse me of
>> being a shill either unless they are being dishonest, they cannot produce
>> anything I've posted which makes me one. If they try, they might want to
>> check the posts in which I've commented on other's photos and cameras.
>
> *You're* the idiot for defending this poorly designed and overpriced
> piece of junk.

Your underwear is too tight again. Loosen up.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <aD5Wd.7115$8A.1897@fe11.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

> Your underwear is too tight again. Loosen up.

Doesn't it piss you off that you wasted all that money on a 3.42MP
kiddie toy that takes only the manufacturer's lenses and renders colors
poorly? For what you spent, you could have bought a *real* camera.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> "tuben" <tuben2.utsikt@wasadata.net> wrote in message
> news:38p9csF5mk0s3U1@individual.net...
> SNIP
>
>> Well, I DO believe you guys, but technical papers don't interest me,
>> pictures do. Maybe someone kindly could point me to the famous yellow
>> skin pics.
>
>
> http://www.foveon.com/X3_images_7.html
I actually like that picture. Looks more like the photographer
wanted to create a varm feeling with the lighting.

> http://www.pbase.com/image/24456213
NOW I see what you mean. Pretty ugly.

> or after "correction":
> http://www.pbase.com/image/23094312
If this was due to a color correction, it was way overdone!
The picture is blue all over. Maybe hence the citation marks
in your comment.

Regards göran

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <sMXVd.6907$5m2.255@fe11.lga>,
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

>"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
>news:42277b61$0$28977$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
><snip>
>> or after "correction":
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/23094312
>
>This is a good image for you to link, it's from a real pro who uses a Sigma
>camera http://www.photographic.com/phototechniques/1104career/

B&W is something that the Sigmas are very good at. There is very little
noise from a SD9 or 10 greyscale, if you don't mind the aliasing and
relatively low resolution.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <38rmjbF5qdhfeU1@individual.net>,
tuben <tuben2.utsikt@wasadata.net> wrote:

>Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>>
>> "tuben" <tuben2.utsikt@wasadata.net> wrote in message
>> news:38p9csF5mk0s3U1@individual.net...
>> SNIP
>>
>>> Well, I DO believe you guys, but technical papers don't interest me,
>>> pictures do. Maybe someone kindly could point me to the famous yellow
>>> skin pics.
>>
>>
>> http://www.foveon.com/X3_images_7.html
>I actually like that picture. Looks more like the photographer
>wanted to create a varm feeling with the lighting.

When you look at it full res, though, there are bizarre color artifacts
in the specular highlights, and the image is quite aliased. The ends of
the woman's hairs often have a bright spot at the end of them, like a
fiber-optic tree. The small facial hairs alias in an obvious grid
pattern.

>> http://www.pbase.com/image/24456213
>NOW I see what you mean. Pretty ugly.

Besides the skin, there is clear aliasing in the background (the kids
are in front of the focal plane, and OOF).

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <bWXVd.6909$1B2.1444@fe11.lga>,
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

>Yellow skintones are an issue with the SDx camera but are easily
>correctible. Not every photo requires correction on skintones but some do.
>I've seem yellow skintones from other cameras too, even the beloved Canon
>10D, but the Sigmas are known to produce yellow skintones moreso than
>others.

The Canon 10D only produces yellow skin tones when the whole color
balance of the image is yellow. The whole image clears up after proper
white balancing. With the Sigmas, if you balance for a white object,
the skin is still yellow. This is not globally correctable.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:040320051839355042%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <aD5Wd.7115$8A.1897@fe11.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
> <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Your underwear is too tight again. Loosen up.
>
> Doesn't it piss you off that you wasted all that money on a 3.42MP
> kiddie toy that takes only the manufacturer's lenses and renders colors
> poorly? For what you spent, you could have bought a *real* camera.

Doesn't it piss you off to be you?

 

[Clutch]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

><clutch@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:112ean0kovfgv24@news.supernews.com...
>> chrlz@go.com wrote:
>>
>>>Well, you can't say they don't keep trying... Strangely, it seems to
>>>be out of stock...... but you never know:
>>>
>>>http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&langId=-1&catalogId=3151&productId=129866&Trail=C$cip=22129%3EC$Brand=Polaroid&categoryId=22129
>>>
>>>(O:
>>>
>>>Sorry about long link - if it doesn't work, just go to www.argos.co.uk,
>>>Photography, and look around a bit..
>>
>>
>> Are you Preddy?
>
>Please, if you think he and I are the same person you've not read many of my
>posts.


Sorry, tongue in cheek comment w/o checking your usenet history.

Please accept my apology

Wes

--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<clutch@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:113rdf6p6chv445@news.supernews.com...
> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>><clutch@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>news:112ean0kovfgv24@news.supernews.com...
>>> chrlz@go.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well, you can't say they don't keep trying... Strangely, it seems to
>>>>be out of stock...... but you never know:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&langId=-1&catalogId=3151&productId=129866&Trail=C$cip=22129%3EC$Brand=Polaroid&categoryId=22129
>>>>
>>>>(O:
>>>>
>>>>Sorry about long link - if it doesn't work, just go to www.argos.co.uk,
>>>>Photography, and look around a bit..
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you Preddy?
>>
>>Please, if you think he and I are the same person you've not read many of
>>my
>>posts.
>
>
> Sorry, tongue in cheek comment w/o checking your usenet history.
>
> Please accept my apology
>
> Wes

Thanks Wes, apology accepted of course. There are a lot of Sigma users and
we like our cameras - and we fully know the pros and cons of them. Now that
doesn't mean that I don't like any other makes. My opinion is that I
couldn't go wrong with any other make of DSLR. At the time of $ 1500.00
DSLRs a year-and-a-half ago, I got my SD9 with kit lenses and a few other
items for almost half that amount. I considered it a good start for an
amateur like myself and I haven't regreted it. I wasn't locked in to any
system at the time so it was not as if I was putting a collection of lenses
on the shelf in order to "switch" to a Sigma.

As much as GP is to his view, there are sertainly a few posters in this
group who are the same as he except on the opposite side of the spectrum.
It's the automatic dismissal and untruths by those individual's who get my
ire up. Honest criticism is one thing, lies are another and I have no
tolerance for the lies.

As for the Polaroid camera, I have no use for it no matter how good it might
be. I don't have much faith in World Wide Licenses, which is the
manufacturer - who would after this overly long delay? Besides, my FinePix
S7000 is a fine second camera for me when I don't want to use my SD9.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <F6o%d.1348$Dc2.671@fe09.lga>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

> Thanks Wes, apology accepted of course. There are a lot of Sigma users and
> we like our cameras - and we fully know the pros and cons of them. Now that
> doesn't mean that I don't like any other makes. My opinion is that I
> couldn't go wrong with any other make of DSLR. At the time of $ 1500.00
> DSLRs a year-and-a-half ago, I got my SD9 with kit lenses and a few other
> items for almost half that amount. I considered it a good start for an
> amateur like myself and I haven't regreted it. I wasn't locked in to any
> system at the time so it was not as if I was putting a collection of lenses
> on the shelf in order to "switch" to a Sigma.

In May of 2003 (almost two years ago), I put my $1,500 down on a 10D
plus some more $$ for a couple of lenses. Never considered Sigma. And
what I got for my $1,500 is far superior to that 3.42MP kiddie toy.