graham john miles

<p>Pick up a used sigma DP1 for a couple of hundred bucks. Stick it on a tripod, set the aperture to F5.6 and focus to infinity.</p>

<p>Luminous Landscapes incisive review on the Sigma SD1 offers interesting thoughts on what gives Foveon images that extra little sparkle that seems to set them apart from others. <br />This is one of the few, if any, independant reviews I have read that acknowledges there is something dimensional about their presentation. The reviewer believes it to be in the micro-detail that the sensor is able to capture without the anti-aliasing filter. Since there is no danger of moire in a foveon sensor, the filter is not needed, hence extra fine detail is captured. I have also noticed this quality with a few other manufacturers, notably Olympus who reportedly use a weaker filter than most, and also the higher end Canon models which produce images with a tack like sharpness that makes me wonder if they are also following this route. Ultimately, it leads me to speculate that it would be an interesting option for a manufacturer to offer a removable filter or leave it off altogether. I know there are third party companies out their offering this service, but as a factory option it would be something I would personally consider when looking at a purchase.</p>

<p>I'm curious. I have a Nikon D70S with three lenses. a 50 mm 1.8; 18-70 zoom; and 70-210 zoom. Every time I browse the websites I am tempted to upgrade to a newer body, or perhaps a totally new system. Trouble is when I look at my images from the D70 they still look pretty good and I wonder what satisfaction am I going to get by forking out the extra cash for something more current. I'm not looking for advice on whether to buy or what to buy. Rather I am curious to know if there are many people out there with D70's or older cameras of any brand who are quite happy with the images they are getting, and do not feel the pressure to upgrade.</p>

<p>Close the lid on your macbook.</p>

<p>Attach a one end of a piece of elastic to the bottom of your camera, perhaps using a home-made loop that screws into the tripod mount. Attach the other end to your belt. When you raise your camera the tension on the elastic will steady your grip.</p>

<p>Seems to me the Pentax K5 retained more detail as the ISO progressed. Certainly impressed me more than the D7000. Be interesting to see the Sigma SD-1 if it ever gets to market.</p>

<p>It looks a bit odd, but makes me wonder if one day we will see a body-less camera, which is purely a lens with sensor and screen at the end. Controls would be built into the barrel. It would be easier to hold than a miniscule body and would allow eye level composition like in olden-days. </p>

<p>Sigma DP2S on a tripod, without a doubt.</p>

<p>Just curious to know if anyone has found or heard any information on the release date in North America? I See lots of pre-order options in the popular sale sites but no mention of when.</p>

<p>I have a Sony 8" digital frame with close to 3000 images playing randomly all day long. Every time I pass by I see something fresh. I love it. If I had the time and energy I would convert a larger laptop into a wall mounted frame.</p>

<p>Does the average person on the street even know what street photography is? How many people outside of photographic circles have heard of Winogrand, Arbus, Cartier-Bresson? Perhaps we need to educate people a little better in this photographic form and show them that rather then being an invasion of privacy, it can be a both an artistic and documentary record of a unique time and place. My inclination would be to carry a stack of classy business cards stating that I was a street photographer with a link back to a website portfolio. I might even carry a small portfolio in a shoulder bag to let a hostile subject know my intentions are honorable. Let's face it Street Photography can be a furtive act. I'm sure everyone has their own style but I confess to past practices of whipping a Leica out from beneath a coat and shoving it back once the shot has been taken. This was probably OK 20 years ago, but not today when everyone is so suspicious. If I saw someone taking a picture of me in that way, I'd be disconcerted and worried.</p>

<p>I think you did a pretty remarkable job in capturing this woman in many different moods and the fact that she is dissatisfied, is more an indication of her state of mind that any shortcomings in your work. The fact she has had so much plastic surgery shows she is not the kind of person to be easily satisfied. I doubt anyone could provide a portfolio totally to her liking so for you it was a no win situation from the beginning. I would think it reasonable to offer a refund minus your expenses in getting there. Then remember in future to listen to your instincts and pass up on any assignments that you suspect might be problematic. </p>

<p>Check out amazon for reviews of frames, there's a wealth of good information there. Make sure you check out a frame before you buy, the visual quality varies widely. Online specs may look good, but without seeing the frame up close you can't be certain the image will be satisfying. Throw a few of your favorite photos on a card and take it into the store to play on a few frames. I have tried both Kodak and Sony and settled on the Sony 8". It's a bright sharp frame with nice features such as timed start and stop and random play. The latest Kodaks have a nice wireless network feature that will play off a PC, but I had issues with random JPGs causing the frame to reboot at intermittent intervals. The contrast and colours were excellent with the Kodak, but I thought the image not quite as crisp as the Sony. OLED is the ulitmate way to go, but they are not commercially widespread yet and the few models available are really expensive. Do lots of research. Some players have problems displaying images that have been edited in Photoshop. Good luck.</p>

<p>Just a second here. It's a tad under $2000. For a state of the art piece of glass that sounds like a steal to me. If someone offered you a state of the art car such as a mercedes or porsche for that price you wouldn't hesitate. Just buy the damn thing and pay it off over a couple of years, that'll be less than a hundred a month, most people spend that on beer alone. Why settle for anything less when this is what you lust after? Doesn't make sense.</p>

<p>Anyone out there using an opteka voyeur lens hood for street photography? I remember these things from the 70's and am pleasantly surprised to see they are still available. Can anyone post images to show the quality of the mirror?</p>

<p>I thought they were pretty cool in La Dolce Vita, but I guess Fellini can make anyone special...</p>

<p>This is a great little technique for improving contrast in an image. It seems to add a nice overall bite to an image without blowing highlights or muddying shadows.<br>

<a href="http://digital-photography-school.com/a-quick-and-effective-way-to-enhance-contrast-in-photoshop">http://digital-photography-school.com/a-quick-and-effective-way-to-enhance-contrast-in-photoshop</a>#<br>

Only criticism is the use of auto-levels, I would suggest sticking to manual adjustment. I've tried it many of my own images and in almost every case the change was positive.<br>

Enjoy</p>

<p> </p>

..<div></div>

<p>Just curious, is this camera actually out yet? It was announced in September of last year, but I can't seem to find any current offerings or reviews. Seems odd that the release would take so long unless Sigma is experiencing some sort of problem with the new design. Any insights?</p>

<p>Joseph, great stuff! Many thanks for answering my questions and explaining my misconceptions. That's what I like about this site, it's full of trained professionals ready to give insight into the most complex technical issues. I still think the images beat anything else I have seen even though on paper perhaps they shouldn't. I am reminded of the initial debate between analog and digital audio. Technically digital seemed perfect, no distortion, a perfect waveform reproduction, no extraneous noise. Yet most audiophiles still preferred their turntables, vinyl albums and vintage tube amps, many still do. It's the final product that counts no matter how it gets here.</p>

<p>Thanks for the information David. I'm thinking that whatever supercedes Bayer-type sensors will have some issues if it approaches anything resembling multiple single sensor layers. It will be deemed too close to the Foveon technology and probably get tied up in patent litigation for years. Perhaps we should be hoping for a multi-layered photo-sensitive medium which could be chemically post-processed to produce a RAW image... hmm that sounds familiar.....</p>

<p>I wonder what it is they own though? Just the patent and manufacturing rights, or does Foveon still exist as a company with continuing R&D.</p>

<p >I’ve been watching the Foveon story on and off since they made their first announcement early in the last decade. Only recently, with the introduction of the SD and DP series have I started to look more closely at the technology. It appears to be capable of producing stunning images, better to my eye than anything I have seen with traditional Bayer-pattern sensors. Some people say they can’t perceive the often-described 3-D effect, but regardless of pixel count, another controversial area, there is an unmistakeable organic quality that might be considered film-like. Delving into how the technology works, it makes sense from an engineering perspective. Three layers of pixels, one for each colour, so the image is recorded in a similar way to three-layered film. When you compare it to the way a Bayer-pattern sensor works, the latter seems a flawed concept. An image comes from a non-foveon camera via a complex processing cycle designed to interpolate colour in adjacent pixels and then blur the image with an anti-aliasing filter to reduce moiré. I’m surprised they work as well as they do. I’m not an engineer but I love what I see as ‘simple’ and ‘elegant’ designs. If you have to add further levels of technology to fix an initial weakness in the design, then there is something wrong. My concern now is that the Foveon technology will never get the attention it deserves and may one day become a curious footnote in the history of digital photography. I see nothing on the web to indicate that research and development is taking the sensor beyond its original design, and although Sigma has implemented it in their cameras, current and past reviews suggest these mechanical platforms leave a lot to be desired. I’m sure there is a lot of corporate politics in the behind-the-scenes story here; perhaps long-term contractual commitments between manufacturers that shut out Foveon from access to the big players such as Canon and Nikon. I hope the technology survives, and I hope Sigma gets the platform right. If they can’t, then I hope another company will take up the baton and run with it. It will be interesting to watch what happens next.</p>

<p>The more I read about the DP-2 the more I think the only people who are going to be happy with it are the old photographers like me who grew up with film and manual cameras. When I used my M Leicas and F Nikons a thousand years ago, it would take me 10-20 seconds to set up a picture. Focus the thing; then twist the aperature ring to match the needle in the circle; then another focus tweak; then a cloud comes over and the needle dips so I have to open up half a stop. And then there were the 4X5 portraits; we're talking minutes here, to get under the hood, focus, put the film holder in, take the slide out, check the exposure with a meter, set the aperature and speed on the lens. Perhaps a 2 or 3 second delay in the Sigma is not so bad after all. Mind you there's no excuse for it's reviewed weak points in a market where most PS cameras are approaching SLR's for response times. Ultimately, it's the final image that counts, and the wonderful tactile photographs I've seen so far, make it very tempting to step back a decade or two.</p>

<p>Thanks for information and the links Walt. Very illuminating.</p>