«

http://www.pbase.com/image/22491067/original
http://www.pbase.com/image/22491066/original

I can barely even see the contact lenses.

In article < >,
says...
> http://www.pbase.com/image/22491067/original

Great detail, crappy skin tones.

> http://www.pbase.com/image/22491066/original

Poor girl, looks like she has some sort of liver ailment. Is her skin
always yellow?

> I can barely even see the contact lenses.

Yes and as any portrait photographer can tell you, the most important
thing is that you be able to see every slight minute detail in a
person's fact -- every pimple, hair, pore, and contact lens. Color be
damned! I wanna see blemishes!!!

This is fun George. Keep 'em comin.

--
________________________________
Todd Walker
http://twalker.d2g.com
Canon 10D:
http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
My Digital Photography Weblog:
http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
_________________________________

"George Preddy" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> http://www.pbase.com/image/22491067/original

Good Lord, she needs a shave!

(George Preddy) wrote in
news: om:

> http://www.pbase.com/image/22491067/original
> http://www.pbase.com/image/22491066/original
>
> I can barely even see the contact lenses.

Sorry George.

The hair do not look like hair. It is destroyed by aliasing.
It is very sharp though - but real hair is much smoother.


Roland

This is gonna sound smart-assy (sorry) but it's one of those "painfully
true" posts...

First, in portrait photography you WANT a softer focus, not razor sharp
images. Second, blackhead removers are a model's best friend. Third, the
woman needs to wax the hair from her face. Last, "Hookers R Us" went out of
business... lose the gold eye makeup. :-O




Greg



"George Preddy" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> http://www.pbase.com/image/22491067/original
> http://www.pbase.com/image/22491066/original
>
> I can barely even see the contact lenses.

Todd Walker <> wrote in message news:<>...
> In article < >,
> says...
> > http://www.pbase.com/image/22491067/original
>
> Great detail, crappy skin tones.

One of the really nice things about the SD-9 is it never sets the WB.

> > http://www.pbase.com/image/22491066/original
>
> Poor girl, looks like she has some sort of liver ailment. Is her skin
> always yellow?

Yes.

> > I can barely even see the contact lenses.
>
> Yes and as any portrait photographer can tell you, the most important
> thing is that you be able to see every slight minute detail in a
> person's fact -- every pimple, hair, pore, and contact lens. Color be
> damned! I wanna see blemishes!!!
>
> This is fun George. Keep 'em comin.

It is fun, thanks. How much blurrier do you want it? Is it even
possible to blur an image without taking a blurry image? Did you try
interpolitively up-scaling it 3X to 1 ouput pixel per 1/3rd color
sensor like a Bayer image would do by defaut? Maybe it'll look
better?

George Preddy wrote:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/image/22491067/original
> http://www.pbase.com/image/22491066/original
>
> I can barely even see the contact lenses.


Hello

These SD9 pictures are phenomenonally sharp, even though the colour
balance might not always be correct.

With the other type of images from Canon and Nikon, we are slowly being
conditioned to accept inferior images. The processing is so obvious and
the results are so soft and shallow. Proto detail, but no actual detail.

I do not own a digital camera, but I do know a sharp image when I see
one.

The same kind of problem exists with digital TV. It really has nothing
like the quality of state of the art analogue TV. To many
bandwith/compression compromises with digital TV. Rubbish quality for
the undescerning. A new emperor with no clothes.

Mike Engles

Mike Engles wrote:
>
> These SD9 pictures are phenomenonally sharp, even though the colour
> balance might not always be correct.
>
> With the other type of images from Canon and Nikon, we are slowly being
> conditioned to accept inferior images. The processing is so obvious and
> the results are so soft and shallow. Proto detail, but no actual detail.
>
> I do not own a digital camera, but I do know a sharp image when I see
> one.

Yes, that's why the Sigma SD9 is currently the only true digital photo
camera on the market. The other "digital cameras" produce rather
computer-generated artifacts than true photo images -- The digital
cameras from Canon and Nikon are just obsolete junk.

Yes, when starting "digital photography" most people are conditioned
to accept the inferior quality of Bayer-type images, because the
fun-factor and ease of use overlay the quality sensation.

After my experience it takes several years before the inferior Bayer
images start to hurt your visual sensation. After 7 years of digital
camera use I didn't accept the inferior Bayer quality anymore.
So lets wait some years and hope that they vanish eventually...

> The same kind of problem exists with digital TV. It really has nothing
> like the quality of state of the art analogue TV. To many
> bandwith/compression compromises with digital TV. Rubbish quality for
> the undescerning. A new emperor with no clothes.

Yes, it could be better...

Regards
Guido

Guido Vollbeding <> wrote in message news:<>...
> Mike Engles wrote:
> >
> > These SD9 pictures are phenomenonally sharp, even though the colour
> > balance might not always be correct.
> >
> > With the other type of images from Canon and Nikon, we are slowly being
> > conditioned to accept inferior images. The processing is so obvious and
> > the results are so soft and shallow. Proto detail, but no actual detail.
> >
> > I do not own a digital camera, but I do know a sharp image when I see
> > one.
>
> Yes, that's why the Sigma SD9 is currently the only true digital photo
> camera on the market. The other "digital cameras" produce rather
> computer-generated artifacts than true photo images -- The digital
> cameras from Canon and Nikon are just obsolete junk.

I wouldn't call the Bayer DSLRs junk, but they certainly produce
images akin to prosumer Bayers--same heavy artifacting and fuzz. The
SD-9 is a quantum leap above the 6MP DSLRs, as well it should be with
70% more sensors. Having owned a 3MP, 4MP, 2 x 5MP, and a 6MP Bayer
for way too long, I look back at my huge library of images and wonder
what in the world I was thinking? SD-9 images are in an entirely
different class, they look and behave just like film and are
incredibly sharp out of camera, a real joy every time.

The other unexpected pleasure is much lower bandwidth. Not only are
the images in a new class for digital, the file size isn't scaled up
to 3X that which is supported by the RGB sensor count.

> Yes, when starting "digital photography" most people are conditioned
> to accept the inferior quality of Bayer-type images, because the
> fun-factor and ease of use overlay the quality sensation.

How true. Pick up any big money Photo mag and you can read all about
the hair better than prosumer quality 300D/10D, but not a word on the
only digital ever built that rivals medium format film.

> After my experience it takes several years before the inferior Bayer
> images start to hurt your visual sensation. After 7 years of digital
> camera use I didn't accept the inferior Bayer quality anymore.
> So lets wait some years and hope that they vanish eventually...
>
> > The same kind of problem exists with digital TV. It really has nothing
> > like the quality of state of the art analogue TV. To many
> > bandwith/compression compromises with digital TV. Rubbish quality for
> > the undescerning. A new emperor with no clothes.
>
> Yes, it could be better...
>
> Regards
> Guido

George Preddy wrote:
>
> I wouldn't call the Bayer DSLRs junk, but they certainly produce
> images akin to prosumer Bayers--same heavy artifacting and fuzz. The
> SD-9 is a quantum leap above the 6MP DSLRs, as well it should be with
> 70% more sensors.

Well, it's similar to the video camcorder domain: Take any single
chip consumer camcorder and you will get junk images. The serios
videographer must use a 3-CCD device to get decent image quality.

> Having owned a 3MP, 4MP, 2 x 5MP, and a 6MP Bayer
> for way too long, I look back at my huge library of images and wonder
> what in the world I was thinking? SD-9 images are in an entirely
> different class, they look and behave just like film and are
> incredibly sharp out of camera, a real joy every time.

Yes, the SD-9 (or say X3) images are in a different class and make
the Bayer approach obsolete.

> The other unexpected pleasure is much lower bandwidth. Not only are
> the images in a new class for digital, the file size isn't scaled up
> to 3X that which is supported by the RGB sensor count.

As a JPEG adept I can only shake my head about the inferior Bayer
cameras: First they throw away considerable information by sensor
filtering, afterwards they add data by calculation (interpolation),
and then they compress to JPEG. Braindamaged!

> > Yes, when starting "digital photography" most people are conditioned
> > to accept the inferior quality of Bayer-type images, because the
> > fun-factor and ease of use overlay the quality sensation.
>
> How true. Pick up any big money Photo mag and you can read all about
> the hair better than prosumer quality 300D/10D, but not a word on the
> only digital ever built that rivals medium format film.

They are conditioned and don't know the opportunities.

Good luck & regards
Guido