Steve G. -> George Preddy -> Laurence Matson?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by D.T., May 21, 2004.

  1. D.T.

    D.T. Guest

    What's the chances?
     
    D.T., May 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. I can't any "Steve G." listed. Is that the sender name or
    someone's signature at the bottom of their posts?

    On the odds of Matson being Preddy, I'd say they are better
    than even.

    dave

    D.T. wrote:

    > What's the chances?
    >
    >
     
    Bay Area Dave, May 21, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. D.T.

    Paul Howland Guest

    Bay Area Dave wrote:
    > I can't any "Steve G." listed. Is that the sender name or someone's
    > signature at the bottom of their posts?
    >
    > On the odds of Matson being Preddy, I'd say they are better than even.
    >
    > dave
    >
    > D.T. wrote:
    >
    >> What's the chances?
    >>
    >>

    >

    Unlikely, Matson actually owns a camera and can take photographs - see
    http://www.pbase.com/lmatson . Some of the images are rather nice, but
    the quality of the colour rendition is pretty poor by modern standards.
    Nevertheless, the site does show what the SD9 and SD10 are capable
    of, for better and for worse.
     
    Paul Howland, May 21, 2004
    #3
  4. D.T. wrote:
    > What's the chances?
    >
    >


    Laurence Matson, if a multiple personality of George/ttes, has been
    given a touch a education and uses syntax differently.

    Don't assume that all 'apologists' for Sigma are George. I can
    understand why Canon owners are pretty down on Sigma - the lens/body
    relationship has been impossible to put up with, and one Canon pro
    retailer who also sells far more Sigma lenses than Canon here in the UK
    told me today it was a constant source of problems.

    In the course of all this argument, what gets forgotten is that the
    Sigma SD10 offers an alternative. The look and feel of digital pictures
    is not always perfect, and in some ways the Sigma finished file
    (certainly if kept to 'same size' and printed sensibly at 300dpi - in
    other words, an 8 x 6 print at the most) is more like a colour slide
    than the typical Canon, Nikon or Kodak image. Fuji images (S2 Pro) I
    would put midway between, and the same goes for the new Kodak ProN/C.

    The camera has failings, but so do others; some of the criticisms
    levelled are just silly, especially those aimed at quality of design and
    controls. Yes, it's a Volvo (240 series!) not a Toyota, and it is not
    a bulgy curvy bit of postmodern design like a Canon, but it's a very
    functional, straight, honest piece of old fashioned SLR and it certainly
    does not feel or perform any less solidly in the hands than a 10D.

    Yesterday I had to edit up a spread from a 1D Mk II test and without
    being prejudiced, I was amazed at the little raggy breaks in fine detail
    and the 'rough' quality of some images at 100-200 ISO. The reproductions
    will be excellent because these artefacts were too small to count.
    However, shots taken by my writer at 400, 800, 1600 and 3200 were quite
    amazing - at 3200 grainy noise was obvious, but it's a very nice grain,
    just like a medium-speed film (not even like a fast film!) and not at
    all obtrusive. And, important to social photographers, full detail was
    captured in white dresses in sunlit conditions without excessively dark
    faces (my tester had a nice subject, cricketers of English and West
    Indian origins together in their whites!). I doubt the Sigma would have
    made a very nice looking shot of that.

    There were a few other shots in this test set though where I had to look
    at the colours, contrast and general 'curve' of the Canon images and say
    'that would have worked better on the Foveon'. Now if you happened to be
    someone who wanted to shoot exactly that sort of thing (example, a
    close-up of lichen textures on wood) then all this trashing of the Sigma
    as a possible choice might dissuade you from trying something which was
    actually better for you.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, May 21, 2004
    #4
  5. well then, I guess he CAN'T be Preddy!! :)

    dave

    Paul Howland wrote:

    > Bay Area Dave wrote:
    >
    >> I can't any "Steve G." listed. Is that the sender name or someone's
    >> signature at the bottom of their posts?
    >>
    >> On the odds of Matson being Preddy, I'd say they are better than even.
    >>
    >> dave
    >>
    >> D.T. wrote:
    >>
    >>> What's the chances?
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    > Unlikely, Matson actually owns a camera and can take photographs - see
    > http://www.pbase.com/lmatson . Some of the images are rather nice, but
    > the quality of the colour rendition is pretty poor by modern standards.
    > Nevertheless, the site does show what the SD9 and SD10 are capable
    > of, for better and for worse.
     
    Bay Area Dave, May 21, 2004
    #5
  6. looks like I left out "see"...sigh. as in, "I can't see any..."

    dave

    Bay Area Dave wrote:

    > I can't any "Steve G." listed.
     
    Bay Area Dave, May 21, 2004
    #6
  7. D.T.

    bagal Guest

    bravo David!

    "David Kilpatrick" <> wrote in message
    news:c8le1q$o4j$...
    >
    >
    > D.T. wrote:
    > > What's the chances?
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Laurence Matson, if a multiple personality of George/ttes, has been
    > given a touch a education and uses syntax differently.
    >
    > Don't assume that all 'apologists' for Sigma are George. I can
    > understand why Canon owners are pretty down on Sigma - the lens/body
    > relationship has been impossible to put up with, and one Canon pro
    > retailer who also sells far more Sigma lenses than Canon here in the UK
    > told me today it was a constant source of problems.
    >
    > In the course of all this argument, what gets forgotten is that the
    > Sigma SD10 offers an alternative. The look and feel of digital pictures
    > is not always perfect, and in some ways the Sigma finished file
    > (certainly if kept to 'same size' and printed sensibly at 300dpi - in
    > other words, an 8 x 6 print at the most) is more like a colour slide
    > than the typical Canon, Nikon or Kodak image. Fuji images (S2 Pro) I
    > would put midway between, and the same goes for the new Kodak ProN/C.
    >
    > The camera has failings, but so do others; some of the criticisms
    > levelled are just silly, especially those aimed at quality of design and
    > controls. Yes, it's a Volvo (240 series!) not a Toyota, and it is not
    > a bulgy curvy bit of postmodern design like a Canon, but it's a very
    > functional, straight, honest piece of old fashioned SLR and it certainly
    > does not feel or perform any less solidly in the hands than a 10D.
    >
    > Yesterday I had to edit up a spread from a 1D Mk II test and without
    > being prejudiced, I was amazed at the little raggy breaks in fine detail
    > and the 'rough' quality of some images at 100-200 ISO. The reproductions
    > will be excellent because these artefacts were too small to count.
    > However, shots taken by my writer at 400, 800, 1600 and 3200 were quite
    > amazing - at 3200 grainy noise was obvious, but it's a very nice grain,
    > just like a medium-speed film (not even like a fast film!) and not at
    > all obtrusive. And, important to social photographers, full detail was
    > captured in white dresses in sunlit conditions without excessively dark
    > faces (my tester had a nice subject, cricketers of English and West
    > Indian origins together in their whites!). I doubt the Sigma would have
    > made a very nice looking shot of that.
    >
    > There were a few other shots in this test set though where I had to look
    > at the colours, contrast and general 'curve' of the Canon images and say
    > 'that would have worked better on the Foveon'. Now if you happened to be
    > someone who wanted to shoot exactly that sort of thing (example, a
    > close-up of lichen textures on wood) then all this trashing of the Sigma
    > as a possible choice might dissuade you from trying something which was
    > actually better for you.
    >
    > David
    >
     
    bagal, May 21, 2004
    #7
  8. D.T.

    Searching_ut Guest

    Hmmm, I'd say the chances were none regarding Laurence. Out of curiosity, I
    spent about thirty minutes doing a quick scan to see if I could determine
    who George really is. It's amazing, and maybe a little scary to see how easy
    it is to do.

    Congrats on the promotion George, and may I recommend taking a photo of 14
    Roses on the 24th of November.

    It would be interesting to know what the game is about. Why the claims of
    being a professional photog?

    For what it's worth

    Jeff
     
    Searching_ut, May 21, 2004
    #8
  9. "David Kilpatrick" <> wrote in message
    news:c8le1q$o4j$...
    SNIP
    > Yesterday I had to edit up a spread from a 1D Mk II test and
    > without being prejudiced, I was amazed at the little raggy breaks
    > in fine detail and the 'rough' quality of some images at 100-200
    > ISO. The reproductions will be excellent because these artefacts
    > were too small to count.


    Just curious, what software did you use? Capture One (C1) V3.5, which
    supports the 1D Mk II, would probably even beat the rest of the
    alternatives.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, May 22, 2004
    #9
  10. D.T.

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that "D.T." <> stated that:

    >What's the chances?


    If 'Laurence Matson' posting here is this guy:
    http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/matson_laurence
    http://www.foveon.com/X3_images_16.html
    Then he couldn't possibly be Preddy, as he owns a camera & clearly knows
    how to use it, unlike Preddy.
    While it's possible that Preddy is just pretending to be him, it's seems
    unlikely, as his posts are coming via a different ISP.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, May 22, 2004
    #10
  11. "D.T." < <mailto:D>> wrote in message
    <news:c8lb4p$gln$>...
    > What's the chances?


    Duh. You forgot Don Gentile and Suzie Quinn!

    Anytime someone shows up on Usenet, for the first time in their lives,
    posting via google groups, and their first posts are about Sigma cameras and
    lenses, you can pretty much figure that it's you know who!
     
    Steven M. Scharf, May 22, 2004
    #11
  12. Bart van der Wolf wrote:

    > "David Kilpatrick" <> wrote in message
    > news:c8le1q$o4j$...
    > SNIP
    >
    >>Yesterday I had to edit up a spread from a 1D Mk II test and
    >>without being prejudiced, I was amazed at the little raggy breaks
    >>in fine detail and the 'rough' quality of some images at 100-200
    >>ISO. The reproductions will be excellent because these artefacts
    >>were too small to count.

    >
    >
    > Just curious, what software did you use? Capture One (C1) V3.5, which
    > supports the 1D Mk II, would probably even beat the rest of the
    > alternatives.
    >


    Keith Curtis, who supplied the shots as 12 level JPEGs or TIFFs (he did
    not send any raw files) used something called 'Digital Photo
    Professional' if the tags on the files are correct. I know he has used
    BreezeBrowser in the past.

    I have an unused press CD of CaptureOne here so I may just pop it in the
    post to him - I don't have a Canon test camera here at the moment, and
    Phase One did say their software would work for other cameras too, but
    the CD they have sent for review is strictly Canon-only. I think it's
    the latest version as above as it only came two weeks ago.

    The 1D MkII certainly looks like the prime choice as an affordable pro
    digital SLR right now. Even the least attractive of Keith's shots
    (outdoors in dull light, grey subjects!) looks pretty good, and his
    concert pix of Wishbone Ash and Incredible String Band had me wishing I
    lived in Sussex... pity it doesn't record sound too :)

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, May 22, 2004
    #12
  13. David Kilpatrick <> wrote in message news:<c8n7tu$lh1$>...
    > Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    > > Just curious, what software did you use? Capture One (C1) V3.5, which
    > > supports the 1D Mk II, would probably even beat the rest of the
    > > alternatives.
    > >

    >
    > Keith Curtis, who supplied the shots as 12 level JPEGs or TIFFs (he did
    > not send any raw files) used something called 'Digital Photo
    > Professional' if the tags on the files are correct. I know he has used
    > BreezeBrowser in the past.
    >
    > I have an unused press CD of CaptureOne here


    Its nothing less than amazing that, for all that monumental
    bank-breaking cash, Canon defaults on their obligation to provide a
    usable solution and forces their customers to use shareware.

    > so I may just pop it in the
    > post to him - I don't have a Canon test camera here at the moment, and
    > Phase One did say their software would work for other cameras too, but
    > the CD they have sent for review is strictly Canon-only. I think it's
    > the latest version as above as it only came two weeks ago.
    >
    > The 1D MkII certainly looks like the prime choice as an affordable pro
    > digital SLR right now.


    $4500 for 2.05MPs?!?!?

    No way Jose. Monochrome camera w/interpolated color = stay away.
    Blurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry....

    http://web1.canon.jp/Imaging/eos1dm2/download/portrait3.jpg
     
    George Preddy, May 22, 2004
    #13
  14. "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    news:xVBrc.4744$...
    > "D.T." < <mailto:D>> wrote in message
    > <news:c8lb4p$gln$>...
    > > What's the chances?

    >
    > Duh. You forgot Don Gentile and Suzie Quinn!
    >
    > Anytime someone shows up on Usenet, for the first time in their

    lives,
    > posting via google groups, and their first posts are about Sigma

    cameras and
    > lenses, you can pretty much figure that it's you know who!
    >


    That's an asinine statement to make. Do you really think that no one
    prefers Sigma SLRs except George?
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, May 22, 2004
    #14
  15. D.T.

    Dave Guest

    David Kilpatrick <> wrote in message news:<c8le1q$o4j$>...
    > [...]
    > Yesterday I had to edit up a spread from a 1D Mk II test and without
    > being prejudiced, I was amazed at the little raggy breaks in fine detail
    > and the 'rough' quality of some images at 100-200 ISO. The reproductions
    > will be excellent because these artifacts were too small to count.
    > However, shots taken by my writer at 400, 800, 1600 and 3200 were quite
    > amazing - at 3200 grainy noise was obvious, but it's a very nice grain,
    > just like a medium-speed film (not even like a fast film!) and not at
    > all obtrusive. And, important to social photographers, full detail was
    > captured in white dresses in sunlit conditions without excessively dark
    > faces (my tester had a nice subject, cricketers of English and West
    > Indian origins together in their whites!). I doubt the Sigma would have
    > made a very nice looking shot of that.
    >
    > There were a few other shots in this test set though where I had to look
    > at the colours, contrast and general 'curve' of the Canon images and say
    > 'that would have worked better on the Foveon'. Now if you happened to be
    > someone who wanted to shoot exactly that sort of thing (example, a
    > close-up of lichen textures on wood) then all this trashing of the Sigma
    > as a possible choice might dissuade you from trying something which was
    > actually better for you.


    I think the Askey review mentions that in many cases there is no
    inherent advantage to a blur over additional artificial detail and
    actually artificial detail can look better. In a your wood/lichen
    scene that would certainly be true.

    I sometimes think Preddy must be a Canon boy here simply to create a
    distaste for Sigma/Foveon.
     
    Dave, May 22, 2004
    #15
  16. D.T.

    Paul Howland Guest

    Dave wrote:

    > David Kilpatrick <> wrote in message news:<c8le1q$o4j$>...
    >
    >>[...]
    >>Yesterday I had to edit up a spread from a 1D Mk II test and without
    >>being prejudiced, I was amazed at the little raggy breaks in fine detail
    >>and the 'rough' quality of some images at 100-200 ISO. The reproductions
    >>will be excellent because these artifacts were too small to count.
    >>However, shots taken by my writer at 400, 800, 1600 and 3200 were quite
    >>amazing - at 3200 grainy noise was obvious, but it's a very nice grain,
    >>just like a medium-speed film (not even like a fast film!) and not at
    >>all obtrusive. And, important to social photographers, full detail was
    >>captured in white dresses in sunlit conditions without excessively dark
    >>faces (my tester had a nice subject, cricketers of English and West
    >>Indian origins together in their whites!). I doubt the Sigma would have
    >>made a very nice looking shot of that.
    >>
    >>There were a few other shots in this test set though where I had to look
    >>at the colours, contrast and general 'curve' of the Canon images and say
    >>'that would have worked better on the Foveon'. Now if you happened to be
    >>someone who wanted to shoot exactly that sort of thing (example, a
    >>close-up of lichen textures on wood) then all this trashing of the Sigma
    >>as a possible choice might dissuade you from trying something which was
    >>actually better for you.

    >
    >
    > I think the Askey review mentions that in many cases there is no
    > inherent advantage to a blur over additional artificial detail and
    > actually artificial detail can look better. In a your wood/lichen
    > scene that would certainly be true.
    >
    > I sometimes think Preddy must be a Canon boy here simply to create a
    > distaste for Sigma/Foveon.


    Aliasing does more than create extra detail. Depending on the spatial
    frequency of the detail in the real scene, it can alias into the
    reconstructed image as low-frequency information. So, aliasing is not
    just a matter of additional detail.
     
    Paul Howland, May 22, 2004
    #16
  17. D.T.

    Paul Howland Guest

    To continue my train of thought, it's actually rather ironic that the
    poor resolving power of average and poor quality lenses onto the imaging
    sensor will act as an anti-aliasing filter in itself, removing any high
    resolution detail from the image. Thus, the average Sigma user, with
    most Sigma lenses, will probably not be too troubled by aliasing
    artifacts. However, if they put a high quality lens on the body, rather
    than improving the image quality, it will actually introduce a wealth of
    aliasing effects. Maybe Sigma simply decided to save manufacturing
    costs under the assumption that as a budget DSLR, the users will also be
    using Sigma's budget range of lenses.

    More scientifically, translating the basic Nyquist rule to this argument
    basically tells us that providing the image created by the lens provides
    no more detail than about 0.85MP*, no aliasing should occur. If the
    focused image contains more detail than this, then aliasing artifacts
    will occur.

    So, the message is use budget Sigma lenses and everything will be OK!


    (* a 3.4MP image is roughly 1844x1844 pixels, if we pretend it's square.
    Nyquist says the scene being sampled must be at least half as detailed
    as the sample rate. In this case, this equals 922x922 pixels, or
    0.85MP. You can probably quite easily test this theory - simply take a
    full-frame photograph of a computer set at 1027 x 768 pixels, and see
    whether individual pixels are resolved - my guess is that they're not.)


    Paul Howland wrote:

    >> I think the Askey review mentions that in many cases there is no
    >> inherent advantage to a blur over additional artificial detail and
    >> actually artificial detail can look better. In a your wood/lichen
    >> scene that would certainly be true.
    >>
    >> I sometimes think Preddy must be a Canon boy here simply to create a
    >> distaste for Sigma/Foveon.

    >
    >
    > Aliasing does more than create extra detail. Depending on the spatial
    > frequency of the detail in the real scene, it can alias into the
    > reconstructed image as low-frequency information. So, aliasing is not
    > just a matter of additional detail.
     
    Paul Howland, May 22, 2004
    #17
  18. In article <nuqrc.2148$>, Bay Area
    Dave <> wrote:

    > I can't any "Steve G." listed. Is that the sender name or
    > someone's signature at the bottom of their posts?
    >
    > On the odds of Matson being Preddy, I'd say they are better
    > than even.
    >
    > dave
    >
    > D.T. wrote:
    >
    > > What's the chances?


    You'd think he'd get tired of changing the ID in his software all the
    time.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, May 22, 2004
    #18
  19. "D.T." <> wrote in message news:<c8lb4p$gln$>...
    > What's the chances?


    Zero. How dumb do you think I am? Or rather, do you want me to be? Or
    even better, are you? Look at the e-mail address. My name is plastered
    all over the Internet in relationship to Sigma. Check the Foveon
    corporate site.

    I am not affiliated with either Sigma or Foveon, but the latter does
    see some merit in my images and asked to use them.

    I own both an SD9 and SD10 and a bunch of lenses, which should be
    clear from my images. This may make me a fool in your eyes, but not in
    mine or in those of many others.

    Let's deal with the issues.
     
    Laurence Matson, May 22, 2004
    #19
  20. Paul Howland <> wrote in message news:<40ae38fb$0$37653$>...
    > Bay Area Dave wrote:
    > > I can't any "Steve G." listed. Is that the sender name or someone's
    > > signature at the bottom of their posts?
    > >
    > > On the odds of Matson being Preddy, I'd say they are better than even.
    > >
    > > dave
    > >
    > > D.T. wrote:
    > >
    > >> What's the chances?
    > >>
    > >>

    > >

    > Unlikely, Matson actually owns a camera and can take photographs - see
    > http://www.pbase.com/lmatson . Some of the images are rather nice, but
    > the quality of the colour rendition is pretty poor by modern standards.
    > Nevertheless, the site does show what the SD9 and SD10 are capable
    > of, for better and for worse.


    Paul,

    The above color reference is complete nonsense. Do you use a
    calibrated monitor? Do you really understand color, the different
    nature of color, and the infinite possibilities to manipulate it. Look
    carefully and make sure you understand the commentary. Then ask
    specific questions. I'll be happy to answer.

    These images have been around a long time and have been scrutinized by
    plenty of people whose qualifications I respect. From all camps, by
    the way, including color experts from Adobe and Jasc. Unless you can
    come up with something more specific than that, you exhaling a lot of
    hot air.
     
    Laurence Matson, May 22, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Harry Da Hat

    Uploading George Preddy's File

    Harry Da Hat, Nov 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    90
    Views:
    1,766
    George Preddy
    Nov 21, 2003
  2. Arvin Chang

    Most Sigma SD-9 Owners are not like George Preddy

    Arvin Chang, Nov 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    370
    Mike Latondresse
    Nov 15, 2003
  3. Nonnaho

    Where's Steve ( A.K.A. George Preddy )?

    Nonnaho, Dec 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    396
    Larry Lynch
    Dec 18, 2003
  4. Dan Sullivan

    Sigma/Foveon/ George Preddy newsgroup?

    Dan Sullivan, Dec 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    647
    David S Lund
    Dec 20, 2003
  5. Mikey
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,661
    Tonester
    Sep 14, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page