X3 Fill Light explained, very simply

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by George Preddy, Nov 21, 2003.

  1. George Preddy, Nov 21, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Preddy-troll-o-meter


    0 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    < >







    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bplc58$fiv$...
    > "As the new X3 Fill Light operates using the RAW data stored in the X3F

    file
    > it appears to produce far better results than we have seen from any

    similar
    > Photoshop plug-in type enhancement."
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03102702foveonx3filllight.asp
    >
    >
     
    Betty Swallocks, Nov 21, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. George Preddy

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <bplc58$fiv$>,
    says...
    > "As the new X3 Fill Light operates using the RAW data stored in the X3F file
    > it appears to produce far better results than we have seen from any similar
    > Photoshop plug-in type enhancement."
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03102702foveonx3filllight.asp


    Lovely. Apparently SD9 users are too stupid to know how to use fill
    flash.

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    Canon 10D page:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
    __________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Nov 21, 2003
    #3
  4. "Todd Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <bplc58$fiv$>,
    > says...
    > > "As the new X3 Fill Light operates using the RAW data stored in the X3F

    file
    > > it appears to produce far better results than we have seen from any

    similar
    > > Photoshop plug-in type enhancement."
    > >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03102702foveonx3filllight.asp

    >
    > Lovely. Apparently SD9 users are too stupid to know how to use fill
    > flash.


    "...it appears to produce far better results than we have seen from any
    similar
    Photoshop plug-in type enhancement."

    Have you ever used Photoshop?
     
    George Preddy, Nov 22, 2003
    #4
  5. George Preddy

    Guest Guest

    Have you ever used fill flash? It works much better than software.


    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bpmhj4$41d$...
    >
    > "Todd Walker" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <bplc58$fiv$>,
    > > says...
    > > > "As the new X3 Fill Light operates using the RAW data stored in the

    X3F
    > file
    > > > it appears to produce far better results than we have seen from any

    > similar
    > > > Photoshop plug-in type enhancement."
    > > >
    > > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03102702foveonx3filllight.asp

    > >
    > > Lovely. Apparently SD9 users are too stupid to know how to use fill
    > > flash.

    >
    > "...it appears to produce far better results than we have seen from any
    > similar
    > Photoshop plug-in type enhancement."
    >
    > Have you ever used Photoshop?
    >
    >
     
    Guest, Nov 27, 2003
    #5
  6. Do not even think of it . That is not the same.
    Try distant flash-fillin.
    Do first learn some basic photography before comlaining about a fantastic
    tool in Photo Pro.
    Are you some jealous Canon / Nikon shooters.

    Geir Lauritzen , Norway.
    "<Enter Your Full Name>" <> skrev i melding
    news:bq4j53$g7f$...
    > Have you ever used fill flash? It works much better than software.
    >
    >
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:bpmhj4$41d$...
    > >
    > > "Todd Walker" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > In article <bplc58$fiv$>,
    > > > says...
    > > > > "As the new X3 Fill Light operates using the RAW data stored in the

    > X3F
    > > file
    > > > > it appears to produce far better results than we have seen from any

    > > similar
    > > > > Photoshop plug-in type enhancement."
    > > > >
    > > > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03102702foveonx3filllight.asp
    > > >
    > > > Lovely. Apparently SD9 users are too stupid to know how to use fill
    > > > flash.

    > >
    > > "...it appears to produce far better results than we have seen from any
    > > similar
    > > Photoshop plug-in type enhancement."
    > >
    > > Have you ever used Photoshop?
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Geir Magne Lauritzen, Nov 27, 2003
    #6
  7. "Geir Magne Lauritzen" <> wrote in message
    news:87lxb.1490$...
    > Do not even think of it . That is not the same.
    > Try distant flash-fillin.
    > Do first learn some basic photography before comlaining about a fantastic
    > tool in Photo Pro.
    > Are you some jealous Canon / Nikon shooters.


    Don't forget Fuji. They past jealous 4.3M sensors ago.
     
    George Preddy, Nov 27, 2003
    #7
  8. George Preddy

    Guest Guest

    X3 Fill may be a useful tool, but it is nothing more. Once the image has
    been captured all you are left with is post processing. You need to take my
    post in the context which it was made.



    "Geir Magne Lauritzen" <> wrote in message
    news:87lxb.1490$...
    > Do not even think of it . That is not the same.
    > Try distant flash-fillin.
    > Do first learn some basic photography before comlaining about a fantastic
    > tool in Photo Pro.
    > Are you some jealous Canon / Nikon shooters.
    >
    > Geir Lauritzen , Norway.
    > "<Enter Your Full Name>" <> skrev i melding
    > news:bq4j53$g7f$...
    > > Have you ever used fill flash? It works much better than software.
    > >
    > >
    > > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > > news:bpmhj4$41d$...
    > > >
    > > > "Todd Walker" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > > > In article <bplc58$fiv$>,
    > > > > says...
    > > > > > "As the new X3 Fill Light operates using the RAW data stored in

    the
    > > X3F
    > > > file
    > > > > > it appears to produce far better results than we have seen from

    any
    > > > similar
    > > > > > Photoshop plug-in type enhancement."
    > > > > >
    > > > > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03102702foveonx3filllight.asp
    > > > >
    > > > > Lovely. Apparently SD9 users are too stupid to know how to use fill
    > > > > flash.
    > > >
    > > > "...it appears to produce far better results than we have seen from

    any
    > > > similar
    > > > Photoshop plug-in type enhancement."
    > > >
    > > > Have you ever used Photoshop?
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Guest, Nov 27, 2003
    #8
  9. "Geir Magne Lauritzen" <> wrote in message
    news:87lxb.1490$...
    > Do not even think of it . That is not the same.
    > Try distant flash-fillin.


    http://www.x3f.info/sd9/v2_0/DemoFile.html

    Oh come on, a flash could do that just fine!

    > Do first learn some basic photography before comlaining about a fantastic
    > tool in Photo Pro.
    > Are you some jealous Canon / Nikon shooters.
     
    George Preddy, Nov 27, 2003
    #9
  10. "<Enter Your Full Name>" <> wrote in message
    news:bq4pjt$k1v$...
    > X3 Fill may be a useful tool, but it is nothing more.


    And here I thought it might be a source of recycled aluminum.

    > Once the image has
    > been captured all you are left with is post processing. You need to take

    my
    > post in the context which it was made.


    Not in RAW mode. Learn about it, you'll never shoot the old way again.
     
    George Preddy, Nov 27, 2003
    #10
  11. George Preddy

    Guest

    In message <bq4pjt$k1v$>,
    "<Enter Your Full Name>" <> wrote:

    >X3 Fill may be a useful tool, but it is nothing more. Once the image has
    >been captured all you are left with is post processing. You need to take my
    >post in the context which it was made.


    I fail to see that it does anything but move the histogram around.
    Local average luminance does not seem to affect anything, at least not
    by very much. It's not like it's taking a blur of the image, and the
    results of a high-pass filter with the same radius, lowering the
    contrast on the blurred part, raising the contrast on the high pass, and
    overlaying the high-pass on the blur. It acts just like a common gamma
    when I move the slider. If it's doing any more than shifting the
    histogram, it's doing it very subtly.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Nov 27, 2003
    #11
  12. George Preddy

    Guest Guest

    I have a camera which allows me to shoot in RAW and in JPEG. I know how to
    process my images in RAW. I choose not to for many of them because it is too
    time consuming. You do not have that choice with your camera.

    You have not posted a single image that I would call a keeper. The colour
    rendition in ALL the pics you posted (not just a couple, but ALL of them) is
    terrible. You claim it is white balance, but that is a blatant lie or you
    would post some pics with proper white balance set on them, with natural,
    pleasing colours. They probably look OK if you convert them to B+W.

    You continually post blatant lies about all the technologies you discuss,
    introducing phantom issues such as green orphans, "Self Adaptive Silicon"
    and quantum theory into the debate that you have quite clearly lost. You
    refuse to answer people's direct questions because it doesn't fit into your
    cosy little view of the Foveon being better than anything that has ever
    existed. You continue pushing your sensor count rubbish even after you have
    admitted that the reason you pictures are sharp is that you have no AA
    filter.

    You ask people to post full size files, and on the occasions when people
    have, you alter them. You skew all attempts at reasonable comparison wildly
    in favor of you camera. You now even go as far as to claim that FOV is
    irrelevant so that you can bogusly claim that the Foveon has better
    resolution than the 1DS.

    On balance of probabilities, I think that you must be completely and utterly
    mental! Do yourself a favor and get yourself assessed. If not for your own
    sake, then for your family. If you carry on like this in the real world, God
    help those around you!!


    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bq51uf$a0v$...
    >
    > "<Enter Your Full Name>" <> wrote in message
    > news:bq4pjt$k1v$...
    > > X3 Fill may be a useful tool, but it is nothing more.

    >
    > And here I thought it might be a source of recycled aluminum.
    >
    > > Once the image has
    > > been captured all you are left with is post processing. You need to take

    > my
    > > post in the context which it was made.

    >
    > Not in RAW mode. Learn about it, you'll never shoot the old way again.
    >
    >
     
    Guest, Nov 27, 2003
    #12
  13. "<Enter Your Full Name>" <> wrote in message
    news:bq56gv$t71$...
    >
    > I have a camera which allows me to shoot in RAW and in JPEG. I know how to
    > process my images in RAW. I choose not to for many of them because it is

    too
    > time consuming. You do not have that choice with your camera.


    Sort of. Because Sigma recognizes this, SPP has super "Auto" capability in
    batch. In other words, instead of simply copying you JPEG from the memory
    card to the computer using cut and paste or copy, you do it with SPP. There
    is virtually no time difference unless you wish to work on individual shots,
    which I would imagine any pros would, and in RAW mode.

    In this way, the Sigma is 10 second per full card of pics less convenient
    for the "full-Auto" amateur, and much more convenient for those desiring pro
    caliber work flow, whether they are pro or not.

    > You have not posted a single image that I would call a keeper. The colour
    > rendition in ALL the pics you posted (not just a couple, but ALL of them)

    is
    > terrible.


    Lucky for you, none are done on Auto, so you would be thrilled with the SD9.
     
    George Preddy, Nov 28, 2003
    #13
  14. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <bq4pjt$k1v$>,
    > "<Enter Your Full Name>" <> wrote:
    >
    > >X3 Fill may be a useful tool, but it is nothing more. Once the image has
    > >been captured all you are left with is post processing. You need to take

    my
    > >post in the context which it was made.

    >
    > I fail to see that it does anything but move the histogram around.


    "Phil: Personally I was amazed at the difference this adjustment can make,
    it's far more sophisticated and capable than anything I've seen to date and
    because it's operating on the X3F RAW data the results are bound to be
    better than attempting the same kind of 'fix' on a JPEG."

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03102702foveonx3filllight.asp
     
    George Preddy, Nov 28, 2003
    #14
  15. George Preddy

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <bq6dq1$s57$>,
    says...
    > "Phil: Personally I was amazed at the difference this adjustment can make,
    > it's far more sophisticated and capable than anything I've seen to date and
    > because it's operating on the X3F RAW data the results are bound to be
    > better than attempting the same kind of 'fix' on a JPEG."
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03102702foveonx3filllight.asp


    Interesting how you bash Phil when he does or says something that you
    disagree with but you quote him when it fits your agenda.

    Make up your mind -- is Phil an idiot or does he know what he is talking
    about?

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    Canon 10D page:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
    __________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Nov 28, 2003
    #15
  16. George Preddy

    Guest Guest

    And it would be no better than TIFF in Photoshop.



    "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    news:bq6dq1$s57$...
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In message <bq4pjt$k1v$>,
    > > "<Enter Your Full Name>" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >X3 Fill may be a useful tool, but it is nothing more. Once the image

    has
    > > >been captured all you are left with is post processing. You need to

    take
    > my
    > > >post in the context which it was made.

    > >
    > > I fail to see that it does anything but move the histogram around.

    >
    > "Phil: Personally I was amazed at the difference this adjustment can

    make,
    > it's far more sophisticated and capable than anything I've seen to date

    and
    > because it's operating on the X3F RAW data the results are bound to be
    > better than attempting the same kind of 'fix' on a JPEG."
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03102702foveonx3filllight.asp
    >
    >
     
    Guest, Nov 28, 2003
    #16
  17. "Todd Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <bq6dq1$s57$>,
    > says...
    > > "Phil: Personally I was amazed at the difference this adjustment can

    make,
    > > it's far more sophisticated and capable than anything I've seen to date

    and
    > > because it's operating on the X3F RAW data the results are bound to be
    > > better than attempting the same kind of 'fix' on a JPEG."
    > >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03102702foveonx3filllight.asp

    >
    > Interesting how you bash Phil when he does or says something that you
    > disagree with but you quote him when it fits your agenda.
    >
    > Make up your mind -- is Phil an idiot or does he know what he is talking
    > about?


    He runs a commercial entity that cannot survive without first panding to his
    big money sponsors, but it also can't survive without acknowledging the
    blatantly obvious. He trys to find a middleground. Absolutely refusing to
    review anything but a beta-SD9 is that middle ground with regard to
    Sigma/Foveon. If you don't think there is much of a difference, compare
    Phil Askey's standing SD9 night sample...
    http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/SigmaSD9/Samples/Night/IMG01299.jpg with an
    actual production SD9 night image...
    http://www.pbase.com/image/23467595/original
     
    George Preddy, Nov 28, 2003
    #17
  18. George Preddy

    Guest

    In message <bq74hp$ei1$>,
    "<Enter Your Full Name>" <> wrote:

    >And it would be no better than TIFF in Photoshop.


    He compares is to "auto-levels" on a JPEG. How lame. Who would do it
    like that?


    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Nov 28, 2003
    #18
  19. George Preddy

    Ray Fischer Guest

    George Preddy <> wrote:
    >"Todd Walker" <> wrote in message


    >> Interesting how you bash Phil when he does or says something that you
    >> disagree with but you quote him when it fits your agenda.
    >>
    >> Make up your mind -- is Phil an idiot or does he know what he is talking
    >> about?

    >
    >He runs a commercial entity that cannot survive without first panding to his
    >big money sponsors,


    That pretty well discredits all those ridiculous claims we see from Sigma.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 28, 2003
    #19
  20. Try this one and read carefully about the PhotoPro
    It is really simple.
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/sigma_sd10.html

    Mr Lauritzen
    "<Enter Your Full Name>" <> skrev i melding
    news:bq74hp$ei1$...
    > And it would be no better than TIFF in Photoshop.
    >
    >
    >
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in message
    > news:bq6dq1$s57$...
    > >
    > > <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > In message <bq4pjt$k1v$>,
    > > > "<Enter Your Full Name>" <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > >X3 Fill may be a useful tool, but it is nothing more. Once the image

    > has
    > > > >been captured all you are left with is post processing. You need to

    > take
    > > my
    > > > >post in the context which it was made.
    > > >
    > > > I fail to see that it does anything but move the histogram around.

    > >
    > > "Phil: Personally I was amazed at the difference this adjustment can

    > make,
    > > it's far more sophisticated and capable than anything I've seen to date

    > and
    > > because it's operating on the X3F RAW data the results are bound to be
    > > better than attempting the same kind of 'fix' on a JPEG."
    > >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0310/03102702foveonx3filllight.asp
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Geir Magne Lauritzen, Dec 1, 2003
    #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. Thomas Reed

    Quick Book file access very very very slow

    Thomas Reed, Apr 9, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    811
    Palindrome
    Apr 9, 2004
  2. Ray Fischer

    X3 Fill Light

    Ray Fischer, Nov 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    521
    George Preddy
    Nov 17, 2003
  3. Bill Poston

    Question about exposure/fill light

    Bill Poston, Jul 22, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    485
  4. fill light source size vs main light size

    , Dec 11, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    967
    Dudley Hanks
    Dec 13, 2008
  5. fitz
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,133
Loading...

Share This Page