Considering Dp2M and DP3M but hate HDR look, need advice

[robertsmith]

Hello,

First real post here. A little background: mostly shoot medium format 645 and 6x7. Got into photography back in the 90's. Own a Nikon
Coolscan 9000 etc. Have dabbled in Digital. Had an Olympus E-30 for a bit which was great for Telephoto work (stunning SHG/HG optics). Really liked it but sold it recently because I just was not using it enough.

So, now I am considering both the DP2M and DP3M primarily for Travel. Tired of lugging my medium format gear everywhere. Coming from a medium format film background I assume I am well suited to the "discipline" of using these Sigma cameras. However, I am concerned about one thing: many of the images I see posted here and on the web have an HDR look them. I despise HDR and hypersaturated color photography. Additionally, I am poor at digital processing and could use some instruction from the Reichmans of the world on how to create a proper workflow, calibrate my monitors etc. I just am not that good at it. My best work is drum scanned and printed by a Master printer (however, I would like to start printing more small prints myself..master printers are very expensive) My favorite films are the Kodak Portra series. I do not like Velvia or Ektar due to the excessive Disneyland colors ( many landscape guys love these emulsions and I am not mocking them, just not my thing personally). From my film shooting I always find it is easier to increase some parameter like color saturation rather than try and decrease it in post. This is why I shoot the portrait films for industrial landscape. My inexperience with digital workflow has led me to conclude they are easier to work with and considering I like the native look of these rather desaturated emulsions in regards to what I like and what best suits my subjects.

Can I achieve a portra film look with the Fovean sensored sigmas? I have seen few examples on the internet that are anything other than candy colored super saturated velvia look (almost HDR) like images from these cameras. The only images from these cameras posted that are an exception to this rule are the DP3M images of Prag featured at the Sigma Website. Some of these are quite nice in my view. Restrained in color saturation and far from the HDR look.

In conclusion, given my ignorance of digital imaging, are the little Sigmas going to be ok or is the Sigma sensor too saturated given my lack of post processing acumen? Is the Sigma software adequate enough to create Kodak Portra type images or is the native contrast of the Fov sensor just too much for someone who likes lower contrast film emulsions?

Any advice is much appreciated. This is a great forum full of many talented photographers who truly understand Digital Imaging. Thank you in advance for your thoughts.
 

[allegretto]

Have both DP-2M and a 3 and have used for several thousand clicks each so a few observations

1) PP is a bit ungainly since you first have to put the images through Sigma's clunky, crashy sofware and convert to TIFF. After that you can shuttle over to any normal program you like. I use both Capture One and LR5. Prefer LR5 for this job so far

2) Images do have super detail, but color certainly a bit idiosyncratic at the "fresh TIFF" level and requires some manipulation and balancing

3) It doesn't have to look like HDR. I think most do it because they can with this camera. You can back way off if you like. One of he beauties of digital is the ability to do things like this. You can mix the parameters quite a bit

4) In any case, the cameras will sell on eBay pretty fast if it doesn't suit you.

My objection to these babies is that they are only for a limited application. But you seem aware and competent once you iron out your digital work flow. The PP will be a bigger learning curve than how to get satisfying images from the cameras IMHO

Cheers and good luck

[xocet]

Go easy on the X3 fill light function, and you will avoid most of the causes of the 'HDR look'.

You will want to shoot RAW to get the best out of the little Merrills, and the files are quite malleable.  You can create presets in SPP, so you may like to have a default that uses neutral colour settings, and drop the saturation and contrast a notch or two. A further option is to experiment with some of the film simulation packages, like DXO Film Pack or similar.

I'm sure if you asked nicely, a couple of people could send you a RAW file or two for you to experiment with

BTW, SPP is stable on my MacBook Pro, though not terribly quick. It does demand a little bit of time and experimentation to understand its workings. Once you've processed the RAWs to Tiffs, you can then continue processing the files in you normal editor.  If you are on a Mac, you also have the option of Iridient Developer.

[BernardLanguillier]

Using Iridient Developper instead of the Sigma converter helps.

It is Mac only though.

Cheers,
Bernard

[uvl]

HDR look can be easily avoided by turning down contrast, fill light or saturation in SPP and by using Neutral or Portrait color mode. The latter color mode gives you attenuated reds with low contrast and somehow muted colors.

What adds to the Prague images you mentioned is that they are made under really overcast late autumn conditions. Maybe this one comes near:
I confess I used Fill Light and it can be seen in the halos around the trees.

[NancyP]

Get the free download of Sigma Photo Pro software, ask for a few RAW files or look at Sigma's own RAW files, and play. x3f fill is very easy and very tempting - season with care. The files can be very subtle if that is your desire. I view in neutral mode (one of the default jpg settings) and work from there. Post-processing is a daily learning process, don't get too discouraged (tells self as well as OP).

[BarbaraArmstrong]

I use both the DP2&3M's.  I've never liked nor tried the HDR look, and never felt that was what I was getting from these Sigmas.  I truly love them.  I think my biggest complaint is that I can inadvertently hit the button that moves it between auto and manual focus without my realizing it, or invoke exposure compensation, again without realizing it; so keep a watch on those items on the screen.  I also would not enjoy them nearly as much without the Voigtlander viewfinders.  As to learning digital post-processing, I am surprised at how little many of these captures require to truly optimize them.  I have no trouble with instability of the Sigma software on my PC.  This is doubtless helped by a fast processor and a lot of ram.  I shoot raw plus jpg.  This lets me see the jpg's immediately on my computer.  I process the raws to 16-bit same-size tiffs in the Sigma software without any other adjustment, and place them in their own folder.  Then I open the tiffs in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) using "Bridge."  If I were you, I would take advantage of Adobe's cloud offer for Photoshop, available until Dec. 31st, for $10/month -- a lot better than having to shell out $600 or $700 up front, as used to be the case.  Then import your tiffs into ACR, and learn to use the adjustments, including going into curves and working with individual color channels on luminosity and saturation (either up or down!).  And, you will also have the full complement of adjustments available in Photoshop, as you learn to use them.  Get a book (or 2 or 6) on using Photoshop and ACR to get you going.  Jeff Schewe's book, "The Digital Negative," has been read by many on this forum (including me), who found it quite useful.  This is a lot of fun and yields splendid results.  --Barbara
P.S. - As to the Adobe subscription, many on this forum have worried about their files if they decide to stop subscribing.  And if you want to save the files with their layers (the complete history of your work on them), that would be a problem.  I save mine as flattened tiffs.  I'm not a pro, and I very seldom re-do a file, but will do it from scratch if needed.  That's just my approach.  ymmv

[allegretto]

use Big Macs (desktops and laptops)with lots of RAM and still the software has crashed too many times for my taste

and don't think that having to use at least two and often 3 different programs, coupled with at least two "conversions" just to process an image is particularly desirable

but that's just me. I like to have fun, get my images and move on. Like a camera with predictable output that doesn't trip on its self in PP due to all the tweaks it requires which lead to more artifacts.  To each their own however and that's why there are so many choices...

[Quentin]

Hi Robert

As you may know, I was an early adopter of a DP2M, and later a DP1M.  The images the generate do have a unique look.  Over use of the X3 fill light function can give a bit of an HDR appearance,  but it can be useful nonetheless.  Remember only to shoot RAW, to slightly overexpose your shots (expose to the right), and shoot at low ISO. Often the results can be breathtaking.

As travel cameras, they are superb. The DP2M can form part of the best compact "panoramic" travel system known to man.  With a little skill and practice, 8x10 large format equivalence is within reach from  multi row stitched images. 

I was so enamoured with these cameras, I built a photographic vacation around them just over a year ago.   The results justified my faith in them.

[K.C.]

use Big Macs (desktops and laptops)with lots of RAM and still the software has crashed too many times for my taste

I had one crash after I bought my DP2M a year ago and not a single problem since. The last couple of Mac versions have been completely stable for me on a 4 year old MBP running 10.6.8 and a 2 year old iMac running 10.7.4.

So the crashing excuse hasn't applied for some time in my experience.

HDR effect ?

Huh ?

Hundreds of images over the last year with a 2 and a 3 and I wasn't forced into an HDR look in a single of one of them.

[pdp11]

I love DPxMs, and I own all 3.

For travelling purpose I think that are fantastic photographic tools if you will shot in daylight conditions.
They have an astonishing image quality at low iso, also at high iso in b/w photos when standard sensor cameras sink (specially using red or blue channel). In bw I still use several films.

The DPxM problem that I found is the raw conversion: the only usable software is sigma photo pro (slow) that is too slow and under-featured. The actual version is very stable on win 7.
Usually i convert quickly images in sigma photo slow (where I export low contrast, low saturation images) and I rework in capture one + Photoshop.
This workflow is quite time consuming, and in any photos I have some difficulties to achieve desired colors.
Colors gradations are rich and beautiful, but not faithful.
DPxMs aren't cameras fitted for an easy postwork.
Raw images in sigma photo slow are well (too) contrasted and far from HDR look, that i found often used improperly.
I suggest you download sigma photo slow and some raw images and try the raw development workflow before you buy those cameras.

Web is full of DPxMs reviews, that I found usually true.

My 2 cents (sorry for my abominable english)

[NancyP]

Keep your files in small folders. A folder with over 50 x3f images takes longer to load and may crash. Use all three DP#Ms. Find the PP a pain in butt, and I need to get in the habit of making small jpgs of everything so I can use LR cataloging and collections.

[Marco Pampaloni]

I have a dp2m plus several accessories if you are interested contact me!