do you put grain into you photographs?
You can actually have a positive impact with image detail by adding a tiny amount of grain. Camera Raw 6 & LR 3 gives you that option. The key is to make the grain small and only strong enough to help integrate with the image.
I often add grain, if only to get rid of the 'digital feeling'.Same here, I find it really makes a difference for larger prints, where image PPI is dropping below 240 or so. The problem with digital is that as you enlarge, the interpolation does a good job of preserving edges; but it can't really do anything about the fine detail and texture missing from the original capture. What you end up with is smooth, plastic-looking areas that should have texture but don't. The result looks unnatural to me. Adding some grain can create the sense of texture (if not actual detail), and most people will find this preferable (especially since we're used to seeing grain in enlarged film photographs). I find Grain Surgery Pro works well, and I add the grain as a final step after interpolating and sharpening the image for printing (which I do in Photoshop).
the Foveon pushed to 800isos. (but it has a huge dr, similar to digital backs)
http://www.foveon.com/files/F13_image_sensor_Product_Flier_RevD.pdfYou can't just relly on that spec to explain DR capabilities. I hate engineering discutions and always related to field experience. Foveon users will confirm that the Sigmas DR in practise is excellent, but I'll add that
"Dynamic range in excess of 62dB"
does not sound like huge DR ( 62 / ~6 ? )
Foveon users will confirm that the Sigmas DR in practise is excellent, but I'll add that other partameters have to be taken into account: physical size of the photosites. Remember that the Foveon has 3 more area than bayer on that aspect and that plays a key role on the practical DR.
No? Can you explain then to us why digital backs have the best DR and at the same time a very poor high iso performance? Other things Bart, are you relaying on technical informations on paper, or do you actually own a Foveon?
You can't just relly on that spec to explain DR capabilities. I hate engineering discutions and always related to field experience.
Foveon users will confirm that the Sigmas DR in practise is excellent, but I'll add that
other partameters have to be taken into account: physical size of the photosites. Remember that the Foveon has 3 more area than bayer on that aspect and that plays a key role on the practical DR.
I have foveon camera - it does not have huge DR... as for practical DR we had enough crap about "6 stops" in couple of infamous topics.Your conclusion surprises me then.
Your conclusion surprises me then.
I could make a couple on plateau shots with the DP1 with the same lightning than the serie with the 5DMK2 and when devellop the raws I could see that the Sigma handled much better and smoother highlights and also details where present in the shade while not in the canon.
In other situations, I could recuperate exposition errors with the Sigma much better than with any other dslr except the Nikon D3.
To me the Foveon DR is really excellent.
But, I guess every folk has his own appreciation of this DR parameters (that seems to be really a topic where nobody end to agree for ages).
Your conclusion surprises me then.
I could make a couple on plateau shots with the DP1 with the same lightning than the serie with the 5DMK2 and when devellop the raws I could see that the Sigma handled much better and smoother highlights and also details where present in the shade while not in the canon.
In other situations, I could recuperate exposition errors with the Sigma much better than with any other dslr except the Nikon D3.
To me the Foveon DR is really excellent.
But, I guess every folk has his own appreciation of this DR parameters (that seems to be really a topic where nobody end to agree for ages).
It does not seem that your conclusions are the same than a lot of sigma users
DxOMark?...