Post your foveon DP & SD1m Images

GaryLH said:
People have said that the dp3m has a slightly different look compared to the other dp Merrill's. which one do u find was a closer color match if u were to take the same shot on both cameras and same over perspective?

Gary
Click to expand...

I've read such things, beginning with Bowman's early use to Bottazini's more complete tests. There is no reason to doubt their tests.

For my applications, which are certainly not as demanding, the differences are so slight as to be irrelevant. In fact, I have never noticed them (but I only just got a properly calibrated monitor). The look between the cameras is compatible. And the colors that come out of these cameras are about as "real" as Velvia, which wasn't very real at all, but could be highly pleasing.
 
Has anyone tried scanning medium format negatives with dp2m (dp3m may even be able to do 35mm negatives)?

I did a quick test with dp2m and close up adapter and I think it may as well be a viable option. I used my tablet with white background at the brightest setting as a "light box" but when I placed the negative directly on the screen or even on a plexiglass, dp2m picked up the pixel density of the screen. However, when I raised the plexiglass by a little bit using film canister caps, I was able to get a decent image without the pixel density of the screen. It was a quick and dirty test and I shot it handheld (f/4 ISO 200) but the preliminary results show great potential. It was definitely comparable to epson 4490 scan but scans from my old epson 4490 is a-ok for web. I feel that there was more information in the negative I can get out (without spending 2k+). What better digital camera for the job than the incredible merrill?

When I have more time I will try to use a more stabilized set-up with aperture at 5.6-8 to see what I can get with this experiment.
 
med_U47690I1367839865.SEQ.1.jpg
 
shadowfox said:
Mundane?

I'd say quite inspiring. :)
Click to expand...

Sounds like you, Shadowfox, misunderstood my post, and took the word "mundane" to be directed at the images. You coulda asked.

So now I feel one of those internet moments in which I have to respond so that my meaning doesn't become twisted into some grumpy idea that never went through my head in the first place LOL.

The images are indeed inspiring, and I've said so throughout this thread. I know that nobody here reading this thread will allow stray shrapnel from Shadowfox's comment to suggest that I was in any way disparaging BK1970s amazing images.

(What I called "mundane" was a bit of self-deprecatory humor about my habit of responding to the images by thinking about where they might have come from "in the real world", but it's a pastime that I enjoy nevertheless.

Calling that pastime *NOT THE IMAGES* "mundane" doesn't in any way belittle the inspiration that you or others might get from thinking about where the photos come from. But the images Blaz is making do not need anything else beyond a frame to be inspiring).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom