Sigma DP2 Merrill color photos, please!

Hello DP aficianados, normally i restrict color to film, but on a trip up Highway 101 from San Francisco, I set the dp2 to Landscape color for some images of beaches and surf rocks in bright diffused afternoon light. I also used one or two ND filters (2x, 4x).

The results on a monitor show green casts/patches in the volcanic gray beach sand from a distance. I've heard a bit about green/magenta casts from the Merrill, but since I rarely shoot color, have paid little attention.

Anything you all can advise (from your own trial/error/best practice) about avoiding funky color cast in the future--other than shoot & process monochrome on the DPM, which I do 95% of the time?

(Btw I was duplicating some of these images with the Bronica RF645/Provia--no color cast expected there...)
 
The only time in the past I can remember getting weird cast like that from the dp Merrill when lighting is overcast and I am using awb w/ iso greater that 200. But then again I shoot mostly monochrome as well. Sigma awb IMHO is one of their week points. But I have heard on other forums and threads... Can't remember which, where people have complained about mixed results w/ nd filters. Not sure if it was a particular brand of filters or type (variable vs normal). I have never used nd filter on my sigma cameras.

Good luck
Gary
 
Thanks, Gary. The AWB is a good clue--I tend to ignore or overlook WB in daylight. Clearly this is one of those things that can probably be solved through eliminating variables (color modes, WB, ND filters). I'll be back at the coast next month and can work this out in similar light.
 
i seem to remember a conversation about red and green patches being more likely if the area at issue is underexposed.

some even suggest overexposing the highlights and recovering them in the sigma software, to avoid the patching. the conversation devolves into poop-flinging as usual on that site, lol:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3378547
 
Thanks, Dean. There may have been underexposure of the sands, but only relative to the sky--it wasn't as though I was muddying everything else in order to get a pristine sky (though I have done so and will do so again, but only in monochrome). This suggest paying more attention to the ND filters in bright coast pm light.
 
16361556975_9b7fc695e3_c.jpg
 
rhl-oregon said:
Thanks, Dean. There may have been underexposure of the sands, but only relative to the sky--it wasn't as though I was muddying everything else in order to get a pristine sky (though I have done so and will do so again, but only in monochrome). This suggest paying more attention to the ND filters in bright coast pm light.
Click to expand...

I haven't yet discovered any systematic way to avoid it, nor, by the same token, any systematic way to produce it. It happens most often to clouds, and for a while it drove me batty, until I started to accept it. I think that now I'm even at the point at which most times I appreciate it.

SPP has a tool for color cast removal. There are also some plugins that have color cast removal tools. For certain subjects, that works, too.
 
noimmunity said:
I went back and reconverted one of those images above with the sheep. There isn't a great deal of difference at any viewing ratio between 0 sharpening and -0.7 in SPP.

The real difference comes in the contrast that I applied during PP of the TIFF files. For the first time, I did everything in a batch, and it looks like this resulted in some images that have had too much contrast applied. The sheep image in question for instance looks better with less "aggressive" use of the contrast sliders (I'm using three of them, divided into midtone, highlight, and shadow(.

Thanks for the heads up.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's the contrast (?) In the past (when the Merrills first came out) the prevailing thought was to reduce sharpening from default to around -7. This seemed to reduce that 'crunchiness' aliasing that's sometimes apparent in the XF3 files. But you're not seeing that with your files, so may not (?)

fwiw, what I see as 'crunchy' is this: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2442675&postcount=175 compared to this: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2440613&postcount=161

The fine details (the grass blades and the horse's tack, etc..) take on an odd non-photo-like appearance whereas the little girl looks 'normal' to me, i.e., like a film photograph. I see it sometimes in my own Merrill images but it goes away if the file is printed (either ink or conventional chemical RA-4 printing.) And the 'crunchiness' is beneficial with printing, but looks weird to me on the web. Again, too much like an electronic technical drawing. I think it's kind of cool that it can reveal such detail, but it just looks odd to me. I guess it's just me... :)
 
wonderful images Jon. I definitely feel present in these photos. I am typically not drawn to color photos, but the Foveon sensor...
 
Chrisrw said:
wonderful images Jon. I definitely feel present in these photos. I am typically not drawn to color photos, but the Foveon sensor...
Click to expand...

Thanks, Chris.

The Merrill sensor came just at the moment when RVP-50 was becoming prohibitively expensive for me. Funny how the universe takes care of us!

Counting the number of shots I've taken on the DP Merrills, dividing by half I'm still ahead compared to RVP. I'm very happy to use the Merrills, especially for landscape, both for the unique look and the advantages (live view, exp. bracketing, variable ISO, monochrome, etc.) they offer over film.

I still shoot chromes, mostly Agfa Precisa, but also bulk-rolled Velvia from Taipei when I can get it.
 
Michael Markey said:
Is this more what you are after.
Sharpness reduced from neutral to -0.7 and everything else neutral.
Click to expand...

Yes, there's a bit less aliasing and I think that reducing SPP's sharpening helps in that respect. I think maybe it also has to do with the contrast of the light in that scene (?) I personally find that in diffuse light the Merrills really do well overall.

With even and diffuse light, it seems there's less 'crunchiness' and things look more like film photographs. It's only just my opinion and personal tastes, and I do realize that others might like that 'crunchiness' or 'enhanced micro-contrast' that the X3F files tend to have. But to me, sometimes it can look odd and more like some kind of weird aliasing or something. I use SPP only to convert and do minimal exposure adjustments and some white balance. The rest, including any sharpening, gets done in Photoshop instead.

Here are a couple of just goofing around exposures when I first got the Merrills (I have better examples and better images on my work computer but I'm on my small laptop right now and don't have access to them; I can post more later to better show what I'm trying to convey.) There's no sharpening in SPP and just some basic editing in PS. To me, they look more like 'regular' images and without that increased 'crunchy' micro-contrast. But I think in the end that it all depends on subject matter and what kind of overall look one is after.
 
Thanks very interesting.
I understand what you mean but I don`t feel the need to try and make my Merrill shots look like film .
I still shoot film for that . :)
Like you though I avoid PP but that also includes any reductive PP too.
Oddly enough I like the Merrill output in exactly the kind of contrasty light conditions which you try and avoid so who knows ....
 
Michael Markey said:
Thanks very interesting.
I understand what you mean but I don`t feel the need to try and make my Merrill shots look like film .
I still shoot film for that . :)
Like you though I avoid PP and but that also includes any reductive PP too.
Oddly enough I like the Merrill output in exactly the kind of contrasty light conditions which you try and avoid so who knows ....
Click to expand...

Ya, I think it's just simply personal preferences, etc..

Just for the record, what I mean when saying "more like film" is really more like a conventional photograph and not a technical line drawing kind of look. Sometimes I see Merrill images that look like "electronic line drawings" or something. Can't quite explain it in words (obviously :eek:), but it's that "precise etching look" and a kind of crunchy look (digital aliasing of some sort.) It's kind of cool (and amazing) with all that micro-contrast but to my eyes they can sometimes look like something other than photographs (in the conventional sense.)

But yes, I too use film for my true "film look" :)
 
VertovSvilova said:
Ya, I think it's just simply personal preferences, etc..

Just for the record, what I mean when saying "more like film" is really more like a conventional photograph and not a technical line drawing kind of look. Sometimes I see Merrill images that look like "electronic line drawings" or something. Can't quite explain it in words (obviously :eek:), but it's that "precise etching look" and a kind of crunchy look (digital aliasing of some sort.) It's kind of cool (and amazing) with all that micro-contrast but to my eyes they can sometimes look like something other than photographs (in the conventional sense.)

But yes, I too use film for my true "film look" :)
Click to expand...

Yes...I know exactly what you mean and the Merrills can drift into that territory even without PP.
It`s just that I thought that particular shot didn`t fall into that category (to me).


16243611190_29748d9fda_c.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom