Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Why I actually LIKE SPP...

  1. #1
    Senior Member peterb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Tysons Corner, Virginia
    Posts
    490
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    18

    Why I actually LIKE SPP...

    I know Sigma's Foveon Raw file processing software has its issues. It's slow. And on some OS platforms it can be a bit buggy. Me? I actually have gotten used to the tonal controls, white balance (which is quite good by the way), noise reduction, contrast and shadow controls etc. and find them to be effective. So much so that I open the Tiffs in LR and aside from cropping followed by a little tweak with the exposure along with a 'paste-able' clarity and vibrance setting I use, it's pretty much ready to be converted to jpg for printing.

    But the thing I like most...is the moment during the 'development' when the RAW X3F file suddenly 'materializes' right before your eyes revealing all its the Foveon '3D' magic and razor edged sharpness.

    I simply never get tired of it. In fact, for me, it's like the first time I saw a black and white image emerge in a developing tray. Every time.
    Life is an infinite series of moments called..."now".
    My job is to capture them.
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    35
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I actually LIKE SPP...

    One thing I dislike is the inability to select more than one file in SPP. My normal practice would be to open the contents of the card in the computer, select groups of files and then move to the folders I had created. I cannot find any combination of keys that will multiple select in SPP. Of course I can open the folder in SPP, make a note of the file numbers and then do it windows (which of course cannot create a thumbnail).
    Lack of a crop tool is also irritating.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    415
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I actually LIKE SPP...

    Quote Originally Posted by peterb View Post
    ...and razor edged sharpness...
    Do you let the sharpness at 0.0 or do you set it to -0.2?

    IMO at 0.0 SPP sharpens, upsizing TIFFs in PS I noticed sharpening artifacts.

    Regards

    Martin

  4. #4
    Senior Member peterb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Tysons Corner, Virginia
    Posts
    490
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    18

    Re: Why I actually LIKE SPP...

    Hi Martin,

    I generally keep the sharpness at 0.0 and have had fairly good results with TiFFs imported into LR. (For female portraits, however, I do dial it down to -1.0 or -2.0 so there's no complaints about TOO much detail!)

    On occasion, though, I've actually dialed it up to +0.5 with good results too.

    P

    @ Nigel, I agree the singularity of file selection is a bother as well as the inability to maintain NR settings from shot to shot. The software isn't perfect, for sure. But I've gotten to like it for what it does to X3F files which until LR comes out with some code for dealing with it, remains the only game in town.

    P
    Life is an infinite series of moments called..."now".
    My job is to capture them.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I actually LIKE SPP...

    peterb, I agree I have gotten very use to the workflow of SSP but I too would like the changes you mentioned.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Devon (UK)/Ardeche( France)/Mumbai India
    Posts
    20
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I actually LIKE SPP...

    Aside from the speed, I have very few issues with this software, I have sharpness set to minus 0.4 and occasionally mess with the white balance but for me, like Peter, that moment when the full glory of the file is revealed for the first time is utter magic.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I actually LIKE SPP...

    Peter,

    I am glad you started this post. I asked about SSP in another thread here - http://www.getdpi.com/forum/image-pr...80-300dpi.html and got no response.

    My question is as follows...

    "If the final destination of a Foveon image is a Fuji mini lab 8 x 10 or other size, should the image be resampled for 300dpi for best output?

    SPP saves as 180dpi and I can understand this from the viewpoint of large format inkjet printing.

    I know many of the RIPs employed on photoimagers would deal with the image so is it just best left at its "native" res as saved by SSP? I can import to other packages via tiff to resample with no loss of course.

    On the subject of Fuji minilabs should we send a tiff or will a HQ jpg be just as good. My thoughts is there is no need for the extra colour space.

    Thoughts? "


    I'd also like to see SPP include a free rotate tool and a crop tool and I'd probably be able to manage with just SPP for my Sigmas.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Tim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Adelaide, SA
    Posts
    1,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I actually LIKE SPP...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim View Post
    "If the final destination of a Foveon image is a Fuji mini lab 8 x 10 or other size, should the image be resampled for 300dpi for best output? SPP saves as 180dpi and I can understand this from the viewpoint of large format inkjet printing.

    I know many of the RIPs employed on photoimagers would deal with the image so is it just best left at its "native" res as saved by SSP? I can import to other packages via tiff to resample with no loss of course.

    On the subject of Fuji minilabs should we send a tiff or will a HQ jpg be just as good. My thoughts is there is no need for the extra colour space.

    Thoughts? "
    I've posted this question 3 times in three separate threads - this one, Image Processing and Printing & Output, due to zero response in all cases I am going to assume absolutely no-one knows the answer or has any opinion.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    83
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I actually LIKE SPP...

    Tim,

    SPP saves the image with the number of pixels---don't worry about the dpi setting in the file. It's meaningless. If you're concerned about the printing---pick your size and send two files---one uprezzed with your favorite software, and the other as the native file. See if you can tell a difference. These things can be so individual to the printer and the workflow to get it there that you're better off just doing the experiment.

    At 8x10 for a minilab, I doubt you'll gain anything by extra resampling. Unless you mean 8 x 10 feet...

    Jim

    As an FYI, I print from my SD15 typically at 12x18 (on an HP designjet). I have seen no advantage to unrezzing to that printer and can stick my nose right in the print and see no jaggies.
    Last edited by Kofronj; 26th August 2013 at 12:16. Reason: additional info

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •