http://kristalmynd.weebly.com/

all the Vogue pictures abover hurt my eye. Discussing the same topic over the last 5 years my current state of recognition is, there is a large group who have a different vision from X3F picture lovers. They focus more on resolution, while we focus on lively rendering, color richness, and consistent reproduction throughout the image.

I have seen several really beautiful beauty/fashion shots from Bayer cameras. From enthusiasts w/o name. Or that of famous photographers which are well known. All professionals care more for effects (or repeating the look which was fashion the last few years), they don’t care about knowing a model in and out, waiting for the chance to document what they love most about the model. It is a one-day creation. The result after damaging all life by heavy postprocessing let the picture look like a 2 hours effort.

As I am very sure you don’t know what I am talking about, I try to explain. The front cover of Vogue is a dream of a pro to place his picture. As it is hard you can expect only the best of the best has a chance, isn’t it? Instead, the picture you show lacks massively on anything, attractiveness of the model, she looks as she hasn’t slept for days, for a professional model she looks to static in an edged position, Vogues red letters dictated the oversaturated red costume and lipstick, the combination of her clothes is much beyond good taste and definitely not useful as a cult fashion. Color temperature of foreground different from background, choice of background dreadful, exposure foreground noticeably unnatural as too bright etc. This kind of shoot profits much from black-red-white contrast, therefore it proofed best model is a black haired pale. Probably that model is not pale enough, however, the skin color which became Bayer-typic reddish/orange, as many X3F lovers complain.

Take a picture with a Sigma camera, and you will realise, everybody has a different skin color and color pattern. Maybe you have never have seen this in Bayer photos, and maybe you think this is a disadvantage. I thought so too. When checking the reality I realised, it is the truth. And I know, women love the gaussian filter and the glare around, as they hate themselves for not being beautiful enough. I much prefer a natural look…

As you mentioned, no famous photographers with Sigma gear, there are very good ones which compare favourably with the best, IMHO.
Steve Chong http://www.stevechong.com/
Felix Wesch http://www.felixwesch.de/
Georges Noblet http://www.pbase.com/ianvermeer
Marcel de Jong http://www.pbase.com/mdejong
and, of course, Carl Rytterfalk! :)

There are a lot of limitations which make Sigma cameras less attractive to others, as lack of availability, responsiveness, battery life, AF accuracy, low light capability…, the list tends to become longer as the competition becomes better at a higher speed, and no lobby or advertisement. For some type of photography Sigma cameras are last choice, e.g. sport photography and photography indoors under very bad light conditions.

Kristoffer: Hi Carl!This is a wonderful read. Kristoffer here from Manila, Philippines.I am planning to upgrade to Nikon D90 (from lower Nikon species haha). After your reading your article, I am now considering a Sigma SD15 instead. ;)…

Hi Kristoffer, people has already answered you some but I better say something too. I will have a SD15 review sometime not to far from now and at that point I can tell you more about SD15 and noise. DP2 handles noise much better than SD14 / DP1 but it’s still true that when it comes to bad lit situations I’m pretty sure D90 will be a better choice.

Time will tell. :)

Kristoffer, from what i found, Sigma cameras won’t help you with the noise, they’re worse. it’s a bad idea to spend more such as buying faster lens or a new camera since the improvement is not much.

best way to proceed is noise reduction through software either in Photoshop or software than can be found on the internet.

by the way, the SD15 has not come out yet but I hope the all best for it since I am not really a fan of huge megapixel cameras since 3 megapixels.

This is a wonderful read. Kristoffer here from Manila, Philippines.

I am planning to upgrade to Nikon D90 (from lower Nikon species haha). After your reading your article, I am now considering a Sigma SD15 instead. ;) While Sigma SD15 uses a ‘high-end’ technology to enhance the colors, does it translate to a better noise reduction system (vis-a-vis Nikon D90)?

The reason I am planning to upgrade is my current DSLR has poor noise-reduction. I attended the country’s biggest festival (with dancing and stuff, held at night) and ended up extremely upset because majority of the pics were noisy. Hope to receive your response soon: taguro89@gmail.com

Kris
aliwan fest.htm

If the Canon and Nikon gear is good enough for top photographers to shoot Vogue Covers it’s good enough for me and none of my clients ever complained about plastic looks.

Here’s a Vogue cover shot by Inez van Lamsweerde and vinoodh Matadin, I was actually in the parc during the shoot and it was done with Canon 5D MK IIs.

Other photographers who work with that gear are Annie Leibovitz, Serge Leblon, and one of sweden’s top stars, Mikael Jansson. I mean these people are heavy hitters, they charge up from (yes, UP from) 50 K a day on commercial assignments, how would these price tags be sustainable if the files delivered by these cameras are so fundamentally flawed?

My point being: there’s a long way to go before you can blame the camera and the technology for not delivering inspirational material. These people obviously prove that it is possible. After that it’s a question of personal preference and taste, and yes I’ll probably buy a SD15 to take on week-end trips and holidays because I agree that the out of the camera results are beautifull and inspirational, if only there was more resolution it would even be a option on professional assignments.

Bests,
M

Shot with Canon:

I´d love to meet You on Dpreview.com Sigma forums.Great shots.