FP vs DP Quattro

Whitten said:
Why using SPP? It's such a slow, clunky programme. The quality of the images I get from the FP has never been an issue for me, using Capture One. What benefits does SPP bring?
Click to expand...
I don't use Capture One but I do use LightRoom. I find processing the fp raw files in SPP to create a tif which is then worked on in LightRoom makes for a very different and better image than just processing the raw file in LightRoom. SPP is Sigma's own programme and I'm sure they have added some secret sauce to the images. It's a pretty hopeless programme for doing anything other than the initial conversion. I really only use the exposure, noise, sharpness and fill light functions for both the fp and Foveon files.
 
Whitten said:
Why using SPP? It's such a slow, clunky programme. The quality of the images I get from the FP has never been an issue for me, using Capture One. What benefits does SPP bring?
Click to expand...
furtle said:
I don't use Capture One but I do use LightRoom. I find processing the fp raw files in SPP to create a tif which is then worked on in LightRoom makes for a very different and better image than just processing the raw file in LightRoom. SPP is Sigma's own programme and I'm sure they have added some secret sauce to the images. It's a pretty hopeless programme for doing anything other than the initial conversion. **I really only use the exposure, noise, sharpness and fill light functions** for both the fp and Foveon files.
Click to expand...

I too prefer SPP (5.5.3) for serious work; thence via PhotoPro 16-bit TIFF to a serious editor (anything but Adobe (n)) RawTherapee - or the GIMP if I need layers and masks and stuff.

SPP is fast enough on my Win 7 4-core Dell - and SPP provides **original genuine Foveon conversion parameters,** as opposed to guesswork by others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top