Physical Photographs

I enjoyed another visit from a TOP reader a few evenings ago—Frank Sauer, of Princeton, New Jersey, same vintage as me more or less, a German-born American who still speaks with an accent and happened by chance to end up with a German company when, in the U.S., he switched jobs from Bell Labs to Siemens. Frank was nearby attending a conference on blockchain technology in Ithaca and brought some prints to Thai Elephants in Watkins Glen for me to see.

Frank Sauer

Ah, prints. I love looking at prints. I miss looking at prints. Most pictures exist only on screens, and that's as it should be—but that makes physical photographs more pleasing, not less. (In the same way, most music exists as digital files, and that's as it should be, but that makes vinyl records more pleasing, not less. Books, ditto.)

I really like physical pictures, but especially when they're as nicely made as Frank's. He's done two extensive projects recently, one of his backyard, and one of a nature preserve near where he lives, and he showed me three groups of prints: small, unmounted flower pictures (excellent), and two groups of large prints made on 17x22" paper, expertly matted: one group of B&W and one of color. These were superb.

He uses the little Sigma Merrill cameras for their image quality. As you might have heard me opine before, I think Sigma Foveon-sensor cameras offer the best image quality in digital. Various forum squatters will bloviate with impressive windiness as to why that cannot be true. Here's what they are: wrong.

Okay, I'm being provocative, tweaking peoples' tails. But I'll just say that I like Foveon-sensor 17x22 prints at least as well as Fuji GFX-50S 17x22 prints (not that there's anything wrong with those either). It's just that the Sigmas are about nine times worse as cameras—they're a pain in the katushka to use, and the software is slow and harder to master. If I wanted to make physical photographs, and I was a good enough technician to handle the challenge of using the camera and the necessary software—I'm not—I tried—then I'd get a Foveon-sensor camera and master it. It's not like they're expensive. But it was too much for me. I'm just not that devoted. Nice to know there are people out there, like Frank, who are.

The even better one

I'm not actually being provocative now. All just all plain true.

Frank and I parted early because I had a meeting to get to, and I encouraged him to hit Watkins Glen (the gorge, not the town) as long as he was in Watkins Glen (the town). He wrote later: "I followed your recommendation and went to the Watkins Glen gorge after our dinner, Mike. It is a magical place! I spent two and a half hours there, and only came back to the car at 9 p.m. when it started to get dark."

Frank's prints are beautiful, and were a joy to see. Thai Elephants is not bad, either. I had never been there before.

And I just remembered that I forgot to tell you about another very interesting reader who stopped by, who I met in Corning a while back. Gaaagh! Mistake. I must rectify that soon. He was going to clean up his website before I wrote about him and linked to it and then I left it slip. Sorry, Kyle. (As I sometimes say now, these days I can keep nine plates spinning, but it used to be 19.) More anon.

Mike
(Thanks to Frank)

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

David L.: "I recently started making 11x17 and 8x10 prints at home. What an eye opener, wow. After learning to use LR's split toning my B&W prints are beautiful. Color prints are also as exciting. Prints have a gravitas that not even my iMac 27-inch Retina screen can match."

Edward Taylor: "I agree with you completely about Foveon sensors. Perhaps someday Sony or another huge company will buy the rights and go to town."

MikeR: "Having coveted a camera with the Foveon sensor, like, forever, this year I bought a Sigma SD14 DSLR on eBay for real cheap. I sought that model, because it's the last one in the series that Lightroom can work with. It's everything you say it is. Nice film-like images, and a horrendous pain to use. Hence, no pictures yet. I place it in the view camera class of fiddlyness."

Ilkka: "I have two Sigma Foveon cameras and I agree with (almost) all you said. I also have two 4x5s. Yes, the Sigmas are slow and frustrating. But they are much faster to use than either of my 4x5s. They may be more frustrating, but for sure they are smaller, lighter, and faster. Than 4x5."

Arg: "I have had the Sigma Quattro dp0 ultra-wide fixed lens camera for going on three years now. They are indeed enigmatic. I thought I would mention, Mike, that one of the barriers to your adoption of the cameras, the eye-rolling software, can easily be circumnavigated with the Quattro models ever since early 2017, when a firmware upgrade provided the option of shooting direct to DNG files that are Lightroom-compatible. Needless to say, this has only opened another debating point within the Sigma communities, but I would be comfortably confident that it would also produce the print quality that you admire. As well as the option of colour-profiling one's own camera with a Macbeth colour card and Colorchecker software."

Mike asks: So can LR work with Sigma files or not? In the Comments so far, some (like Arg) say yes, some (like MikeR) say no.

TC: "My first attempt at a large-ish sensor compact was the original Sigma DP1. At low ISO the files were (and remain, even today) stellar. At mid- to high-ISO, it was unusable. The camera was maddeningly slow and difficult to use, not to mention the software. I had to get rid of it just to get my blood pressure normal again. But every so often I go back and look at the shots I did manage to get with that little monster gem of a camera, and sigh."

Frank Sauer: "Thank you for your nice words, Mike. I very much enjoyed our meeting. Here is a (yet to be processed) photo from the Watkins Glen gorge:

"Credit goes to your gorge recommendation. The Watkins Glen gorge is truly a spectacular place."

Michael Matthews: "I prefer prints, but am not exactly accomplished at making them. There’s plenty of beauty to be found in digital images as well, as some of the photos in the Garden Variety gallery at franksauer.smugmug.com make perfectly clear."

Al C.: "I second your statement re the Sigma Merrills. The only Bayer cam I've used which comes close is the Leica Q (I have not used any with larger sensor). I disagree with your comment that they are a pain in the katuschka to use. I would put it thus: in the right light conditions, they are quite easy to use; outside their ridiculously narrow operating envelop, they are impossible to use, and should not be used.

"Post-processing with Sigma Photo Pro (SPP) is not as bad as its reputation, in my opinion. It is slow, yes. But then I tend to be selective, and only process the few I deem worthy. And when the processed image emerges, it still takes my breath away."

Comments

[Jim Arthur]

Your mention of prints reminded me that I need to go see the current Etherton Gallery Summer Show which runs through August 31st. Their site has a nice slideshow of all the images in the show.

From the Archive: Masters of 20th Century American Photography

[Freddy S]

I think the main reason why the Sigma compact cameras are so good are the lenses! I wish they still made e.g. the 40mm equiv lens of the classic DP2, they just have that bit of magic:

See, e.g. this Sigma DP2 gallery here on flickr:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/-fs-/galleries/72157691932333240/

[Stephen Scharf]

Thanks for this post, Mike. I really like seeing who drops by TOP World Headquarters. Shows the engagement you have by the vibrant and active TOP community.

I really like prints a lot as well; its all about the print for me. There's the "tangibility" they provide that provides a lasting touchstone to the photographs we take. Would we know of Vivien Maier today if it were not for the discovery of her prints? Plus, there's just the intrinsic pleasure of viewing a physical print on paper that cannot be replicated by computer displays.

Speaking of prints, I sent you a set of 17X22" physical prints some time ago; last fall. Twice actually. And, from a Fujifilm GFX50S, no less. I would welcome your thoughts about them some time on any level, especially as it relates to prints from a medium-format camera: content, tonality, technical, whatever qualities or points you might like to discuss; and perhaps with even more added-value by way of contrast/context with the Foveon prints.

Best, Stephen

[Aaron C Greenman]

Mike,

The latest Foveon SD Quattro cameras will shoot standard DNG raw files and can be opened and processed in Lightroom - so no longer necessary to use Sigma’s software.

Best Regards,

ACG

[Daniel]

The older Sigma DP3 Merrill cameras still produce images that are excellent. Small, clunky and slow with battery life that is not great. Carry extra batteries and have fun photographing.
The image quality is worth it.

[David Boyce]

I tried a one of the early Foveon sensor cameras a few years back. A DP 1 from memory. I got one trully wonderful image out of it, but boy did I have to work at it. That one image makes me want to try a Foveon camera again each time I look at it. But the time involved ...

One day.

[Brian Stewart]

Whatever happened to your adventures in inkjet printing that started close to two years ago, Mike? A well-crafted print is a beautiful thing.

[I tend to fixate on the cost of materials, paper and especially ink. This is a psychological problem, like my irrational fear of dentists (I sometimes cannot talk myself into keeping appointments), but knowing that doesn't make it less difficult to deal with. --Mike]

[Frank]

These days, the cameras do have the DNG format option to save your Raws in, and open them in a decent raw software converter.
DR is not very good with the Quattro sensor.

[Jack Stivers]

RE your response to Brian Stewart, I, too, get fixated on ink & paper costs. A set of 12 "tanks" for my Canon Pro 1 costs $350.

Given I only paid $450 (via a 1-day special deal @ B&H a few years ago) for the printer, I can't bring myself to nearly double that cost by buying a full set of tanks.

The tanks included with the printer ran dry long before I was near being proficient with the printer.

So all 70 pounds of the great hulking howitzer, err Canon, sits on a table in my office like a huge, black paperweight gathering dust and mocking me.

[Mike Plews]

Handing someone a print vs showing them your phone, no contest.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

Re: Prints. I could not agree with you more. An unprinted image is an image almost certainly headed for oblivion. Most of my photographic efforts since last November have been devoted to making reference/proof prints of a large, long-term project. It’s been a challenging effort but it’s a wonderfully satisfying feeling of closure to have a box of those prints finished. Ahhh.

Re: Sigma. Ugh. Two or three times each year for the past few years I take my set of Sigma DP Merrill cameras (Huey, Dewy and Louie) out for casual walks in the thick, wooly city. Every such session has produced at least one image that I’ve considered among my best.

So last year, on a lark, I decided to try upping my Sigma game by buying that Quattro H and a couple of lenses for it. Ugh. So far, no good. It really is a beast. Whereas the DP Merrills are just slow, battery-sucking beasts the Quattro is a slow, battery-sucking, heavy, ungainly, and nearly unusable beast. (And, yes, the Quattro can write DNG files...but not the DPs - to my knowledge.). I never imagined any camera could make the DP Merrills seem like more fun...but the Quattro do. If you’re thinking of trying that Quattro...get a different thought.

[Gaspar Heurtley]

I’ve never used a Sigma digital camera (fixed lens or DSLR), but I’m curious about why it’s such a pain to shoot with them.

To overcome the software compatibility issue can be cumbersome, I get it, but I don’t really understand why people keep complaining about ease of ise with the cameras.

I passionately hate Sony and Nikon user interface, but I could shoot with them if I had to, anyone could. Are Sigma cameras really that mucho harder to use than any other camera brands.

[Henning Wulff]

Regarding Frank's accent, the New York Times recently had an article that is, in my opinion, right on: https://goo.gl/tSsRiv.

As for prints and printing, I think I'm largely held back from making prints for the same reasons you are, Mike. But I always go to dentist appointments.

[Arg]

Just to answer your question about Lightroom and "Sigma files", read here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-sd-quattro-h/5. The comments DPR make about DNG and the sd Quattro H also apply to all Quattro models (all current models) via a firmware update released in early 2017. You cannot do it with any older models e.g. Merrill, SD15, etc.

You still have to use Sigma's own software for the proprietary X3F raw files, but if you set the camera to produce DNG files instead of X3F, then most raw converters can read them.

[Jim]

DP2M masterrace checking in. The Merrill cameras are still better than any of the quattro ones. They do still require the sigma software, but it is bearable. There is also irident if need be.

Don't sell yourself short, you could handle using these fulltime. Just approach it with an open mind and don't bring any pre-conceived baggage with you.

And the gorge at the Glen is a superbly cool place, no doubt,

[Jack Stivers]

Prints are, to me, the logical, natural and necessary end result of most photographic images. However, I cut my photographic teeth way back in the film era when prints were nearly always necessary to show your images.

The digital generation is likely much more comfortable with seeing images on a glowing screen. That may be, in part, because they've not looked at enough good prints.

Which is a shame.

Maybe I'm romanticizing it a bit, but I feel drawn into a printed image, especially with large prints. That never happens in the glowing-screen images. (Maybe because I've not seen any on really nice, large monitors.)

Another factor for me to favor prints is that a print fixes the image so that most people see nearly the same image. The glowing-screen image can vary from screen to screen, creating many variations of the image.

To the extent that the glowing-screen image can travel to the viewer and the printed image usually requires the opposite, the convenience factor makes the former so much more convenient and practical. Regardless, I'd recommend taking every opportunity to see good prints.

[Jim Kofron]

I've been using the Sigma/Foveon combination for over a decade(?), starting with the SD10. The current version of the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (sd quattro and sd quattro H) are pretty nice to shoot. Certainly easier than a view camera. As files have gotten bigger, the software does struggle. As others mention, there's a dng format.

I love the images, I can't help myself---and I find the slower working suits my style. I just got my daughter her first mirrorless 'real' camera for her birthday (24th). It's a Panny GX8. I'm a good dad-I don't necessarily foist my oddities on my kids. I have no idea how I ended up with the Panny, however...

And Mike, she'll be over for some shooting instructions... :-)

Jim

[Fred Hoefler]

Thank you for the post Mike. As a dedicated user of Foveon equipped cameras I too have received my share of "when you get serious, you will start using a Canikon". Thing is, I do use a Canon and Fuji for many of my everyday shots. But when the color has to be absolutely right, like product shots or artwork duplication/presentation, I set up the SD Q H. I started with a SD-15 that was frustratingly hard to get images with acceptable noise levels, but outperformed color-wise, my Canon with 4x the pixel count. The SD Quattro H is light years ahead of the SD-15 and, in SFD mode, gives me images rivaling those of my MF film days. Yes, Sigma cameras are a learning experience, but well worth the effort. Keep up the good work.
Best Regards, Fred Hoefler (www.photographic-perspectives.com)

[Antony Shepherd]

I have an original DP1, which I'd not used for a while but earlier this year I took it out, charged both batteries, and went out shooting with it. Still like the results, but it is very much a base-ISO static subject camera and far from a good all-rounder.
That said, the picture of the SD Quattro reminds me I've been very close to picking one up ever since I read that you can convert it to infra-red and back with no tools more complex than tweezers to pop out the IR cut filter in the lens mouth.

[Jamie Pillers]

I've been using the SD Quattro H camera for a few months now and love it. I almost always use a tripod so that I can keep ISO at base 100. And since the SD Quattro bodies provide DNG output option, I can skip using the difficult Sigma software and instead process using Lightroom. I find the camera simple to use, but slower than other modern digital cameras. Using it feels much like when I was using my old Mamiya RB67. Fun!