Ricoh My new (to me) 11-year-old Ricoh GRD iii

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Aug 27, 2013
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Miguel Tejada-Flores
A few more GRD3 shots squeezed off quickly, this afternoon, in an ongoing attempt to see what this little camera can - and can't - do. The first was taken out of doors, obviously --

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


-- and my PeeWee doll is clearly practicing his form of 'Social Distancing' ;)

The second was taken indoors, in close-up (Macro) mode, in a series of attempts to see if the tiny pop-up flash is usable. This original was a RAW negative, that I then converted to monochrome--

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


The flash itself is both strong and harsh and used for close-ups, results in extreme overexposure. This was taken with a tiny (and cleverly desgined) 'Puffer' diffuser (which clips into the hot-shoe) which initially was also overexposed until I monkeyed around and tried different modifications....until finding one that actually works 😊
 

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Aug 27, 2013
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Miguel Tejada-Flores
More discoveries about the little GRD--

1. It does high contrast B & W nicely:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


2. The digital negatives aren't the most detailed in the world, but the (lightly tweaked in Nik's Analog Efex) colours which this camera's CCD sensor produce, are both malleable and rich:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Aug 27, 2013
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Miguel Tejada-Flores
To my surprise, the tiny built-in GRD flash works well....once one figures out how to diffuse it.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


It would probably help, too, with flash-aided photography, to pick a slower (and thus finer-grained) ISO, instead of leaving it on Auto-ISO. But I think the graininess is part of the charm ;)
 

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Aug 27, 2013
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Miguel Tejada-Flores
A smaller-sensor camera tends to have more more graininess or noise than a lmore modern camera with a larger, more state-of-the-art sensor.
But I don't mind the effect sometimes.

And though I have no objective or scientific proof that CCD sensors occasionally create more interesting colours....sometimes it sure seems that way. It was true of my older Pentax K200d - and I think it also is of this Ricoh GRDiii.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Aug 27, 2013
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Miguel Tejada-Flores
When I bought this little GRD, I was hoping that the combination of its small sensor, with its closer-focusing lens, would let me do some of the kinds of semi-closeup-but-not-quite-macro shots that I used to be able to get, sometimes, with my former little Lumix LX7. And...it actually seems to be doing the trick ;)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Figuring out how to diffuse the built-in flash is an ongoing adventure, however....but I'm getting the hang of it.
 

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Aug 27, 2013
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Miguel Tejada-Flores
This was taken in the last waning daylight hours of a gray, rainy Oregon afternoon. The original was a digital negative (DNG), which I processed very lightly in Nik (ColorEfexPro4), mainly adjusting contrast---

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


That little CCD sensor really has its own way of interpreting colors - definitely different than the CMOS sensor on my old LX7.
 

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Aug 27, 2013
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Miguel Tejada-Flores
I processed the same original photograph taken with my little GRDiii in two different monochrome methods - and am trying to make up my mind which I prefer, and why. Both were processed in the standalone (non-subscription) version of Lightroom I use (LR6), and in each I used a different tool from the old (freeware) Nik processing suite of plug-ins.

This first was processed using the Analog Efex plug-in---

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


The second was processed using Silver Efex---

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I'm curious what other people think...?
 

rayvonn

Hall of Famer
Jan 19, 2015
I processed the same original photograph taken with my little GRDiii in two different monochrome methods - and am trying to make up my mind which I prefer, and why. Both were processed in the standalone (non-subscription) version of Lightroom I use (LR6), and in each I used a different tool from the old (freeware) Nik processing suite of plug-ins.

This first was processed using the Analog Efex plug-in---

View attachment 224036

The second was processed using Silver Efex---

View attachment 224037

I'm curious what other people think...?
What I learned about the GRII and prior models was that the mono files out of camera were fantastic but still fantastic after applying PP.
 

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Aug 27, 2013
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Miguel Tejada-Flores
I prefer the first one, mainly because it reminds me more of Ilford HP5 whereas the second has the brighter highlights of Tri-X, that's just a personal preference however.
That's a good analysis, Andrew - thank you.
I think I agree with you too - about preferring the first one - but possibly for a different reason. I processed the 2nd one with more contrast - more shadow detail - and more of what Lightroom calls 'clarity' - all of which creates a harsher and brighter look. The first one I intentionally left darker - with less detail, less bright highlights - and the darker look works better for me, at least on this particular picture.

I took a few other pictures in the same series, and this following one - which I processed for color, using a VSCO plugin which tries to simulate the look of a higher ISO Portra color negative, with push-processing - has a totally different look and feel: it's simultaneously more exaggerated and also a little bit theatrical, an effect which, given the admittedly slightly theatrical nature of the composition, seemed to work--

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I know that a great many professional photographers who shoot hundreds and thousands of images on a daily and weekly basis, often settle on certain kinds of batch processing simply because to do otherwise would be insanely time-consuming. With my own photography, it's limited enough so that I try to find the right solution for each image. Which sounds almost like I'm organized and know what I'm doing - but the truth is, more than half the time, it's hit-and-miss experimentation. Sigh.
 

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Aug 27, 2013
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Miguel Tejada-Flores
What I learned about the GRII and prior models was that the mono files out of camera were fantastic but still fantastic after applying PP.
I totally agree with you about some of the in-camera effects - mono as well as 'positive film' - from my GRii. They are fantastic starting points. With the GRDiii, it's not quite as simple for me - although some of my favorite photographers have used the GRD's in-camera hi-contrast B&W mode with brilliant results, I still haven't gotten the hang of it yet - so most of what I've been doing with it has been starting with a RAW negative. But it's a process.... :)
 

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Aug 27, 2013
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Miguel Tejada-Flores
This shot began life as a DNG - digital RAW negative - and was surprisingly (and disappointingly, to me, at least) flat - much flatter than what I had in the back of my mind at the moment I pressed the shutter.

But one of Erik Kim's 'chroma' Lightroom presets, which he generously made available for free, some years ago, gave my image some of the life - and the harshness of almost blindingly bright summer colors - that I was hoping for.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

donlaw

Hall of Famer
Sep 14, 2012
Texas
Don
I processed the same original photograph taken with my little GRDiii in two different monochrome methods - and am trying to make up my mind which I prefer, and why. Both were processed in the standalone (non-subscription) version of Lightroom I use (LR6), and in each I used a different tool from the old (freeware) Nik processing suite of plug-ins.

This first was processed using the Analog Efex plug-in---

View attachment 224036

The second was processed using Silver Efex---

View attachment 224037

I'm curious what other people think...?
I prefer the second one. Primarily because there is less vignetting.
 

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Aug 27, 2013
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Miguel Tejada-Flores
Two colour shots, using the in-camera color jpeg setting.

The first, a detail behind a Taquería whose owner has a set of fine wheels--

GRDiii_May29_Aiberto's_Cadillac.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


The second, your standard industrial urban landscape--

GRDiii_May29_Millersburg_Oregon.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I can't help thinking, again, that there may be something to the old semi-superstitious concept that old-school CCD sensors....have a special way of doing color. Or maybe the Ricoh engineers got lucky with the color-pixie-dust ;)
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom