Ricoh The Ricoh GR III Image Thread (Showcase)

agentlossing

Top Veteran
Location
S. Oregon Coast (the Northernmost-Cal of them All)
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
If you don't mind my curiosity, Andrew -- what exactly were or are the tweaks that you did or do, in achieving this particular hi-contrast B&W look? I know your GRiii has a significantly updated processing 'engine' than my GRii, but I'm wondering if I can borrow or steal any of your specific 'settings' or tweaks, and apply them to the GR II?

Inside the GR II menu, under the Hi-Contrast B&W 'effect' - there are only 3 variable settings:
Contrast - which only offers 3 choices: Max, -1, or -2
Sharpness - with an adjustable scale from 1 to 9
Vignetting - with 4 choices: Off, Weak, Medium, Strong

In my ongoing experiments with the GRII, the Max contrast setting is almost too insanely extreme, so either the -1 or -2 seem stronger to me. With regards to sharpness, I'm clueless though my tendency is to not oversharpen inside the camera but where necessary to use the Topaz AI sharpening plugin which Ctein raved about some time ago on TheOnlinePhotographer site. And I haven't tried the vignetting setting at all.

So---are there any parallels or useful tips from your iii that I can beg, borrow or steal for me ii? ;)
It's a bit of a good news/bad news situation, with the bad news being that the GRII has a lot fewer parameters for setting JPEGs. I'll show my settings below. The good news is that I feel like the GRII's hi-contrast settings out of the box are better than the GRIII's, they just have a level of punch that looks really great. It took me some experimentation to find my feet with the new model's hi-contrast setting.

IMG_20200510_155737.jpg


The settings were almost the same for both images, though when making JPEGs from RAW I find myself adjusting the exposure up or down as necessary. The info setting on playback shows every conversion setting I used, which is brilliant, just another of the fine touches Ricoh put into the camera and has been invaluable to me after sending the camera in for servicing and finding that all my preferred JPEG settings were reset.

Starting with the top-leftmost JPEG setting next to the HI-BW setting icon, I've got hi/low key=0, contrast=+3, highlight contrast=-2, shadow contrast=-1, sharpness=-1, toning=0 (this adds a color tint to images, I never use it), shading=-2 (vignette), clarity=-3, grain=+1 (low). Then underneath is the color filter, which is the user customizable option with color values tweaked to my liking (imitating the GRII to the best of my ability actually, based solely on eyeballing the results).

So not too much of this translates to the GRII unfortunately, but, like I said, the GRII comes with a pretty well-tuned look to begin with. I'd turn sharpness down, and give it a little bit of extra vignetting (also, turn off the shading compensation which is intended to offset the natural vignette of the lens, but which results in some weird artifacting if you push a RAW file too hard).

Early on, I gave my files extra sharpening, but when I thought about it, if you want the look to be more authentically pushed-film-like, you don't really want a lot of sharpness. Also, if you have a tool like Nik, I know Silver Efex has filters which let you set the individual color channels much like the GRIII does, so if you take a RAW file (or color JPEG at least) and do a conversion with Nik you should be able to replicate the color sensitivities I used in-camera.
 

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Location
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Real Name
Miguel Tejada-Flores
It's a bit of a good news/bad news situation, with the bad news being that the GRII has a lot fewer parameters for setting JPEGs. I'll show my settings below. The good news is that I feel like the GRII's hi-contrast settings out of the box are better than the GRIII's, they just have a level of punch that looks really great. It took me some experimentation to find my feet with the new model's hi-contrast setting.

View attachment 222692

The settings were almost the same for both images, though when making JPEGs from RAW I find myself adjusting the exposure up or down as necessary. The info setting on playback shows every conversion setting I used, which is brilliant, just another of the fine touches Ricoh put into the camera and has been invaluable to me after sending the camera in for servicing and finding that all my preferred JPEG settings were reset.

Starting with the top-leftmost JPEG setting next to the HI-BW setting icon, I've got hi/low key=0, contrast=+3, highlight contrast=-2, shadow contrast=-1, sharpness=-1, toning=0 (this adds a color tint to images, I never use it), shading=-2 (vignette), clarity=-3, grain=+1 (low). Then underneath is the color filter, which is the user customizable option with color values tweaked to my liking (imitating the GRII to the best of my ability actually, based solely on eyeballing the results).

So not too much of this translates to the GRII unfortunately, but, like I said, the GRII comes with a pretty well-tuned look to begin with. I'd turn sharpness down, and give it a little bit of extra vignetting (also, turn off the shading compensation which is intended to offset the natural vignette of the lens, but which results in some weird artifacting if you push a RAW file too hard).

Early on, I gave my files extra sharpening, but when I thought about it, if you want the look to be more authentically pushed-film-like, you don't really want a lot of sharpness. Also, if you have a tool like Nik, I know Silver Efex has filters which let you set the individual color channels much like the GRIII does, so if you take a RAW file (or color JPEG at least) and do a conversion with Nik you should be able to replicate the color sensitivities I used in-camera.

Thanks for the very detailed answers, Andrew.
Food for thought... 🤓
 

sh0wtime

Veteran
Location
Surrey/Hants border UK
Real Name
Adam.
I really like the images i have seen from the GR series of cameras.
I just can't help thinking i would find the fixed lens a bit restrictive.
Last week when i was out i used the 24mm wide equivalent of the LX5 quite a lot, whren i used the Digilux 2 the 28mm wide end just wasn't quite wide enough in most cases. I know i would get used to it & as with anything you shoot to your equipments strengths.
It's a case of "ooh i kinda want one of those" where in reality i don't need another camera at all :whistling: :doh:
 

agentlossing

Top Veteran
Location
S. Oregon Coast (the Northernmost-Cal of them All)
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
I'm loving that, it's very much like the Dynamic B&W mode on the LX :2thumbs:
Yeah, I don't use it super often, but whenever I do I'm reminded that it's a great option. Plus having conversion parameters like highlight and shadow contrast, grain and clarity really allows one control over the structure of the image in camera.
 
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Matt
How do you find the lens compared to the GRII Matt?
Tricky question because I think the GR (I had the original) as well as the GR III mate great lenses to their respective sensors in very compelling ways. In my opinion, the GR III's lens is less spectacular than the GR's original lens at first sight - but even better in absolute terms. It renders a tad less boldly, but it's sharper and gives you smoother transitions with better bokeh, something that's actually important because it really shines at close range. That said, I think the GR's lens was unique - in-your-face, if you will, but still very, very good overall. The GR III's lens is more mainstream, more neutral, better behaved, but still insanely sharp and very contrasty - punchy, though a bit less so than its predecessor. I guess street shooters might(!) prefer the GR/GR II, but if you're after pure quality, the GR III is the better bet.

M.
 

rayvonn

Hall of Famer
Tricky question because I think the GR (I had the original) as well as the GR III mate great lenses to their respective sensors in very compelling ways. In my opinion, the GR III's lens is less spectacular than the GR's original lens at first sight - but even better in absolute terms. It renders a tad less boldly, but it's sharper and gives you smoother transitions with better bokeh, something that's actually important because it really shines at close range. That said, I think the GR's lens was unique - in-your-face, if you will, but still very, very good overall. The GR III's lens is more mainstream, more neutral, better behaved, but still insanely sharp and very contrasty - punchy, though a bit less so than its predecessor. I guess street shooters might(!) prefer the GR/GR II, but if you're after pure quality, the GR III is the better bet.

M.
Excellent description, the question was a bit tricky. The "cult" status of these cameras means the prices of the older models remain high so there's no chance of me getting a GR II atm.
 

agentlossing

Top Veteran
Location
S. Oregon Coast (the Northernmost-Cal of them All)
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
I do think the different MP count of the new sensor has a large part to play in the perceived qualities of the lens, too. The "bite" that added so much to the GR/II files might be present but appear more smoothed out by the added resolution. You can certainly still get the GRIII lens to cut like a knife, it's just more of a choice now.
 
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Matt
I do think the different MP count of the new sensor has a large part to play in the perceived qualities of the lens, too. The "bite" that added so much to the GR/II files might be present but appear more smoothed out by the added resolution. You can certainly still get the GRIII lens to cut like a knife, it's just more of a choice now.
That'll be part of the equation, hence my statement that the lens/sensor combo played probably as big a part in this as the lens alone. That said, the default look from the GR III seems more refined - you would have to "rough it up" to "go back" to the look of the GR/GR II. I personally like the look I got from the GR a lot; I may not have said it before, but I actually do regret selling on that camera. Even though the GR III is the much more versatile tool, I got along with the original APS-C model a lot better. My bad - and this certainly doesn't take away from the fact that the III has loads more to offer than the GR.

Take all this with a grain of salt: At times, I prefer shooting the M8 over the M10. The M10 is *miles* ahead in all respects - but the M8 has a charme the much more competent M10 simply can't match; maybe it's the fact that such a limited machine delivers such beautiful files ... The same is kind of true for the GR - to a much lesser degree, of course, because the original (APS-C) model was already so good ...

M.
 

NoSeconds

All-Pro
Real Name
Troy
Excellent description, the question was a bit tricky. The "cult" status of these cameras means the prices of the older models remain high so there's no chance of me getting a GR II atm.

I’ve seen a few come up recently for around the $600 mark...



This one just now...

 
Last edited:

Latest threads

Top Bottom