Ricoh The Ricoh GR image thread

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Location
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Real Name
Miguel Tejada-Flores
I've been using my GR II for this month's (July 2020) Single-in-July Challenge - and technically the following photo might be considered one of my 'outtakes' from today's (July 6) posting in that challenge - but I'm putting it here instead. My subject today was a battered old (1987) Isuzu Trooper vehicle, and my SiJ entry was a close-up of the tiny Super-Hero-Hood-Ornament which its proud owner installed. The other part of the vehicle which stood out to me was the large spare tire, which is normally mounted on the outside rear of the vehicle - and held in place by nuts and bolts. But the inventive and eccentric owner bought an inexpensive Halloween ornament which he has mounted on the tire---

This is the version I took with the GR2's built-in 'positive film' effect---

GRII_July6_Isuzu_tire(PosFilm).jpg


This version was processed from the RAW negative of the same shot, using Silver Efex to turn it into a monochrome rendition--

GRII_July6_Isuzu_tire(SilverEfex).jpg


And this last version, also processed from the RAW DNG negative, is also a color interpretation, but it has a different, and to me slightly grittier, look or feel to it--

GRII_July6_Isuzu_tire(StreetluxChr).jpg


My problem is, sometimes I have difficulty making up my mind: I like all three, for different reasons.
 

rayvonn

Hall of Famer
I've been using my GR II for this month's (July 2020) Single-in-July Challenge - and technically the following photo might be considered one of my 'outtakes' from today's (July 6) posting in that challenge - but I'm putting it here instead. My subject today was a battered old (1987) Isuzu Trooper vehicle, and my SiJ entry was a close-up of the tiny Super-Hero-Hood-Ornament which its proud owner installed. The other part of the vehicle which stood out to me was the large spare tire, which is normally mounted on the outside rear of the vehicle - and held in place by nuts and bolts. But the inventive and eccentric owner bought an inexpensive Halloween ornament which he has mounted on the tire---

This is the version I took with the GR2's built-in 'positive film' effect---

View attachment 227867

This version was processed from the RAW negative of the same shot, using Silver Efex to turn it into a monochrome rendition--

View attachment 227868

And this last version, also processed from the RAW DNG negative, is also a color interpretation, but it has a different, and to me slightly grittier, look or feel to it--

View attachment 227869

My problem is, sometimes I have difficulty making up my mind: I like all three, for different reasons.
That camera has the ability to change definite colour images into b&w ones for sure.
 

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Location
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Real Name
Miguel Tejada-Flores
Several photos taken of an ancient jalopy (is that word still in use, in the New Millenium?), aka an old-rusted-out automobile, in this case a Chevrolet, parked outside a repair shop. All taken with the in-camera Positive Film setting---

GRII_Sept21_Chevrolet_jalopy#1.jpg


On an earlier Ricoh I owned - the 1st-generation APS-C GR - I almost never availed myself of any of the camera's internal jpeg settings. But with the GR II, I have become basically addicted to the 'Positive Film' setting, for color at least--

GRII_Sept21_Chevrolet_jalopy#2.jpg


I've always liked wide and wider angles, on many cameras. These were taken with the add-on GW-3 wide angle screw on lens, which widens the GR II's 28mm FOV to a crazily wide 21mm FOV--

GRII_Sept21_Chevrolet_jalopy#3.jpg


But being the wider-angle-addict that I am, it almost just seems like a normal perspective to me---

GRII_Sept21_Chevrolet_jalopy#4.jpg
 

nico yaikin

New Member
Several photos taken of an ancient jalopy (is that word still in use, in the New Millenium?), aka an old-rusted-out automobile, in this case a Chevrolet, parked outside a repair shop. All taken with the in-camera Positive Film setting---

View attachment 235786

On an earlier Ricoh I owned - the 1st-generation APS-C GR - I almost never availed myself of any of the camera's internal jpeg settings. But with the GR II, I have become basically addicted to the 'Positive Film' setting, for color at least--

View attachment 235787

I've always liked wide and wider angles, on many cameras. These were taken with the add-on GW-3 wide angle screw on lens, which widens the GR II's 28mm FOV to a crazily wide 21mm FOV--

View attachment 235788

But being the wider-angle-addict that I am, it almost just seems like a normal perspective to me---

View attachment 235789
Love the colours you take from SOOC in this shots, i use Positive Film effect too, but most of the time my photos looks oversaturated, and with WB problems, What settings are you using in the filter?
 

MiguelATF

Hall of Famer
Location
Talent, Oregon (far from the madding crowd)
Real Name
Miguel Tejada-Flores
Love the colours you take from SOOC in this shots, i use Positive Film effect too, but most of the time my photos looks oversaturated, and with WB problems, What settings are you using in the filter?

Hey, thanks for the comment, Nico.

To be perfectly clear: I'm using the Positive Film setting on the Ricoh GR II (the camera I own and use) - and NOT on the GR III. With the GR II, one doesn't have the option to tweak different settings - whereas with the newer GR III, you can tweak or modify specific settings or aspects of 'Positive Film' in a surprising (perhaps 'bewildering' might be a better adjective?) number of different ways. So --- I'm just using the standard or default settings which the camera comes with.

Hope this answers your question, though I'm not quite certain whether or not it will help.

With regards towards general questions regarding a photograph's saturation or white balance or even adjusting subtle contrast setting - there are many 'post-production' tools or apps or programs available. I tend to start with Lightroom 6 (aka LR6) which is the older standalone version of Adobe Lightroom (as opposed to the newer subscription versions of it) - and after opening a photo in LR6, I often use some of the older Nik plug-ins, which used to be free (I think the free versions are still available somewhere) - and especially Nik's "Color Efex" program. Color Efex has a huge variety of variables which one can use to adjust various elements of your photos - the most useful ones which I have come to rely on, are its 'Pro Contrast' ones - which I've found helpful.
 

nico yaikin

New Member
Hey, thanks for the comment, Nico.

To be perfectly clear: I'm using the Positive Film setting on the Ricoh GR II (the camera I own and use) - and NOT on the GR III. With the GR II, one doesn't have the option to tweak different settings - whereas with the newer GR III, you can tweak or modify specific settings or aspects of 'Positive Film' in a surprising (perhaps 'bewildering' might be a better adjective?) number of different ways. So --- I'm just using the standard or default settings which the camera comes with.

Hope this answers your question, though I'm not quite certain whether or not it will help.

With regards towards general questions regarding a photograph's saturation or white balance or even adjusting subtle contrast setting - there are many 'post-production' tools or apps or programs available. I tend to start with Lightroom 6 (aka LR6) which is the older standalone version of Adobe Lightroom (as opposed to the newer subscription versions of it) - and after opening a photo in LR6, I often use some of the older Nik plug-ins, which used to be free (I think the free versions are still available somewhere) - and especially Nik's "Color Efex" program. Color Efex has a huge variety of variables which one can use to adjust various elements of your photos - the most useful ones which I have come to rely on, are its 'Pro Contrast' ones - which I've found helpful.
I have the GRII too, and its posible to tweak the different "effects" (saturation, contrast, etc). Maybe it's a firmware update (I have the latest one), or you didn't understand what I meant (or vice versa). Anyway, I loved the photos you uploaded with this little gem.

I was asking about the SOOC photos because my pc is not properly calibrated, and editing them results in disasters, and working from the cell phone is a pain, so I want to get the most out of editing with the Raw development in-camera and/or the correct settings for JPEG.

Thanx for anxwer anyway!!
 
Last edited:

MoonMind

Hall of Famer
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Matt
I have the GRII too, and its posible to tweak the different "effects" (saturation, contrast, etc). Maybe it's a firmware update (I have the latest one), or you didn't understand what I meant (or vice versa). Anyway, I loved the photos you uploaded with this little gem.

I was asking about the SOOC photos because my pc is not properly calibrated, and editing them results in disasters, and working from the cell phone is a pain, so I want to get the most out of editing with the Raw development in-camera and/or the correct settings for JPEG.

Thanx for anxwer anyway!!
Calibration can make the whole process a lot more rewarding - and isn't that expensive to establish, at least as far as monitor calibration goes; even top-level gear is available for less than $200. But not even controlling the whole workflow is prohibitively costly - under $500. It'll be the first thing I'll get once I get into printing more seriously (at this time, it's really a question of finding enough time for that).

It can step up the consistency of your results no end ... Nothing against getting it "right" in camera, but since you review your results on a small custom LCD, you'll never be able to guarantee what others get to see on their screen, let alone print. Calibration goes a long way to making that more likely. I wouldn't want to go back to working without it.

M.
 

agentlossing

Top Veteran
Location
S. Oregon Coast (the Northernmost-Cal of them All)
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
I've never used a tool to calibrate a monitor... But the last couple monitors I've bought had SRGB modes and at least 99% of the color gamut (current one is 99%, previous one was 100%). The selectable SRGB modes are pretty faithful colorwise. It makes a huge difference though, as far as I see it you do what you have to do to make sure your editing machine has reasonably accurate colors.

I also make it a point to look at photos I've edited on as many output options as I can. Sometimes making prints, at the very least looking at the work I upload to the web on my work computer, which has a cheap, non-calibrated monitor, and my phone, which has a display that's slightly amped up from reality.
 

MoonMind

Hall of Famer
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Matt
I've never used a tool to calibrate a monitor... But the last couple monitors I've bought had SRGB modes and at least 99% of the color gamut (current one is 99%, previous one was 100%). The selectable SRGB modes are pretty faithful colorwise. It makes a huge difference though, as far as I see it you do what you have to do to make sure your editing machine has reasonably accurate colors.

I also make it a point to look at photos I've edited on as many output options as I can. Sometimes making prints, at the very least looking at the work I upload to the web on my work computer, which has a cheap, non-calibrated monitor, and my phone, which has a display that's slightly amped up from reality.
You can't control other people's viewing devices anyway - but I like to make sure that what I see is what they'd get insofar as I try to make the way I want across my devices.

For on-screen output, sRGB is enough - print, however, would benefit from wider gamuts like AdobeRGB (btw. gamut doesn't say a thing about accuracy, unfortunately - a monitor can be very expertly off in spite of its capabilities). I personally publish most of my images online, so I make do with sRGB (which gives me smaller files and a reliable workflow), but I still like tweaking images for print occasionally, as far as this is possible. Calibration goes a long way towards making that pretty rewarding as well.

I just find a bit strange that we tend to buy expensive and capable cameras and stint when it comes to making our post processing the best (and most reliable) it can be - for comparatively little money ... That's why I started calibrating all screens I use. Today, it's no fuss anymore, it's just something I do, either every three or every six months. And I found out interesting things - e.g. two of my cheapest devices have 91% and 96% sRGB coverage while my everyday laptop only manages 71% ... still, most of the time, that's good enough as long as it's properly calibrated (which it is).

M.
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom