GR User Forum
The spot for all Ricoh GR camera users
Register for free, meet other Ricoh GR users, share your images, help others, have fun!
Tell your friends about us!9th September 2010 plus Two Years On...
- Thread starter Wiener
- Start date
thelps
Active Member
Re: 9th September 2010
This is one of those interesting scenes that there are only a few clues as to when it was taken.
Without the car/s, the sign and box on the wall perhaps, it could have been taken 100 years ago.
I agree, excellent strong composition. Cloudscape and ground are well balanced lighting wise.
Top shot this one.
This is one of those interesting scenes that there are only a few clues as to when it was taken.
Without the car/s, the sign and box on the wall perhaps, it could have been taken 100 years ago.
I agree, excellent strong composition. Cloudscape and ground are well balanced lighting wise.
Top shot this one.
Wiener
Active Member
autochrome
Member
I prefer the DNG shot!
he come more informations,quite rigthly,much more...
I prefer,but that is personal,i prefer all time more informations,dramatic effects wy not,y like also,but after,with a minimal lost
he come more informations,quite rigthly,much more...
I prefer,but that is personal,i prefer all time more informations,dramatic effects wy not,y like also,but after,with a minimal lost
Orol
New Member
Going DNG sure was a good choice, Andy.
The original two years old shot is more about the sky (being more interesting at that time; now it is "boring" with a little interest in it). But which one is better... well I do not know. They are so different. And the colour works quite well...
Peter
The original two years old shot is more about the sky (being more interesting at that time; now it is "boring" with a little interest in it). But which one is better... well I do not know. They are so different. And the colour works quite well...
Peter
Blow-in
Active Member
I prefer the DNG shot too (of all 3)....the red sandstone setts look great and the horizontal gaps between the wall stones help draw the eye up the slipway. The JPEG sky is nicer though so time for some more PP? A JPEG with less negative exposure compensation would have been interesting to see...since I turned-up the brightness on the GRD4 LCD, I'm handling exposure compensation differently and working more on the shadows and less on the highlights.
Richard
Richard
Wiener
Active Member
Hi autochrome,autochrome":1rf41b78 said:
Because I am trying to learn to use Adobe/Silkypix, I usually work on the DNG rather than the JPEG. However, sometimes the JPEG is as good as, or even better than anything I can produce out of the camera. I sign that I need more practice on perhaps!
Thanks for your thoughts!
Andy
Wiener
Active Member
Yes, I agree: it is unfair to try and choose between them. The time of day was very different (one late evening, the other very early morning) and also the effect I was trying to/able to achieve was also very different. This mornings image was a little to 'soft' due to my underexposure, but this is partly due to the very different exposure levels often acheived between the DNG and JPEG images for the same file. I will try and explain this phenomina in response to Richard below.Orol":xu3eembp said:
Thanks for the thoughts and advice! Always appreciated...
Andy
Wiener
Active Member
This is what I liked about the view before I took it: I also liked the eroded gaps in the horizontal pier surface which really shows its age (I would guess it was built around 1820).Blow-in":3oy251o9 said:
You raise a very interesting point here Richard, and one which is very important when it comes to achieving the best image. When I shot with the GX100 there was not any dramatic differences visible between the RAW and the JPEG files (likewise with my GRD3). It was only really apparent when trying to wring a little more out of burnt out highlights/shadows: then it became clear that there WAS more information held in the RAW (good job too as it takes up 3 times more space on my SD card!Blow-in":3oy251o9 said:
However, with the A12 and A16 units, there is often a considerable difference between the brightness/lightness of the RAW and the JPEG. Quite often although the JPEG looks a little under exposed and dingy, the RAW turns out, at least at first view, to be close to the edge of over exposure. This is partly the reason why the 'unprocessed' JPEG I included looks underexposed; I tend to guess that the DNG will be brighter than what is indicated in the screen and I screw back the exposure accordingly.
I enclose two recent shots as an example of what I find. This is not meant to be a criticism of the Ricoh output of these units, more an indication of how much information Ricoh seems to be able to cram into the RAW file. I have yet to find a RAW where I could not recover the highlights; it is just my paranoia from GX100 days that makes me still expose for the highlights (which I am only able to guess, as they cannot be seen 'on-camera!)
All comments, both contrasting or similar, would be helpful!
Andy
Attachments
Blow-in
Active Member
Andy,
First, thank you for taking the time to explain all this. My experience of RAW/DNG has been limited to the GRD2 & 4 and the difference between RAW and Jpeg was also not that marked (as you have found too with your GRD3) although there was more detail in the RAW.
I expect the 'A' units are more tuned than the GRDs to the RAW photographer who is prepared to post process any shots he/she (are there any 'she's' here??) wants to keep. I suppose with RAW if you tend to under expose the detail will be recorded and can be recovered whereas over exposure will lead to white saturation which contains no useful information (I think but correct me if I'm wrong). It must take extra skill then to compensate for the RAW - Jpeg differences in the A units and the replay is really only good to confirm framing. To some extent though the RAW - Jpeg comparisons will be unfair to the Jpeg and its exposure was less than ideal.
Anyway, I suppose all digital shots are processed - either on the PC or in the camera. I think with the GRD4 the extra shooting settings available in Jpeg are producing an interesting dilema - take the Jpeg with the settings or take the RAW and post process? For me at the moment I prefer the former course and the instant feedback...I also like to work at the time of capture on getting the exposure right which reminds me of film days...just my preference and neither right nor wrong.
Richard
PS, looking at the 2 shots above the RAW blues are a bit lurid so I would want to tone them down!
First, thank you for taking the time to explain all this. My experience of RAW/DNG has been limited to the GRD2 & 4 and the difference between RAW and Jpeg was also not that marked (as you have found too with your GRD3) although there was more detail in the RAW.
I expect the 'A' units are more tuned than the GRDs to the RAW photographer who is prepared to post process any shots he/she (are there any 'she's' here??) wants to keep. I suppose with RAW if you tend to under expose the detail will be recorded and can be recovered whereas over exposure will lead to white saturation which contains no useful information (I think but correct me if I'm wrong). It must take extra skill then to compensate for the RAW - Jpeg differences in the A units and the replay is really only good to confirm framing. To some extent though the RAW - Jpeg comparisons will be unfair to the Jpeg and its exposure was less than ideal.
Anyway, I suppose all digital shots are processed - either on the PC or in the camera. I think with the GRD4 the extra shooting settings available in Jpeg are producing an interesting dilema - take the Jpeg with the settings or take the RAW and post process? For me at the moment I prefer the former course and the instant feedback...I also like to work at the time of capture on getting the exposure right which reminds me of film days...just my preference and neither right nor wrong.
Richard
PS, looking at the 2 shots above the RAW blues are a bit lurid so I would want to tone them down!
autochrome
Member
This discussion is really very interesting:
I agree with you in entire Wiener, but I see the opportunity to share an observation that I made since i i tried different software: the rendering of JPG direct stems from each brand, it is constant, but the different Viewers give rendered very varied.
For the RAW, i found that rendering varies a lot depending on the development software used.
My favorite, by far, but that is personal, this is the software RAWTHERAPIE (forgiveness for Silkypix) used with the DNG Ricoh!
It allows you to choose the démosaicing algothitm, which still given made different. Curiously, i was able to get the rendered that the software of the manufacturer Ricoh has not allowed me to obtain. I found that this software, from my point of view, fully exploits the great and rich Ricoh's DNG files.
But the fact remains that I am in agreement with what you said earlier also.
Thank you for sharing
I agree with you in entire Wiener, but I see the opportunity to share an observation that I made since i i tried different software: the rendering of JPG direct stems from each brand, it is constant, but the different Viewers give rendered very varied.
For the RAW, i found that rendering varies a lot depending on the development software used.
My favorite, by far, but that is personal, this is the software RAWTHERAPIE (forgiveness for Silkypix) used with the DNG Ricoh!
It allows you to choose the démosaicing algothitm, which still given made different. Curiously, i was able to get the rendered that the software of the manufacturer Ricoh has not allowed me to obtain. I found that this software, from my point of view, fully exploits the great and rich Ricoh's DNG files.
But the fact remains that I am in agreement with what you said earlier also.
Thank you for sharing
thelps
Active Member
The A16 of the seawall does seem to contain more detail to my eye. At the level of enlargement we have on screen the differences are subtle but with a big print enlargement they should show. One issue I feel is that different people see things different and have differing opinions on what they find acceptable.
With regards to Post Process RAW or to accept the jpg, one thing I see is that if the jpg is spot on, I find it tough to improve the image with a RAW - it depends on the size of the final output. However if the jpg is bad then the RAW won't be good either BUT you have more to lose trying to correct a bad jpg as the RAW has more data to work with so the RAW is the go.
I had one image from my LX3, a great moment taken in poor lighting, there was some noise, not a lot but enough to warrant correction. Try as I may to extract more detail from the RAW without deterring from other IQ factors I could not improve much from the jpg that went with it. This of course could be due to my lack of skills.
The comparison also at this res evens the competition with the GX100 and the A16. I like the GX100 very much, the rendering of the wall is good - less pixels perhaps?
With regards to Post Process RAW or to accept the jpg, one thing I see is that if the jpg is spot on, I find it tough to improve the image with a RAW - it depends on the size of the final output. However if the jpg is bad then the RAW won't be good either BUT you have more to lose trying to correct a bad jpg as the RAW has more data to work with so the RAW is the go.
I had one image from my LX3, a great moment taken in poor lighting, there was some noise, not a lot but enough to warrant correction. Try as I may to extract more detail from the RAW without deterring from other IQ factors I could not improve much from the jpg that went with it. This of course could be due to my lack of skills.
The comparison also at this res evens the competition with the GX100 and the A16. I like the GX100 very much, the rendering of the wall is good - less pixels perhaps?
autochrome
Member
Hi THELPS
Rawtherapie have this problem:he need some RAM memory (3-4 Go)
but it work with my 1Go ,Has the condition to launch a stain after the other,for example,i used his processing an image at a time.
I found that it is easy to use,even without leaflet,it already offers more than correction parameters that control what I really want!
Good work,good shots
Rawtherapie have this problem:he need some RAM memory (3-4 Go)
but it work with my 1Go ,Has the condition to launch a stain after the other,for example,i used his processing an image at a time.
I found that it is easy to use,even without leaflet,it already offers more than correction parameters that control what I really want!
Good work,good shots
Orol
New Member
Men, how do you cope with the problem of automatic in camera corrections of the lens flaws (like chromatic aberration or complicated image distortion) done by the firmware when creating JPEG's? This is the significant drawback keeping me from post-processing RAW files more frequently than rarely. In some crucial situations, I also shoot RAW (always coupled by a high quality JPEG) and yet usually end in using the JPEG even for up to A3 prints mainly for not being able to repeat the in camera processing successfully enough. Naturally, it should be mentioned here I still use a Nikon DSLR (shame on me, I know ), but I suppose the Ricoh world suffers from this issue, too.
Peter
), but I suppose the Ricoh world suffers from this issue, too.Peter
autochrome
Member
Hi Orol
On my DNG process,i use profiles LCP and DCP of Adobe, in software Rawtherapee, which is compatible with the Adobe profiles. Profiles 28mm and 50mm are included in all software Adobe; bring back them is just needed.
They can also create his own profile if it does not exist, but this represents pes badly of job..
I also bring back a profile for zoom lens 24-85mm
regards
On my DNG process,i use profiles LCP and DCP of Adobe, in software Rawtherapee, which is compatible with the Adobe profiles. Profiles 28mm and 50mm are included in all software Adobe; bring back them is just needed.
They can also create his own profile if it does not exist, but this represents pes badly of job..
I also bring back a profile for zoom lens 24-85mm
regards