Ricoh. GRD or GRD II

[Spearhead]

There are several advantages that digicams have over dslrs. One is the

"live view" on the sensor, although that is changing with dslrs and will probably not be an issue in a few years. Another is a live histogram, same thing. Another is swivel screens, although this seems to be disappearing, and with live view on dslrs, could show up on dslrs. That leaves us with the size. Otherwise, the image quality suffers way too much compared to a dslr, and I can create noise and grain easily in Photoshop, and often do this. Lot better images to start with, and I can end up with the same thing.

 

In the end, it is just the pocketability, which is why I rarely bother with the digicam anymore. The Mk3 images are so good, especially at 3200 (relative to my Ricoh at 200 even), that it really doesn't make sense as long as carrying it isn't an issue.

[michael s.]

From El Fang's linked interview with Thomas Dworzak in "El Pais" comes this Q and A:

 

<< ... P. ?Qué cámaras emplea?

 

R. Tres cámaras Ricoh GR. Son rápidas y la calidad es suficiente. Si llevas cámaras grandes la gente te mira de otra manera, piensa que eres más rico. ... >>

 

My own Spanish, never very good, is embarrassingly rusty, but I believe Dworzak's response to the question "What cameras do you use?" was, in essence, as follows:

 

^^^ A: Three Ricoh GR cameras. They're fast and the quality is sufficient. If you carry large cameras the people look at you in another way, thinking that you are wealthier. ^^^

 

[Earlier in the article it is established that the Ricoh GR's he refers to are digital cameras, not the film cameras from the earlier Ricoh GR series.]

 

By the way, the live view feature coupled with pivot/swivel lcd that Jeff mentions has shown up on two recently introduced dslr's, the L10 from Panasonic and the Olympus E-3.

[fjords]

<i>If you carry large cameras do people look at you in another way?</i>

 

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/190/513054278_2a385724b7.jpg">

 

 

 

I my love my...grd 21mm

[adrian bastin]

I hope post-processing/enhancing isn't going to be too big a part of using this camera. Would rather have a grain or texture imposed on me than select one to impose on the picture; that just feels like going too far into the creative process. It's like choosing the grain of a canvas after you have painted the picture. In that case the lie would show up, like it does in cheap textured prints of paintings.

 

But these pictures jump out and rip your face off in a very nice way.

[travis1]

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2355/2147279173_14651823d1_o.jpg"></a> The ricoh(i have a GX) digicams are made for b/w.

[adrian bastin]

Got my thinking straight on this: You get your format, your parameters, THEN capture your image. Only that way can the process work.

[adrian bastin]

And no one could prove that better than Travis.

[kristian dowling]

Had a GRD, now have a GRD II and will never look back. Image quality is different, maybe a bit better, but as a camera it's better overall

[Spearhead]

<i>that just feels like going too far into the creative process.</i><p>Great, let's keep creativity and photography separate.<p><i> It's like choosing the grain of a canvas after you have painted the picture.</i><p>Wrong analogy, the "canvas" stays the same. If you want a good analogy, it's like painters who use paint buildup to add texture to their painting after they've mapped it out. It doesn't seem like anyone ever thought that was criminal, why apply rigid rules to photography?<p><i> In that case the lie would show up, like it does in cheap textured prints of paintings.</i><p>If done properly, techniques work. If not, then they don't. Sounds like you have been looking at the latter.

[adrian bastin]

Jeff. Don't worry, it's my problem. I can explain further but this probably is not the place. But it is the reason, thanks to all the contributors here, the GRD is the one for me.

 

And according to Robert White it should be here tomorrow.

 

If you're still there : thanks everyone.

[michael s.]

Enjoy it, Adrian.

 

I look forward to seeing the photos.

[joshroot]

Man, this thread has made me interested in the GR-Digital again. In general, I'm with Jeff. It's hard to give up the image quality of the dSLR's. But on the other hand, I have taken a lot of personally important images with my Canon SD series cameras over the years. Sometimes image quality is not everything.

[dg1]

"Would rather have a grain or texture imposed on me than select one to impose on the picture; ...In that case the lie would show up, like it does in cheap textured prints of paintings."

 

Photography is not painting. Photographs have no actual "texture" as in your reference to canvas..unless printed on a textured surface. Could you explain just what truth is being corrupted with this lie you refer to?

 

Isn't it adequate to say that you simply like the look of the GRD files, and the camera's other qualities, without implying that others are "lying" by post-processing to bring out what they want in the image? Or if I use my E-410 at ISO 1600 to produce a grainier image, am I lying about something because you get the same noise at ISO 400?

 

Are you sure you are not rationalizing the GRD's image quality, and perhaps lying to yourself?

[terry_rory]

<p>Does a fair job of infrared B&W too. B+W 093 IR filter and handheld at ISO 400 at f/2.4 at just about the limit of safe handholding speed....</p>

 

<a href=" title="Untitled by Trevor Hare, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/210/519911178_5102c2b10c_o.jpg" width="900" height="600" alt="" /></a>

[adrian bastin]

Would you want to apply Tri X grain to a picture ? I'm not sure exactly why I wouldn't want to but I wouldn't. As it is, I use my old Summar and shoot Reala (because I need the colour) and desaturate and increase contrast to get some B&W images that please me. I'm happy with that. The Ricoh is another foray into digital photography that, I hope, will come closer to my analogue experience than other digital cameras I have had. But to add analogue effects just feels wrong.

 

Maybe the reference to painting was just wrong. When painting you are using the canvas texture to break up your brush strokes as you go along and you modify your marks accordingly. In fact you can even suppress or provide a texture for an individual brush-stroke, where needed, as you go along. So the texture shapes the painting. When a texture is imposed on the print of a painting it is a lie. That's not calling anyone a liar, exactly.

[adrian bastin]

Absolutely gorgeous, Trevor !

[adrian bastin]

This is all based on my suspicion that the GRD II has noise suppression that Ricoh have felt needs noising up a bit in B&W mode.

It may be wrong but on its strength I am buying the earlier model.

[Spearhead]

<i>When a texture is imposed on the print of a painting it is a lie.</i><p>It's not a "lie." Paintings and photographs are neither "truths" nor "lies." Thinking about them this way debases the art.

[adrian bastin]

A textured print is trying to look like an oil painting.

[dg1]

"Summar and shoot Reala (because I need the colour) and desaturate and increase contrast to get some B&W images that please me. I'm happy with that. The Ricoh ... will come closer to my analogue experience than other digital cameras I have had. But to add analogue effects just feels wrong."

 

.."desaturate and increase contrast to get some B&W images" ..Do as you please, but how do you figure that adding digital effects and processing to an "analog" image is less wrong than adding "analog" effects to a digital image? Analog and digital are meaningless in the artificial value ridden context in which you use them. You are getting lost in BS rationalizations that have nothing to do with photography as far as I can tell. Some sort of gear and process morality. I'm sorry but it all seems less than honest..it's a romantic fantasy. The Ricoh is a small sensor digicam and there are others such as the Fuji F810 that can serve the same purpose..if you like the GRDI and the files you've seen absolutely go for it.. but let the lofty BS go. You say you are not calling anyone liars, but you invite contention by endowing processes and hardware with moral values. Again do what you like, for whatever reasons, it's personal expression afterall, but join the living while you're at it.

[adrian bastin]

The texture of a canvas is there to facilitate the application of paint, not as an effect.

[terry_rory]

"When a texture is imposed on the print of a painting it is a lie."

 

I think the key words here are "print of a painting". The original painting will be posessed of all the textures and brushwork and layering of paint that the artist built up as he/she created it. It gives the work an essential character and individual 'signature'.

 

If however the "print of a painting" has texture and fake brushstrokes etc. applied in some way then it is tacky and silly.

 

I will not comment on the application of grain or noise in photographs though. I only wanted to make the point about prints of paintings.

[terry_rory]

OK Adrian clarified his point whilst I was typing. Sorry.

[Spearhead]

<i>The texture of a canvas is there to facilitate the application of paint, not as an effect.</i><p>Who said? Where's the rule book? Or are you the only person who can tell us what happens with other people's art?

[adrian bastin]

I live in a house that was built 400 years ago from the ground it stands on; stone, clay, sand and lime. The beams were split along their grain and everything has its own texture or that of the hands that crafted it. You get a feel for what is machine made and what is natural.