Am I different?
Since I have the Ricoh GX200 I really have some concerns with the RAW files of that camera. And somehow it is bit funny and stupid too. I loved the RAW files of the GX100. These were pleasant files, that could be processed to my taste, and sharpened up well. The jpegs were already good, but since the RAW files were better in my opinion I preferred to shoot RAW, despite the 6 seconds writing time. The GX200 has been significantly improved over the GX100. It has a larger buffer and the writing times are so much faster. Many consider it to be the ultimate small sensor compact camera with RAW feature (in the meantime the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 and Leica D-Lux 4 have been introduced and are equally faster or even faster). But the GX200 now also sports a different sensor with some other settings unlike the GX100. Therefore many say that the Ricoh cameras (GR Digital 2 and GX200) produce much worse jpegs with regard to the sharpness and noise, and that you need to shoot RAW to get the best from these cameras.
So, I just say it. I personally fully disagree. While I maintain shooting RAW and jpeg I like the jpeg files so much more. OK, there is some smearing because of noise reduction, despite the noise reduction set off (it is well known that noise reduction off is really not noise reduction off). I had to adjust and simplify my B&W processing, because of the quality of the RAW files. But this processing works even better with the jpegs. It must be due to the limited dynamic range, but the feel of contrast and dark shadows are just so much better for me. Especially when I set the in-camera setting to +2 for contrast and +2 for sharpness these files look damned fine to me, smearing or not. Period! And for those looking for 100% crops to proof my point, you will be disappointed here (you might want to check the work of Pavel Kudrys instead). I know many consider a larger dynamic range a benefit of digital photograph, but I love limitations.
jpeg processed in Lightroom
It is even funnier that I started to use the RAW files now more often for color photography instead for B&W. Some even thought they mistakenly entered the wrong blog! But for me, this is just a fact. Below I will share my processing for the photographs from the GX200 in Lightroom (although you can off course also use these for the RAW files, since Lightroom can easily handle both, though a little differently as a result of the dynamic range and the captured information). Remember, it is just my method. Some may like it, some can disagree with me. I love to hear alternative processing from you guys. Isn’t all about learning after all?
B&W processing
I described a B&W conversion technique earlier this year where I made use of the Saturation, Luminance and Camera Calibration sliders to convert my RAW files into B&W photographs. This post processing unfortunately produces a great amount of noise with the GX200 files and has become obsolete for me to use. I had to rethink my process, but I also wanted to simplify it. And most importantly, it had to take less than a minute and preferably even faster.
I have now reduced the processing to at least 3 sliders, and at max 6 sliders. I prefer using the jpegs now, but you can off course also use the RAW files. In this case I describe processing the B&W jpegs. When I select a photograph in the Library module I press ‘D’ and the photograph will be displayed in the Develop module. At first I lower the Exposure slightly between -0.5 and -3.0 depending on how dark the photograph was already. After that I move the black slider further to the right as I want to darken the shadows. Now I want to re-brighten the photograph, but I use the Brightness slider instead of the Tone Curve. The Tone Curve somehow seems to create more noise artifacts. The dark tones remain dark, but especially the mid tones go from dull gray to more brighter tones without breaking up. After that I like to use Clarity to give the photographs some bite. Clarity is such a fantastic tool in Lightroom. When I process the jpegs I don’t sharpen the photographs, since I already sharpened them in-camera. I also don’t apply any noise reduction. And basically that’s it. When you start with a color photograph, like the RAW file or a color jpeg, you can set the Saturation slider to zero or press the Grayscale button, and than continue with the above described method. You could create a sort of average setting, save it as a preset, and apply it on the photographs during import. In the Develop module you can still alter the settings to your likings.
jpeg processed in Lightroom
Color processing
I have mostly shot color slides before I went digital. I loved Fuji slides, because of the toning and colors. Since going digital I got more problems with the colors. They may be accurate, but were simply not my taste. I also thought, and still think so, that B&W focuses the viewer more to the subject and emphasises the composition of the photograph. Not be said that I lost interest in color photography, but I am still in search of the holy grail. Right now I discovered this great Lightroom preset x=summer+holiday on the blog x-equals.com. It is a free available preset licensed as Creative commons – Attribution 3.0 (USA). You can download it here.
jpeg processed in Lightroom
This preset comes pretty close to the colors I like momentarily. I say momentarily, because that could always change for me. Colors are just so incredibly subjective. I believe there is no color as in reality, because my reality is different from yours. It is quite an interesting preset with lots of different settings. It is based on overexposuring in Lightroom, darken the shadows, and applying a heavy vignette. It gives my photographs some sort of filmlike look. They also applied some heavy noise reduction for Luminance and Color, although not to reduce noise, but to create a kind of dreamy look. I personally think it was a bit too much, so I personally altered this preset and set the Luminance noise reduction to null. This creates more bite which I like. This preset forms a nice basis for my color photographs, but some still need some additional tweaking.
What else?
Did I try nothing else to rediscover the value of RAW besides Lightroom? Well yes, I did. I tried Silkypix, Capture One, and Raw Therapee, but I just didn’t like the results. There is something else I really start to like and that is Nik Silver Efex Pro. I am pretty impressed with the user interface and even more with the B&W conversion results. You can get Silver Efex Pro as a plug-in for Adobe Photoshop or Apple Aperture. I will also try Nik Color Efex Pro to see how it works in color.
And how about Apple Aperture? I have tried Aperture before, but it felt very sluggish on my notebook in comparison to Lightroom (Mac OS X 10.5.2). Besides that I wasn’t able to recreate the same look as I did with Lightroom. Now I have changed my workflow I am thinking about trying Aperture again (and upgrading my OS to 10.5.4).
jpeg processed in Lightroom
All photographs by Wouter Brandsma
Filed under: 2008, Image editing, Photography | 21 Comments
Tags: Adobe Lightroom, GX200, Image editing, jpeg, jpg, Lightroom, Photography, post processing, presets, Ricoh, Ricoh GX200
-
-
-
Recommended at Amazon
-
RSS - Posts
No, you aren’t different, for we are all the same in our differences. Our individual perspectives are as different as our individual cameras, processing techniques, and environments…that’s what makes life, and especially photography interesting! As much as I have used RAW on my Nikons (4 years) and now on my GRDs, I’m still not satisfied that the resulting software edited jpegs are any better than the camera-processed jpegs. For me, the sacrifices in time and joy through editing RAW files are not what I want to put emphasis in. As I share your perspective about B&W verses color, I am starting to really appreciate the great B&W jpegs that come out of my GRDs. This is radically changing my workflow. Thanks for mentioning Nik Silver Efex Pro…WoW!
Forgot to mention that I think it is more fun to get a jpeg right. You need to expose better as the dynamic range is smaller. It is a bit like slide photography.
And it is always good to now that others are perfectly happy with the jpegs too.
Many thanks, James.
These frames are amazing! I really enjoyed your works.
You have a great blog, glad I found it. Hope to become a regular
Many thanks Ilan! I will check yours.
Cheers,
Wouter
Hey Wouter, this was a long text to read, so I didn´t make it yesterday!
Your workflow is a great inspiration for me. I have to admit that I am somewhat … disorganized in editing my photos. I should do a lot more tagging, post-processing etc., but at the end of the day I just don´t do it. Actually, this may be due to my way into photography: coming from pure lomography for about 4 years I just wasn´t used to edit anything. Now, this is changing, but it´s taking some time. That´s why I don´t have many insights to share. I usually apply an S-curve of varying degree, sometimes vignetting, and that´s it basically. I also started to alter the colors oin the last months and have been processing some images in B&W due to inspiration of some dutch photoblogger…
I shoot both RAW and JPEG on the Ricoh, on the Nikon nearly JPG only. As I´m so disorganized, I haven´t been able to take advantage of the RAW quality and have been using the JPEGs mostly. Anyway, on the Ricoh it´s great to have a B&W JPG right there and be able to use the RAW if I decide the color version looks better.
I am really thrilled about the X-Equals color preset. They also have some nice other film-like presets. I probably will experiment with some of them in the next time.
Hi dlc, Thanks man! Keep posting too, that motivates me and gives me a lot of inspiration too.
I ingest my photographs with Photo Mechanic and select those I want to edit. I basically use Lightroom as an editing application. Easier than Photoshop in my opinion. 4 years ago I was still photographing slides and didn’t do any edits too (scanning was too time consuming).
I don’t do any tagging in Lightroom. Just too lazy
When I find new presets I will share them with you, and I will try to develop some too.
Cheers,
Wouter
LR is easier than PS, indeed. I really like it how easy it is to crop and rotate images, and to enhance or manipulate them. Looking forward for LR2 (which I plan to buy within the next weeks), as it offers the possibility to apply changes only in parts of the photo. This might come in handy….
Looking forward for your presets!
LR2 is great dlc. I especially like the graduated filter.
As always, you’re particular perspective on photography (from shooting the image to and through processing) gets me to thinking. I too have often wondered if the extra work involved in dealing with RAW files is worth the outcome versus how the JPEG version looks. I doubt I’ll ever come to any real consensus on this matter.
Nor do I M.
This is a great read and very interesting. I don’t think you changed but believe that cameras do play a role in our photography, make us see things slightly diferent or adapt to new methods of working.
I can just not get to like LR, the whole database thing is just to slow and does not work for me although I tried. At the moment I use FastStone for viewing and CS3 for editing but am trying ACDSee which seems to do both fairly wel and is not database driven so I can view pictres fast.
Like you I’ve tried most of the other RAW developers but they all are either too slow, or not easy/fast enough to use.
I wish Adobe would release Camera RAW as a standaone application since it’s the best for me (if they fix the bug with screen resolutions below 1024×768).
After reading your post I am considering to go with GX100 as opposed to GX200. Maybe shooting with RAW is not that important afterall. But I would like to know if you can think of any other good reasons to settle on GX200. Also what about the viewfinder? Do you own one? Is it any good? Thanks for the informative post and the processing tips. Photos look great.
Hello Rondo,
Most of the GX100 photographs I posted on my blog and my flickr stream are RAW. The slower writing times were never a deal breaker for me. But, I have to say that the GX200 is much faster.
Don’t misunderstand me, the GX200 is an amazing camera. But for the price today I would go for the GX100. Buy the HA-2 adapter, a good UV filter, and the neck strap. I personally don’t own the viewfinder. I am absolutely no fan of electronic viewfinders. I might be looking for a 28 or 35mm optical viewfinder instead.
Both cameras are just really good.
Cheers,
Wouter
Wouter, thank you. Also I have a feeling that if I go with either gx100 or 200 my lens will always be fixed at 24 mm and I will never use the zoom range, which brings me to this: maybe 28 mm equiv grd2 is even a better choice for me? I would prefer 24 mm to 28 but the difference is not that huge and if IQ is better GRD2 may be the proper choice for me. Are these cameras very different really? In terms of built quality contols etc.
Thanks again.
In terms of built quality, then the GRD2 remains the better camera. Since the lens is a fixed 28mm lens the quality is higher. The photographs from the GRD2 have more contrast then from the GX100 or GX200, as a result of the lens. Momentarely though is the GX200 the better handling camera I think. It is absolutely faster in RAW, and according to others even better in producing better jpegs.
When you start with the GX100 or GX200 (or even the Panasonic LX3) it almost sounds normal to use the 24mm as much as possible. And in the beginning you likely will do so. Later you will discover the other focal lengts too. I for instance now use the 35mm most of the times (for street), and only use the 28 or 24mm when the 35mm is not wide enough. I hardly use the 50mm and never use the 72mm anymore.
The main advantage of the GRD2 is the one stop better light performance. Where ISO 800 can be usefull for the GRD2, it is hardly usefull for the GX200.
If you are a perfectly fine with jpegs, then you could look for the older GRD1. You could still find that camera around for lower prices, and could buy the optical viewfinder, and other goodies (like the extention tube and the 40mm converter lens). If you want to shoot RAW, I suggest to pick up the GX200.
Wouter
Wouter, Based on your recommendation I just downloaded a couple of Zequals Lightroom presets. Which preset folder to they go in? Develop? Thank you! I tried to email the guy but I could not find an email address on his site.
Thank you Wouter! I almost want to sell my GX200. However, I decided to continue using it after reading your articles. Nice pictures and nice words! BTW, how could you add some kind of textile to you B&W picture in the Lightroom? I find some kind of beautiful noise in you all B&W photos. I really want to know how to do it. Thank you again!
You could try to add some texture with the sharpness in combination with a higher value for detail. In Lightroom 3 beta their is actually a possibility now to add grain. Also Nik Silver Efex Pro is really good. And when you also have Photoshop you might want to consider Alien Skin Exposure 2.
Thanks for your advice! I think I become one of your regular readers now after viewing your all pictures in Flick and some articles about gx200. Anyway GOOD JOB! However, I am a little bit depressed when I read your article about selling your gx200. In my opinion, you are one of the best gx200 users. I really learned many things from you blog. (OK, I am just a new fish for photography). I really hope you can use gx200 again. (Am I a little bit selfish?:P)
Don’t worry. I like Ricoh cameras and I might keep my eye open for a GX100 someday. Why the GX100? Even though it was flawed in terms of reliability I loved the images from the GX100.
But make sure you use the GX200 as long as possible. Keep it at ISO 100, be good at handheld photography and just have a lot of fun. It is a fun camera and in combination with the step zoom one of the best compact zoom cameras.
Thank you again! I will keeping using it!