The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

GF1 Images/Pics/Photos Thread

V

Vivek

Guest
Looks great to me -- and I really like the composition in this one Brad :thumbs:
I do (composition) too, Brad. That is why I was asking about the shade area (and that you started a thread on "tricks &tips").

Yes, with those cams you mention it would not be problem. The situation with the m4/3rds is a bit more constrained.:)
 

bradhusick

Active member
A quick one from last night...technically not great, but I like it. I need to learn more about this camera. Good thing I am going to Oregon! :toocool:

GF1, ISO 500, 1/30 sec. Leica 35mm summicron v4 at f/2

 
Last edited:

scho

Well-known member
Ron,

Nice work with the GF1 and great shot of the snake. It looked ready to nail you:shocked:

Regards,
Carl
 

RonSmith

Member
Ron,

Nice work with the GF1 and great shot of the snake. It looked ready to nail you:shocked:

Regards,
Carl


Thanks Carl! I don't know what kind of snake it was, but I did check for a rattle before I leaned in. It did open wide and hiss at me though.
 

Rawfa

Active member
Here's another try at processing in Photoshop...



and the color file...

Brad, I don't mean to rain on your parade but there's a heck of a lot of noise on these images for iso 500. Are these jpegs? I've seen iso 1600 samples of the GF1 that are not this noisy.
 

Terry

New member
Brad,
I'm going to agree here. That doesn't look like ISO 500 unless it was underexposed and you needed to fiddle with the exposure in Photoshop.
 

bradhusick

Active member
Yes, this shot was pretty badly underexposed and the GF1 files don't take well to bumping up the exposure. I also decided to add some gaussian monochrome noise to give it more of a fast film-like feel.
 

Terry

New member
Yes, this shot was pretty badly underexposed and the GF1 files don't take well to bumping up the exposure.
Well,
The GF1 files are also underrated for ISO so a 500 shot is really about 800 and then you are moving upwards from there. DPReview downplays it (and has used the most conservative numbers I've seen but here is the info....

I believe DxO has more info and by their tests it is about 2/3 stop too conservative.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicGF1/page16.asp
 
Last edited:

Terry

New member
Edit - doh.....just got the joke....hey at least I got it.

Disregard!
Sorry Jono not Guy...spent too much time at DPReview. It is pretty obvious in some spots in their review where the studio shots vs. the E-P1 (all metered) consistently have the same aperture and ISO but all of the Panny shots are at a faster shutter speed. When they got questioned about it they went back and added the chart.
 
Last edited:
V

Vivek

Guest
:ROTFL: Jono!

Brad, Try spot metering. I understand that the GF also has some nifty features in the spot metering mode to allow for shades and such.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Edit - doh.....just got the joke....hey at least I got it.
Well, I'm not banned yet . . . so presumably Guy hasn't seen it :ROTFL:

Sorry Jono not Guy...spent too much time at DPReview. It is pretty obvious in some spots in their review where the studio shots vs. the E-P1 (all metered) consistently have the same aperture and ISO but all of the Panny shots are at a faster shutter speed. When they got questioned about it they went back and added the chart.
So, does that explain why the high ISO shots were not as good with the GF1?
 
Last edited:
Top