Ricoh GX100

[Chris]

Wouter, you'll write an article about b/w-conversion? Great news!!!! I am really looking foreward to reading it!

I still love my GX100! A friend of mine got one a few days ago and is also very happy with it. And there are quite many people sending me mails at flickr asking about this camera (some of them didn't know Ricoh as a camera brand...).
I always send them to this forum and to seriouscompacts... So treat them well ;-) (I know you all do)

__________________________________________________________
best regards,
Chris
http://flickr.com/photos/21306283@N05/

 

[wbrandsma]

I have to find time for the writing, but work is in progress.

There are many great cameras around, but until now I love the GX100 too. I had some dust problems, but I know what I can do and what I can't do with the camera.
I have had numerous mails too from people all over the world asking about the camera. I mention this thread too :thumbs:

 

[Will]

Great street shot Chris!

Wouter, I'll be very interested in your article when you get around to it (no pressure )
More great images from you, I think the shadow on the tree one is particularly strong.

 

[ntrolls]

Nicely done! How close were you to the subjects? Usually I cannot muster the courage to take street shots at close-enough range...

Wouter, you'll write an article about b/w-conversion? Great news!!!! I am really looking foreward to reading it!

I still love my GX100! A friend of mine got one a few days ago and is also very happy with it. And there are quite many people sending me mails at flickr asking about this camera (some of them didn't know Ricoh as a camera brand...).
I always send them to this forum and to seriouscompacts... So treat them well ;-) (I know you all do)

__________________________________________________________
best regards,
Chris
http://flickr.com/photos/21306283@N05/

 

[Chris]

Thank you very much!

I was probably at a distance of about 1 meter. Many times I "shoot from the hips". Not only in order not to "destroy the moment" but also because I like the perspective.



______________________________________________________________________
best regards,
Chris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21306283@N05/

 

[wbrandsma]

Your hips must have eyes Chris! Your photographs are very inspiring indeed.

Here some extra GX100 photographs.

 

[Jack]

That it does. Flickr won't sharpen the photo as viewed at original size, but the smaller size versions it creates are automatically sharpened. Most of us feel that Flickr overdoes it in this respect. Regards, Amin

FWIW, that happens with our software too if you attach the image, so best to load the size you want viewed if you attach. Doesn't seem to be an issue for images linked to in our gallery though, even if they're larger.

 

[Jack]

Chris, that is an outstanding capture!

Wouter, those are awesome, especially the last set of three!

 

[sizifo]

FWIW, that happens with our software too if you attach the image, so best to load the size you want viewed if you attach. Doesn't seem to be an issue for images linked to in our gallery though, even if they're larger.

Yes, I was wondering about this regarding the B&W images I posted in the London thread a few days ago. The photos looked significantly sharper than in Aperture. Then I uploaded them to my .mac web page, and it ALSO sharpens them.

Why???

 

[wbrandsma]

Wouter, those are awesome, especially the last set of three!

Thank you Jack :thumbup:

 

[Jack]

Yes, I was wondering about this regarding the B&W images I posted in the London thread a few days ago. The photos looked significantly sharper than in Aperture. Then I uploaded them to my .mac web page, and it ALSO sharpens them.

Why???

A lot of the new software automatically sharpens jpegs as it downsizes them to some standard viewing size. In our forum to keep threads relatively fast loading, we limit image attachments to 900 pixels. So if you upload a 1200 pixel image, the software automatically generates a 900px version to attach, which of course it automatically sharpens at the same time it resizes... No way for us to turn that off or select an amount. Not sure why, but for whatever reason, images linked form our image gallery don't exhibit this.

 

[sizifo]

A lot of the new software automatically sharpens jpegs as it downsizes them to some standard viewing size. In our forum to keep threads relatively fast loading, we limit image attachments to 900 pixels. So if you upload a 1200 pixel image, the software automatically generates a 900px version to attach, which of course it automatically sharpens at the same time it resizes... No way for us to turn that off or select an amount. Not sure why, but for whatever reason, images linked form our image gallery don't exhibit this.

You know what? This was all in my head. I export from aperture to a size less than 900 - and indeed getdpi doesn't do anything to the image. When I download it, it is exact same image. And the same is true for .mac.

The reason why the images looked so different on the different webpages was simply the background. For example on .mac the bground is black (http://gallery.mac.com/vid33#100024/R0011631&bgcolor=black ), and the image looks a lot more contrasty at a first glance. Of course, if you concentrate, they're all the same. :thumbup:

 

[Jack]

Hehehe. Precisely why we chose dark gray

 

[Guy Mancuso]

LOL folks forget this site was designed by photographers Jack and I and do you think we want our images to look bad. LOL

Truth be told we spent a LOT of time just on these very things

 

[nostatic]

so you didn't just get liquored up and throw darts at a web color chart?

So much for my high esteem for you guys

 

[sizifo]

so you didn't just get liquored up and throw darts at a web color chart?

So much for my high esteem for you guys

He he.

Also just noticed that the Aperture generated website has user selectable backgrounds: white, light grey, dark grey, black. Those Aperture people seem to know what they're doing.

I'm sure there is some science behind the choice, but even w/o understanding the reasons I agree that dark grey is the best for viewing photos. For a while my desktop background has been:

 

[pollobarca]

I've been doing a fair amount of night time pix.Yesterday evening was pretty
dark but I managed to shoot these:-
Exposure: 0.1 sec (1/10) Aperture: f/2.5 Focal Length: 5.1 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Seregno Hospital

Exposure: 0.04 sec (1/25) Aperture: f/3.2 Focal Length: 5.1 mm
ISO Speed: 100

The la Pagoda restaurant (chinese)

BTW Wouter last picture of the trees and sunset -great

b rgds

paul

 

[wbrandsma]

Thanks Paul! The second photograph of the Chinese restaurant looks very good. Was it handheld? I saw it at large on Flickr. Very impressive indeed.

GX100 macro

Ricoh GX100, f2.7, 1/75 sec, ISO 80, -0.3 EV

 

[pollobarca]

Wouter,
Hand held , GX100 is great for this too with IS that works well. Seregno has little in the way of street lighting. Then people complain about security. I made a guess on exposure and was able to keep ISO100, also thats what the place looked like , it was very dark yesterday evening. That first shot of the hospital looks worse now. When I was tweaking the pic it was better.

One day I'll have to go and eat in the Pagoda too.

Thats a beauty you've posted in color of the roadside plants, like the DOF . I will have to get out more with the camera and get back into practice. Weather has been foul here for a long time.No blue skies and plenty of rain.

all the best

paul

 

[SimonL]

Just to take the pressure off Wouter a bit in the clamour for his B&W conversion PP I thought I'd post this site:

http://www.digital-monochrome.co.uk/

I admit, there's not much in the way of small sensors or street photography but it's the best B&W website I know and Martins conversion techniques can be adapted to anything.

Check out the galleries and the Forum for some outstanding B&W images.

Hope this helps