Site Sponsors
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 233

Thread: Ricoh GR II

  1. #101
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    From just casual observations it will never replace my M8 but I see this as a completely different tool to play around with especcially in B+W because it seems to have a nice grungy look to it . I know you guy's are making images to look like this also but just from casual viewing I am liking the look of the files . i know the DR is low on it and that makes it interesting. I know I need to read more about this and really figure this out and you can ignore me until I learn more of it but i am interested to see how this all comes about . Okay i know go read Guy. Busy logging you folks in
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  2. #102
    Member Hank Graber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    178
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    One more point on small sensors. Digital may not be so different from film. In digital luminance noise is much more benign then chrominance noise (or whatever the correct term is). So small sensor camera's that can be very effective in B+W don't quite make the cut in color.

    Similar to film, in digital luminance noise can be quite attractive in both color and B+W images, color noise not so much.

  3. #103
    Walt
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    Walt:

    To me the big difference between how people react to my M6 and my GRD is mainly because I bring the M6 up to my eye to look through the viewfinder while I just hold the GRD away from my face to frame with the LCD; the size of the cameras does matter in that the GRD is so small that it makes me look like a tourist. I cannot believe that people will react differently to an M8 vs an M4 because the M8 is only a few millimeters thicker, and perhaps a millimeter of so taller, so to a bystander there is no difference. Now, for the photographer, the few millimeter difference is another matter: wen I picked up the M8 in my hands I was, indeed, surprised that it felt klunkier because of these few millimeters; but I'm sure that after a few days shooting I would get used to it and wouldn't think about it again.

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
    Mitch--

    The difference in people's reactions is not because the M8 is different from the M4 but because the culture has changed. When I used an M4, all cameras were that size or larger. Now the "standard" camera is a pocket camera and the M4 and M8 look large and serious. So it is a perception of the size and seriousness of the camera. Incidentally, I use a finder on the GRD, so it is not just about holding the camera off from the face. Sitting in a restaurant with the GRD lying on the table yesterday, a man next to me asked about it and said he was looking for a camera, that he thought it was time time to "get into digital" and how did I like it. No one, except a photographer who knew what it was, would ask that about a Leica.

    Walt

  4. #104
    Walt
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    I agree that aspect ratio is very important. I also feel that there is no such thing as a, general, "better" or "worse" aspect ratio but there certainly are aspect ratios that can be better or worse for a given photographer. I think that finding one's natural format and one's natural aspect ratio can be important.

    Cheers,

    Sean
    I agree with this, but also with David in having such a strong association between 3:2 and a certain kind of image. I had a magazine editor recently cut a sliver off the bottom of one of my photographs (a sort of 3:1.98) and I saw it immediately--it was the first thing I saw and it was not because content was missing in this sliver, but because it just changed the entire balance of the thing. So 3:2 is definitely my format and I don't think I could learn another and the GRD does fine in 3:2 if people want to use it. When I first saw Mitch's work I was discomforted by this kind of photograph in 4:3 because I expect a different image character in this shape, larger format. But now I've gotten use to it in Mitch's work and don't notice that about it. I should say that I associate 4:3 with television sets, which might be good if that's what you were doing. Otherwise it is, for me, something to overcome.

    Walt

  5. #105
    Walt
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Hank Graber View Post
    For me it all depends on whether you are shooting color or B+W. I could see why some would stick with film in B+W and if I was shooting B+W exclusively I could see dumping my M8 and using a GRD for the sorts of photography the M was originaly designed for. But I do mostly color and when I went to color I switched to MF rangefinders because the mushy grain of color dyes was nothing like the sharp silver grain of B+W. I suppose the M8 maybe more Mamiya 7 then M4 which if you shoot color is not a bad thing but if you want a digital M4 TriX and Rodinal replacement maybe not so much.

    The other thing the M8 gives you in B+W if you are shooting events for pay is more leeway in the image. If you need to crop or salvage an image out of poor lighting the M8 image files are your friend. A small sensor camera could be very unforgiving in those circumstances.

    I think eventually we will get the best of both worlds for color or B+W as the GRD develops or maybe from a camera like the Sigma DP1 - maybe even Leica will bring out a small M or M like camera. I'd like to be able to have color masters that I could use if I wanted color and I think the small sensor cameras are not nearly as effective as they are for B+W when the end product is color.

    So given all that, there really is not an alternative for me to the M8. I'm with Sean that it is the best handling digital yet but to put that in perspective that's not a very high bar to clear if your preference is manual focusing rangefinders.
    Hank,

    As usual, I couldn't have said it as sensibly. You have precisely described my experience with these cameras. Incidentally, I have never cropped an image, not out of principal, but because it has never actually worked for me. For me, the GRD is much closer to being the heir to the M4/Tri-X than the M8 is. Thanks. It was also Sean's turning me on to the chrominance noise issue that has made this GRD so usable to me. Without that noise reduction, I couldn't use this camera at 800. With the NR, it is emminently usable. Incidentally, I tried the Chroma NR in both ACR and, after conversion, in Neat Image and it seems six of one, etc. So I'm just doing it in RAW conversin.

    Walt
    Last edited by Walt; 8th December 2007 at 09:06.

  6. #106
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    Now, for the photographer, the few millimeter difference is another matter: wen I picked up the M8 in my hands I was, indeed, surprised that it felt klunkier because of these few millimeters; but I'm sure that after a few days shooting I would get used to it and wouldn't think about it again.
    Coming from a D-Lux 3, the M8 felt HUGE. But, after running a roll of film through a Konica T3, the M8 feels tiny.

  7. #107
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bath, U.K.
    Posts
    148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Out of interest have any of you guys used the this GRDII with the gv-2 viewfinder (the one for the 28mm lens)?
    I have never got used to (or particularly liked) framimg a scene from a distance when using smaller cameras and so so still prefer to use a traditional viewfinder.

    Marc

  8. #108
    Walt
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Marc-

    Yes, I've used this as well as the Voigtlander 28. The former is excellent and very compact and light, but it does not quite have the relief for eyeglasses that the Voigtlander has. I wear sunglasses outdoors, so I'm mostly using the Voigtlander. The view is excellent in both, and very accurate and the Ricoh has tick marks for the 1:1 if that's meaningful for you. I also can't compose on a screen.

    Walt

  9. #109
    Senior Member Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Near London
    Posts
    1,054
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wilson View Post
    Out of interest have any of you guys used the this GRDII with the gv-2 viewfinder (the one for the 28mm lens)?
    I have never got used to (or particularly liked) framimg a scene from a distance when using smaller cameras and so so still prefer to use a traditional viewfinder.

    Marc
    Yes, I use it, and have the screen off but with a 3 second preview. That way I can be reviewing the image while it's writing the RAW file.

  10. #110
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bath, U.K.
    Posts
    148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    I've never really been much of a compact camera user shooting always in colour with either large or medium format film on tripod or f.f. dslr for work and stock but have been waiting for a compact pocketable camera with raw high image quality...but its my sister's wedding next weekend, and whilst I am not shooting it officially, it may be great fun to shoot lots of great unobtrusive, reportage style black and white 4:3 images for her with a lovely grainy filmic look...and this little camera may just be the one to do that.

    Marc

  11. #111
    patd
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Hello all, and thanks for the forum. I have been lurking in the Ricoh dpreview forum for a while and followed this thread over. It's been very helpful.

    I am a reluctant convert to digital after years of shooting slides, and have been looking for a small-format digital camera with manual controls for a while. The GRD 2 seems to fit the bill nicely, though my dream is for a digital replacement for my beloved Contax G2 rangefinder. (Alas, that's a vain dream.)

    Here's my question: Much of the work posted/linked to from here is B&W, and often post-processed to achieve a desired result. (Darned nice results, I should add.) I shoot almost exclusively color (not an aesthetic judgement -- I just don't "see" in B&W the way some do), and would prefer not to spend much time doing post-processing. That's partially a function of limited time -- I have nine-month old twins, and just finding the time to shoot is tough -- and partially a function of not being at all familiar with all of the various bits of processing software out there.

    So, I would love to hear people's experiences shooting color with the GRD/GRD2, and what kind of RAW results you're getting with caveman-level processing, because I am definitely a caveman when it comes to digital imaging. I've seen some great stuff on flickr, but additional opinions are welcome.

    Here's a link to a pretty bare-bones website with some of my stuff: http://www.patdorseyphoto.com/galler...es/cities.html

    Thanks, Pat

  12. #112
    Walt
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Has anyone figured out how to have the image off, but the settings data on the screen. This is billed as a feature of the II when using a finder, but I have not been able to figure out how to do it. I am using the finder.

    Thanks,
    Walt

  13. #113
    mlpowell
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Eager to order one of these for myself, I think this might be the 'digital Canonet' no one else will produce.

    I've never owned a really-small sensor camera before - curious where I should expect diffraction to come into play with images?

  14. #114
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    belgďe
    Posts
    1,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Has anyone figured out how to have the image off, but the settings data on the screen. This is billed as a feature of the II when using a finder, but I have not been able to figure out how to do it. I am using the finder.
    i think you have to make sure that you have the Info Disp turned ON in the Set Up Menu. then, press the Display button until you have a black screen. when you're ready to compose, use the Adj. button and the information only will display on the screen.

    i hope i explained that properly. it's easier to show than to tell.

  15. #115
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    belgďe
    Posts
    1,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wilson View Post
    Out of interest have any of you guys used the this GRDII with the gv-2 viewfinder (the one for the 28mm lens)?
    I have never got used to (or particularly liked) framimg a scene from a distance when using smaller cameras and so so still prefer to use a traditional viewfinder.
    the GV-2 is great. tiny but bright and fits beautifully in the Ricoh leather case. (the GV-2 is so small, compared to the original 28/21, that you barely notice it.) it also has the 1:1 notches as Walt stated. however, it is for the 4:3 ratio. the Voightlander, i believe, is 3:2 (which i shoot but i couldn't get my hands on one). that may be the biggest factor when choosing.

    i have a VF attached all the time and love the choice on how i frame. they produce very different pictures, at least for me. if you have the time, it's great to try both. the new LCD is pretty gorgeous.

  16. #116
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    What's the native aspect ratio of the GRD II?

  17. #117
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    I agree with this, but also with David in having such a strong association between 3:2 and a certain kind of image. I had a magazine editor recently cut a sliver off the bottom of one of my photographs (a sort of 3:1.98) and I saw it immediately--it was the first thing I saw and it was not because content was missing in this sliver, but because it just changed the entire balance of the thing. So 3:2 is definitely my format and I don't think I could learn another and the GRD does fine in 3:2 if people want to use it. When I first saw Mitch's work I was discomforted by this kind of photograph in 4:3 because I expect a different image character in this shape, larger format. But now I've gotten use to it in Mitch's work and don't notice that about it. I should say that I associate 4:3 with television sets, which might be good if that's what you were doing. Otherwise it is, for me, something to overcome....
    Walt:

    When I first got the GRD I started shooting in 3:2 format because it was my first digital camera and I, instinctively, didn't want my pictures to lok different from 35mm film shots. Then, as I saw that this was indeed a "real camera", I felt that I should try to face it on its own, in its native format of 4:3 and noticed that often I found composition very effective in this format. I then saw a survey of master paintings from museums that showed that something like 90% were painted in a format that averaged very close to 4:3. Now, I find that I can shoot in either 3:2 or 4:3 formats,but that, usually, pictures in "portrait" orientation seem more natural in 4:3 than 3:2. I also have the feeling of why not shoot in the sensor native mode to get the most pixels into the file...

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  18. #118
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie O View Post
    What's the native aspect ratio of the GRD II?
    It's 4:3.

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  19. #119
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Mitch--

    The difference in people's reactions is not because the M8 is different from the M4 but because the culture has changed. When I used an M4, all cameras were that size or larger. Now the "standard" camera is a pocket camera and the M4 and M8 look large and serious. So it is a perception of the size and seriousness of the camera.

    Walt
    I think that is absolutely true.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  20. #120
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wilson View Post
    Out of interest have any of you guys used the this GRDII with the gv-2 viewfinder (the one for the 28mm lens)?
    I have never got used to (or particularly liked) framimg a scene from a distance when using smaller cameras and so so still prefer to use a traditional viewfinder.

    Marc
    Yes, I'm testing the camera with that finder right now. It works well if one wants a 4:3 ratio, although, like most rangefinder camera frame lines, it is not completely accurate (even allowing for parallax). I'm used to that and so I frame so that the edges of my pictures will fall just outside the frame lines. I suspect this finder is a variation on the CV 28/35 finder and is made for Ricoh by CV.

    For 3:2, I used the CV 28 finder which is more accurate than some camera frame lines but still not exact, of course.

    Cheers,

    Sean
    Last edited by Sean_Reid; 8th December 2007 at 15:08.

  21. #121
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by mlpowell View Post
    Eager to order one of these for myself, I think this might be the 'digital Canonet' no one else will produce.

    I've never owned a really-small sensor camera before - curious where I should expect diffraction to come into play with images?
    It depends on the specific lens but it usually starts to be noticeable at F/5.0 or a bit wider. I have specific tests of this in my GX-100 review.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  22. #122
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    Walt:
    I then saw a survey of master paintings from museums that showed that something like 90% were painted in a format that averaged very close to 4:3.

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
    Hi Mitch,

    I'm not sure who did that study, or from what paintings, but paintings have always been made in a variety of formats. I strongly feel that there is no such thing as a "best" aspect ratio and I don't think the history of art supports that strange 90% claim either.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  23. #123
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Okay i know go read Guy. Busy logging you folks in
    Yes, definitely do go read that "On Small Sensor Cameras" article. It's important to understanding what all of this is about.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  24. #124
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    ...I'm not sure who did that study, or from what paintings, but paintings have always been made in a variety of formats. I strongly feel that there is no such thing as a "best" aspect ratio and I don't think the history of art supports that strange 90% claim either...
    Sean:

    I agree that there is no "best" format, but if you look at something like Gombrich's "Story of Art" or go to the Metroplolitain Museum, you'll see that the vast majority of paintings are close to the 4:3 aspect ratio, which does bear some thought. Look at Cezanne, for example — and he wasn't using precut canvases or stretchers.

    BTW, I've uploaded the GX100/GRD2 comparison DNG files: please see the "GX100 vs GRD2: comparison picture" thread.

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  25. #125
    Caer
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Hello all, just popping in to say hi, having got here from the Ricoh forum on DPR.

    Only got my GRD2 a couple of days ago, and the weather's been awful lately so I've not had a chance to give it a good workout. On top of that, I'm just not comfortable with the 28mm lens yet, having been using the equivalent of 43mm on my Pentax *ist DS for street shooting. It's going to be an interesting and challenging experience getting used to the wider view, and I look forward to it.

    So yeah, here's a few pictures I took in the past couple of days:

    1/40, f/2.4, ISO 800. Larger version here.


    1/100, f/2.4, ISO 100. Larger version here.


    1/80, f/2.4, ISO 100. Larger version here


    1/160, f/5, ISO 80. Larger version here. This one was lit with an off-camera flash triggered by one of those cheap Gadget Infinity radio triggers. Usually I do this sort of thing with my Pentax K10D so it'll be interesting to compare that with the GRD2. Also, since the GRD's got an electronic shutter, the it ought to be able to sync at some nice fast speeds, which should be handy if/when I do some outdoor skateboarding/bmx shoots.

    All these photos were processed in Raw Therapee, a freeware raw developer. The B&W is courtesy of the JFI B&W Film profiles (the Tri-X one, specifically) that Sean seems to like quite a bit

    ✄----------
    Andy Farrell, http://www.flickr.com/caerphoto
    Last edited by Caer; 8th December 2007 at 18:42. Reason: added signature

  26. #126
    Walt
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by cam View Post
    i think you have to make sure that you have the Info Disp turned ON in the Set Up Menu. then, press the Display button until you have a black screen. when you're ready to compose, use the Adj. button and the information only will display on the screen.

    i hope i explained that properly. it's easier to show than to tell.
    Yes, that was it. But you have to flick the adjust button right or left and then the display stays on for a few seconds. This is very useful to check settings. It also comes up if you adjust any other settings (focus, perture, etc.). Many thanks

    Walt
    Last edited by Walt; 8th December 2007 at 22:31.

  27. #127
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    Sean:

    I agree that there is no "best" format, but if you look at something like Gombrich's "Story of Art" or go to the Metroplolitain Museum, you'll see that the vast majority of paintings are close to the 4:3 aspect ratio, which does bear some thought. Look at Cezanne, for example — and he wasn't using precut canvases or stretchers.

    BTW, I've uploaded the GX100/GRD2 comparison DNG files: please see the "GX100 vs GRD2: comparison picture" thread.

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
    Hi Mitch,

    You know I love that Gombrich book and have been recommending it on various threads for years. But it is Gombrich's selection. I used to almost haunt the Met when I lived in NYC and the dominant aspect ratios of the art there varies, especially across time and continents. There are a lot of European paintings made in the aspect ratio you like but Asian art, for example, tends to favor a longer and thinner frame. There also have always been conventions that are just conventions. I really don't think that any one aspect ratio has any kind of inherent advantage in art.

    As always, I love the fact that you're far more interested in pictures than in equipment per se.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  28. #128
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Sean:

    Good point about the aspect rations in Chinese and Japanese painting. So, do you think I should shoot in 4:3 or 3:2 format? (Joke.)

    It seems to me that if one is aiming for a book it might be better to shoot with just one aspect ratio. Moriyama Daido's latest books have been sized and laid out so that "portrait-aspect" pictures fit on one page with a half-inch gutter and "landscape-aspect" pictures are full-bleed on double-page spreads, which allows an attractive layout for for 35mm full-frame shots. I'm not sure what would be an attractive solution if one had a mixture of 4:3 and 3:2 format, as in my Bangkok series.

    —Mitch/Huahin
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  29. #129
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    I think a person should photograph with whatever aspect ratio seems to work for him or her. A book, if one is made, should accommodate itself to the pictures, rather than vice-versa. Otherwise, the tail wags the dog. For books with mixed aspect ratio pictures, take a look at some of Walker Evans' work.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  30. #130
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    In regards to OVF usage with the GRD I/II when first I started using my GRD, I used it a alot with my CV-28mm finder and 3:2 ratio.
    As I started becoming more comfortable with using the LCD I started using 4:3 a lot more.
    Despite the 3:2 framelines in the CV finder I really have no difficulty now that I am used to it and the 4:3 format composing using the CV OVF.
    As in this shot;

    This being said I find the OVF of greatest value in very bright light with the source behind me, and in some very low light situations, using the Synchro-Monitor mode.
    Last edited by Lili; 9th December 2007 at 08:01.

  31. #131
    Senior Member Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Near London
    Posts
    1,054
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    The clasic ratio that will have influenced the proportions of a lot of canvases in museums is the golden section, golden rectangle, or devine proportion. 1 by 1.618 which comes out at 1.8541 by 3

  32. #132
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Will View Post
    The clasic ratio that will have influenced the proportions of a lot of canvases in museums is the golden section, golden rectangle, or devine proportion. 1 by 1.618 which comes out at 1.8541 by 3
    Count me as highly agnostic about any of those three.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  33. #133
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    I think a person should photograph with whatever aspect ratio seems to work for him or her. A book, if one is made, should accommodate itself to the pictures, rather than vice-versa. Otherwise, the tail wags the dog. For books with mixed aspect ratio pictures, take a look at some of Walker Evans' work.

    Cheers,

    Sean
    Interesting I have gone through so many format changes that i really just adapted to them pretty easily. I think the key is all of that is learning to adjust your compositions within the frame set you are using at the time.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  34. #134
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Interesting I have gone through so many format changes that i really just adapted to them pretty easily. I think the key is all of that is learning to adjust your compositions within the frame set you are using at the time.
    That's certainly true and I try to do that too. But I think that many photographers find that they naturally tend to be seeing things in certain aspect ratios (its just how their visual attention runs) and so finding the right kind of aspect ratio can make one's compositions stronger. The edges of the frame tend to fall in natural ways for some people.

    I worked with large format cameras for a very long time (you probably did to) but I think that now, like Walt, I tend to see in a 3:2 ratio. People forget about this aspect of 4/3rds cameras very often, they not only give a different sensor size (thus different DOF, different drawing, etc.) but also a different aspect ratio that works very well for some photographers.

    I often see photographs where "the picture", the section of the frame that seems intentional and visually active, does not necessarily match the proportions of the frame. And if that happens again and again to a given photographer, it may mean he or she should rethink the aspect ratio he or she works in.

    I find the square to be the toughest because it has that very powerful natural center. The only photographers I can think of who made really strong work (IMO) with the square are Diane Arbus and, for some work, Walker Evans. I think a lot of people try it but find it hard to tame.

    Golden this and golden that I find to be as academic and useless as nonsense like the "rule" of thirds. Form is far more complicated a thing than what little formulas can express.

    Cheers,

    Sean
    Last edited by Sean_Reid; 9th December 2007 at 08:43.

  35. #135
    Senior Member Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Near London
    Posts
    1,054
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    That's certainly true and I try to do that too. But I think that many photographers find that they naturally tend to be seeing things in certain aspect ratios (its just how their visual attention runs) and so finding the right kind of aspect ratio can make one's compositions stronger. The edges of the frame tend to fall in natural ways for some people.

    I worked with large format cameras for a very long time (you probably did to) but I think that now, like Walt, I tend to see in a 3:2 ratio. People forget about this aspect of 4/3rds cameras very often, they not only give a different sensor size (thus different DOF, different drawing, etc.) but also a different aspect ratio that works very well for some photographers.

    I often see photographs where "the picture", the section of the frame that seems intentional and visually active, does not necessarily match the proportions of the frame. And if that happens again and again to a given photographer, it may mean he or she should rethink the aspect ratio he or she works in.

    I find the square to be the toughest because it has that very powerful natural center. The only photographers I can think of who made really strong work (IMO) with the square are Diane Arbus and, for some work, Walker Evans. I think a lot of people try it but find it hard to tame.

    Golden this and golden that I find to be as academic and useless as nonsense like the "rule" of thirds. Form is far more complicated a thing than what little formulas can express.

    Cheers,

    Sean
    My point was not that the golden section has any merit, but that it influenced a high proportion of artists who then used it for the proportions of their work. That would then give a false bias if you look at art gallery hangings as the basis for what people find pleasing. They used those proportions because they were taught that it was the best. Doesn't mean that is was the best, just that they were conditioned to beleive it was.

  36. #136
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Hi Will,

    That's interesting. Which artists, for example, do you think were working according to that "golden section" rule? I'm very interested in art generally and am always curious to talk with anyone who knows paintings well.

    We know that the association with DaVinci is strongly debated, are you thinking about Dali?

    Cheers,

    Sean
    Last edited by Sean_Reid; 9th December 2007 at 11:48.

  37. #137
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Hi Again Will,

    Wikipedia is hardly authoritative but the following was interesting:

    "Interestingly, a statistical study on 565 works of art of different great painters, performed in 1999, found that these artists had not used the golden ratio in the size of their canvases. The study concluded that the average ratio of the two sides of the paintings studied is 1.34, with averages for individual artists ranging from 1.04 (Goya) to 1.46 (Bellini).[22]"

    Source: Golden Section and the Art of Painting
    Authors: Agata Olariu (National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest Magurele, Romania)
    (Submitted on 18 Aug 1999)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

    Also this PDF is interesting:
    http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~markov/GoldenRatio.pdf

    Cheers,

    Sean
    Last edited by Sean_Reid; 9th December 2007 at 11:46.

  38. #138
    Member Hank Graber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    178
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    That's certainly true and I try to do that too. But I think that many photographers find that they naturally tend to be seeing things in certain aspect ratios (its just how their visual attention runs) and so finding the right kind of aspect ratio can make one's compositions stronger. The edges of the frame tend to fall in natural ways for some people.
    When I shot film my aspect ratio depended on field of view. My wide was an Alpa w/ 55mm and a 6x9 back (2:3), normal a Plaubel 670/80mm (6:7) and for head and shoulder portraits a 150/2.8 on a Hassy 6x6 (square).

    I find the 2x3 format more dynamic. Unlike panoramic formats 2x3 still looks like a 'normal' rectangle but is more cinematic and less static then the shorter rectangles like 6x7. It remains my preferred format.

    What works best for you may have a lot to do with subject matter and field of view preferences.

  39. #139
    Deceased, but remembered fondly here... johnastovall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dublin, Texas, U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,549
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    112

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Just what frame lines does the Ricoh viewer have in it. I'm confused after catching up in this thread.

    As for aspect ratio, I create the photograph, not the camera, which is why a always used a adjustable print easel in my darkroom days and love the crop tool today. I take the camera's aspect ration as just a suggestion and starting point.

    "The market wants a Leica to be a Leica: the inheritor of tradition, the subject of lore, and indisputably a mark of status to own."
    Mike Johnston


  40. #140
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    The Golden Mean works brilliantly in Western Architecture and Furniture design. I agree that it has less (if any) relevance to photography.

    You will find that the great proportions of Victorian period buildings for example are unashamedly meticulously devoted to the subtle application of the Golden Mean as the key proportionate reference. Anyone interested should visit the Acropolis and take a few minutes to feel the unsurpassed beauty of the Parthenon - as a high school student it was the sheer beauty and 'gravitas' of this monument that got me interested in applied mathematics and art.

    This same ratio finds itself repeated throughout the natural world as well - Fibonacci did a lot of work in this area. In the US you will find that the best period furniture was meticulously built around this ratio - most obviously seen in the proportions of standing cabinets and chests of drawers.

  41. #141
    Deceased, but remembered fondly here... johnastovall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dublin, Texas, U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,549
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    112

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    Hi Will,

    That's interesting. Which artists, for example, do you think were working according to that "golden section" rule? I'm very interested in art generally and am always curious to talk with anyone who knows paintings well.

    We know that the association with DaVinci is strongly debated, are you thinking about Dali?

    Cheers,

    Sean
    Best book I've ever found on composition never once discusses the rule of third. And as for the golden mean, he devotes a special section to de-bunking it.

    He show with data the 'golden mean' applies to 'unfilled rectangles.'

    Take a look at Practical Composition in Photography by Axel Bück

    Now let's get back the GR-DII and a reason for me to spend more money...

    "The market wants a Leica to be a Leica: the inheritor of tradition, the subject of lore, and indisputably a mark of status to own."
    Mike Johnston


  42. #142
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    "The Golden Mean works brilliantly in Western Architecture and Furniture
    This same ratio finds itself repeated throughout the natural world as well".

    My first post here - please be gentle with me. I have followed this thread for a while, and am surprised that the golden section apparently didn't influence the Western 'Old Masters'. I thought the idea was an expression, through maths, of harmony: thus a rectangle with sides of 13:8 would be gentle and harmonious. This - perhaps serendipidiously - is almost the Leica format.

    I also thought that victorian age photography led some/many artists to reassess their work - no longer photo-realistic, but an affront to the senses, from impressionism through the following isms - a challenge for the viewer rather than something just pleasant.

    Hence, I thought that if Old Masters [unconsciously] followed the golden section, then the impressionists and later ones consciously or otherwise rebelled against this - hence other formats - to affront the viewer, and make them look, see and think.

    If so, does the choice of format say something about the ideas behind the picture - harmony, 'brain-candy', questioning, abstraction or what? Or is the format irrelevant to the content and the idea behind the content?

    Regards, Bertie

  43. #143
    Deceased, but remembered fondly here... johnastovall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dublin, Texas, U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,549
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    112

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    To me the first and most important thing is the idea behind the content and all else should contribute to that....

    "The market wants a Leica to be a Leica: the inheritor of tradition, the subject of lore, and indisputably a mark of status to own."
    Mike Johnston


  44. #144
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by johnastovall View Post
    Just what frame lines does the Ricoh viewer have in it. I'm confused after catching up in this thread.

    As for aspect ratio, I create the photograph, not the camera, which is why a always used a adjustable print easel in my darkroom days and love the crop tool today. I take the camera's aspect ration as just a suggestion and starting point.
    John both the GV-1 and GV-1 have framelines for the cameras native 4:3 format. In addition the GV-2 has 'tick marks' for the 1:1 format that both the GX100 and GRD II can do.
    The Cosina Voigtlander finders are marked for the 24x36mm, 4:3, 35mm frame.
    I usually prefer this format but will use what ever works best.
    In regards to the main point that this thread has gone to the 3:2 is closest to the Golden Mean of any of them and so is a good place from which to start.
    Please note the use of the word 'start'
    It is just that a beginning from which one can grow or vary.
    But you know that already

  45. #145
    Senior Member Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Near London
    Posts
    1,054
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    Hi Again Will,

    Wikipedia is hardly authoritative but the following was interesting:

    "Interestingly, a statistical study on 565 works of art of different great painters, performed in 1999, found that these artists had not used the golden ratio in the size of their canvases. The study concluded that the average ratio of the two sides of the paintings studied is 1.34, with averages for individual artists ranging from 1.04 (Goya) to 1.46 (Bellini).[22]"

    Source: Golden Section and the Art of Painting
    Authors: Agata Olariu (National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest Magurele, Romania)
    (Submitted on 18 Aug 1999)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

    Also this PDF is interesting:
    http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~markov/GoldenRatio.pdf

    Cheers,

    Sean
    Looks like my theory was wrong, or maybe only applicable to the renaisance period and Georgian period which were heavily influenced by ancient greek geometry, particularly in architecture.
    Anyway, perhaps it's best to get this thread back on topic (photography!)

  46. #146
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Hi Will,

    I think that a discussion of aspect ratio and composition is very much relevant to photography and is, for me, a welcome change of pace from the usual topics of resolution, noise, etc. Thanks for your posts on the subject.

    As far as I'm concerned, we can drift on and off topic as needed. Sometimes that makes things more interesting.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  47. #147
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by johnastovall View Post
    To me the first and most important thing is the idea behind the content and all else should contribute to that....
    That is not my approach: I my have a project or an idea for a type of picture or a more specific concept for a photograph or a series; but unless I "feel the form" when I shoot the picture it is not going to be any good. To me the form of a photograph functions like form in a poem, so that the form becomes the content and expresses it. The best example of form being integral to the content or the meaning is Shakespeare's sonnet 129, in which the language runs riot and expresses perfectly, through its form, the meaning of how lust affects an individual:

    The expense of spirit in a waste of shame
    Is lust in action; and till action, lust
    Is perjured, murderous, bloody, full of blame,
    Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust,
    Enjoy’d no sooner but despised straight,
    Past reason hunted, and no sooner had
    Past reason hated, as a swallow’d bait
    On purpose laid to make the taker mad;
    Mad in pursuit and in possession so;
    Had, having, and in quest to have, extreme;
    A bliss in proof, and proved, a very woe;
    Before, a joy proposed; behind, a dream.
    All this the world well knows; yet none knows well
    To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.

    —Mitch/Huahin
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

  48. #148
    chris_tribble
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
    Chris:

    I think that the GRD II does exactly that in producing film-like results at ISO 400 and 800, which are speeds that I like on this camera. At ISO 200, it produces results that are more like Ilford Delta 100 or FP4 or PanF+, depending on how you post process — and I haven't even tried ISO 100 because I only got the camera last week.

    —Mitch/Bangkok
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
    Mitch - many thanks for this - been away so not responded before. Another practical question to you good people. I'm now very seriously considering the GR2, but would like to avoid having to buy another finder. At the moment I use the Leica 21-24-28 on my M8 and am pretty OK with it. Does anyone have experience of using this on the GR2 - or any thoughts? I notice a couple of people have been using the Voigtlander 28 finder - maybe I shouldn't have sold mine!

    Grateful for any thoughts...

    Chris
    www.ctribble.co.uk

  49. #149
    IamJacksBrain
    Guest

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    4:3 has always seemed a little indecisive to me; it's like it wants to be 1:1 and 3:2 at the same time, but lacks the boldness of the former and the deliberateness of the latter. I have my GX100 set to 3:2 by default, but I don't have a problem switching to 1:1 or 4:3 as the need arises.

  50. #150
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,310
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: Ricoh GR II

    I think I am pretty pragmatic about this. I tend to compose based on the frame the camera gives me. I tend to shoot with a bunch of different cameras, so I am used to shooting 35mm, 6x6 and 6x7...I do my best to compose based on filling the frame, but if that does not work, you can always crop in printing. It is of course very important to know what is in your frame and why, but I would say less so to make sure that every photo conform to a certain specific ratio. The only reason I specifically try to compose full frame is because I like to maximize the use of the negative or sensor, and it is easier to get nice sloppy borders in the darkroom if you print the whole frame.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •