Ricoh GR II

[johnastovall]

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...

 

[Robert Campbell]

"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

 

[johnastovall]

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

 

[Lili]

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

 

[Will]

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!)

 

[Sean_Reid]

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

 

[Mitch Alland]

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/10268776@N00/

 

[chris_tribble]

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/10268776@N00/

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

 

[IamJacksBrain]

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.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

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.

 

[IamJacksBrain]

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.

If you aren't intending the photo to fit a particular ratio then after you take a full frame photo you could just crop any old way. I've seen enough photos on flickr where people have done that and it looks very sloppy.

 

[mwalker]

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. /

I'm not schooled in photography or art but to me a photograph should project a mood (maybe that is what you mean by "feel the form" and we agree). If the viewer cannot take away a feeling or mood from the photograph, is it not just a meaningless picture to him or her?
Should the image be for the one taking it or for the person looking at it?
I may be way off base here so please tell me if I'm am......my standard for a photograph is if it can't make the inside cover of a Pink Floyd album its not worthy

 

[Mitchell]

Hi,

This is my first post. I usually haunt the Leica Forum, but there seems to be great stuff here as well.

I want to buy a Ricoh, backup to my M8, and carry all the time, either the GR II or the GX 100, and am trying to choose. Some questions:

1. Not sure it makes any difference, but I'm on an Mac. It seemed like some Ricoh firmware was not available for Mac?

2. Is is true that there is not now, but is going to be available a 40 mm equivalent add on lens for the GR II?

3. I plan on using this camera mostly to shoot friends/family indoors. And indoor action shots of my cats. I'm hoping the big DOF will help in both cases. Will the 28 mm, (and the 40 if it comes) work well with these subjects? (Up till now I've rarely shot people, and when I do with the M8, I usually use my 50mm.)

Thanks for any light you may shed.

Best,

Mitchell

 

[mwalker]

Hi,

This is my first post. I usually haunt the Leica Forum, but there seems to be great stuff here as well.

I want to buy a Ricoh, backup to my M8, and carry all the time, either the GR II or the GX 100, and am trying to choose. Some questions:

1. Not sure it makes any difference, but I'm on an Mac. It seemed like some Ricoh firmware was not available for Mac?

2. Is is true that there is not now, but is going to be available a 40 mm equivalent add on lens for the GR II?

3. I plan on using this camera mostly to shoot friends/family indoors. And indoor action shots of my cats. I'm hoping the big DOF will help in both cases. Will the 28 mm, (and the 40 if it comes) work well with these subjects? (Up till now I've rarely shot people, and when I do with the M8, I usually use my 50mm.)

Thanks for any light you may shed.

Best,

Mitchell

Mitchell, I just bought the GRII to back up my M8. The problem I have with these small sensor cameras is the noise but it my be my lack of how to post process these files. I'm using a Macbook pro,Lightroom and I've only shot in RAW . I having a hard time with the noise at iso 200 but its probably my lack of post process experience with third party noise suppression software. I'm going to try the jpeg mode and see if it looks better. Its no comparison to your M8 as long as you know that going in...IMHO. Maybe some of these guys will help us get more from our files, I've seen their images so I know it can be done. Sean Reid is doing a review of this camera and I expect to learn a lot from that.

 

[IamJacksBrain]

I'm not schooled in photography or art but to me a photograph should project a mood (maybe that is what you mean by "feel the form" and we agree). If the viewer cannot take away a feeling or mood from the photograph, is it not just a meaningless picture to him or her?
Should the image be for the one taking it or for the person looking at it?
I may be way off base here so please tell me if I'm am......my standard for a photograph is if it can't make the inside cover of a Pink Floyd album its not worthy

I'd say art is something from the expression of the artist's point of view that hopefully connects with the audience. As far as whether an image should be for the photographer versus the audience, I think the answer depends on the photographer. Personally I make images for myself, and I'm happy if other people actually like them, but I'd still make them regardless. I image professional photographers would have a completely different point of view.

 

[David Paul Carr]

Day spent photographing so I haven't got the energy to closely read every post here. Forgive me if I miss something... Golden section? A few comments: the size of the "canvas" isn't that important. What matters more is the divison of the available surface. Any format can be divided according to the rule. Examples? Rembrandt, for a start. Photographers? Come to mind: Stephen Shore (just draw some lines over the pictures in "Uncommon Places" - I bet he had pencil marks on the ground glass), Eugène Atget... French photographer Richard Dumas (Agence Vu). Cameras that allow access to the ground glass obviously lend themselves to golden section composition because you can put reference lines on the screen...

 

[Mitch Alland]

I'm not schooled in photography or art but to me a photograph should project a mood (maybe that is what you mean by "feel the form" and we agree). If the viewer cannot take away a feeling or mood from the photograph, is it not just a meaningless picture to him or her?...

A photograph or a painting may or not project mood, perhaps emotion is a more general concept; but if you set out to photograph mood, as such, you are likely to get moody, sentimental shots — and there is nothing that makes a photograph fall of into sentimentality or kitsch, the killers of art, faster that shooting with the intention of mood.

I feel that form is the must fundamental basis for a photograph or a painting and whatever meaning or mood is to surface it has to emerge from the form, in the manner of the Shakespeare sonnet above, to which no one has reacted.

There are a lot of great paintings that don't express a mood, and that goes for photographs as well, altough they may express a strong emotion, but not always because they may be more cerebral than emotive.

—Mitch/Huahin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[cam]

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!

i have not used it personally, but i remember reading that someone had and was very happy with it.

 

[Sean_Reid]

" Originally Posted by chris_tribble View Post
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!"

Yes, Chris. It's a great match with the GR2.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean_Reid]

A photograph or a painting may or not project mood, perhaps emotion is a more general concept; but if you set out to photograph mood, as such, you are likely to get moody, sentimental shots — and there is nothing that makes a photograph fall of into sentimentality or kitsch, the killers of art, faster that shooting with the intention of mood.

I feel that form is the must fundamental basis for a photograph or a painting and whatever meaning or mood is to surface it has to emerge from the form, in the manner of the Shakespeare sonnet above, to which no one has reacted.

There are a lot of great paintings that don't express a mood, and that goes for photographs as well, altough they may express a strong emotion, but not always because they may be more cerebral than emotive.

—Mitch/Huahin
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Hi Mitch,

I've responded to that quote in another thread on another forum. In short, its a good example of the power form has to convey content. And I agree about the importance of form. Winogrand was right, though, when he said that every picture is a contention between form and content.

The problem that often comes up is that people may mistake formulas for form. Certainly, countless books and magazines have made money by over-simplifying discussions of form into rules. There are no rules for form, as I think you'd agree.

To all:

For those who may not have seen them, may I very highly recommend this series of articles written by my friend Ben Lifson:

http://www.rawworkflow.com/making_pictures/index.html

I'd suggest reading every one of them, starting with the first. In my mind, its the best writing on photography as a visual art form yet done. Of course, most of Ben's writing over the past thirty years has been in books, newspapers, magazines, etc. but this modest little web series is some of the best writing on photography I've ever seen. It certainly stands in contrast to the various over-simplified ways in which form and content are often discussed and presented in countless "tips" articles and "how to" books.

Cheers,

Sean