Reminding Myself that the R-D1 is OK

[Gid]

In amongst the hullaballoo of the M8 and my particular problems with it, its been easy for me to forget that once I was very excited by the R-D1. It was a nice sunny morning today so I took the R-D1 with me whilst walking the dog and took some shots around the village. I kept forgetting to wind on, initially, but apart from that, it was a joy to use. As for the results, well, some examples attached - not art, but a good example of what comes out of the camera via Epson Photo Raw - very little PS apart from some unsharp mask for micro contrast - amount 30%, radius 10, threshold 0. I do like the B&W conversion from Photo Raw and the colour's not bad either. Hey, and so quiet compared to the M8 - my SO remarked upon that. My SO also said that she would not have let me sell the R-D1 🙂

All with Tri-Elmar at 35mm and F8,ISO 400 (forgot to check it) 😱

 

[AusDLK]

Although a former R-D1 owner, I was stunned with the quality 11x17 prints that I was able to make from its RAW files when making prints for my current Europeans (2006) exhibition.

(You can see these images, although film and digital are mixed with no indication as to which is which, on my web site.)

In some cases, the digital images were superior to what I could get from a film scan...

Gid, you retreat from film, and I, from digital. Both with some reluctance. Go figure.

 

[Gid]

Dave,

Great shots on your site - especially the Bronica RF645 image (PAW 2007) 😉

My retreat from film is time based - developing, scanning et al. However, there have been a lot of threads recently about the lure of film which has caused me serious angst. The F1 is now loaded with HP5+ and will make the next proper photog outing. I've decided that when I do shoot film, that I'll get it developed and either low res scans or 6x4s done at a decent lab. That way I can see if there are likely any keepers and I can scan the 6x4s for the web. If that works and I can bear the cost, then, I may shoot more film, but I'll probably still do the majority with digital in the short term.

 

[ampguy]

great photos Dave

great photos Dave

I like the sets of 4 on your web site.

I've got a question on large printing, am planning on having some 11x14 or so prints done by a budget printer (costco). Do you have any recommendations on setting up the files? e.g. converting raw to tiff at xx by yy pixels or just providing a jpg at > 320ish dpi? Thanks!

Although a former R-D1 owner, I was stunned with the quality 11x17 prints that I was able to make from its RAW files when making prints for my current Europeans (2006) exhibition.

(You can see these images, although film and digital are mixed with no indication as to which is which, on my web site.)

In some cases, the digital images were superior to what I could get from a film scan...

Gid, you retreat from film, and I, from digital. Both with some reluctance. Go figure.

 

[sirvine]

I've been fighting the urge to upgrade to an M8 lately. I took my R-D1 to MOMA today to remind myself why I like it so much. It really is a fun camera, and I think I'll really miss some of it's quirks when I do finally go for the Leica body.

Have a look here, if you need a boost of R-D1 joy... http://solsphere.com/index.php

 

[Gid]

I've been fighting the urge to upgrade to an M8 lately. I took my R-D1 to MOMA today to remind myself why I like it so much. It really is a fun camera, and I think I'll really miss some of it's quirks when I do finally go for the Leica body.

Have a look here, if you need a boost of R-D1 joy... http://solsphere.com/index.php

Nice shots. Yes, it is a really nice camera.

 

[triplefinger]

I just got an R-D1 and love it. One thing which makes it feel better than any other digicam is the screen mobility. I don't have to look at the screen, refer to the screen or worry about the screen! which makes it feel all that more organic.

 

[wintoid]

It's definitely more than OK. Somehow I still have to push myself to use it, but when I look back on shots taken with it, I am rarely disappointed.

 

[AusDLK]

>I like the sets of 4 on your web site.

Thanks. These have proven popular. All the prints are for sale at my little shows but street photography is not a big seller. But a woman did purchase a quad-print of the deaf boy signing that I took in Cologne.

>I've got a question on large printing, am planning on having some 11x14 or
>so prints done by a budget printer (costco). Do you have any
>recommendations on setting up the files? e.g. converting raw to tiff at xx by
>yy pixels or just providing a jpg at > 320ish dpi? Thanks!

I'm not sure I have any advice that will be specifically helpful here. However, I took a 5400 dpi scan of a 35mm slide, as a large TIFF file, to a custom lab and had a poster sized (24x36") print made and it was astoundingly good.

So, highest resolution you can get and a TIFF file would be my advice...

 

[ampguy]

Thanks Dave

Thanks Dave

good info., also got some tips by PM.

>I like the sets of 4 on your web site.

Thanks. These have proven popular. All the prints are for sale at my little shows but street photography is not a big seller. But a woman did purchase a quad-print of the deaf boy signing that I took in Cologne.

>I've got a question on large printing, am planning on having some 11x14 or
>so prints done by a budget printer (costco). Do you have any
>recommendations on setting up the files? e.g. converting raw to tiff at xx by
>yy pixels or just providing a jpg at > 320ish dpi? Thanks!

I'm not sure I have any advice that will be specifically helpful here. However, I took a 5400 dpi scan of a 35mm slide, as a large TIFF file, to a custom lab and had a poster sized (24x36") print made and it was astoundingly good.

So, highest resolution you can get and a TIFF file would be my advice...