G1 Raw - iso 3200

R

ruben

Guest
I know the look of the image is very dark, but so was the situation, in which only the celular provided due light, and therefore was the guide to focus. Bus light was unusually low.

For further tech details go to my flickr page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/30387493@N08/3863085612/

3863085612_9500de876f_o.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kshapero said:
I guess one could say ISO 3200 on a G1 has a way to go.
Click to expand...

No insult intended Ruben, but I believe one could have done a slightly better job of RAW processing. The G1's chip does capture a lot of information, even at ISO 3200.
 
Ruben,
It looks to me that you should add exposure in your raw processor.
I'll do that alot by exposing at say 800, then get minus 2 in Exposure comp....
in LR, I'll add exposure to bring out the image....
But then again..I'm mostly a B&W kinda guy....
 
kbg32 said:
No insult intended Ruben, but I believe one could have done a slightly better job of RAW processing. The G1's chip does capture a lot of information, even at ISO 3200.
Click to expand...

No insult at all Keith, since I am just learning and trying Raw processing, not lecturing.

Indeed I made at the begining a more ligthened image than the one I show, similiar to the one other members posted. I took the decision to post a version similar to the original situation instead.

The "original situation" image, so it seems to me, demmands a bigger effort from the viewer, but better keeps the quality of the image.

The "ligthened version" image gives more info, no doubt, but at the expense of the quality - had it been enlarged to the size I enlarged the one at the o.p., and had you seen the noise tax of such version.

Obviously for a different appreciation of the G1 RAW capacity I had to look for a more ligthened subject. Yet had you wanted to know what can you have for a very low light subject, or better said almost no light subject - here you have it.

Kindly notice that according to the exif data, the camera shot at 1/10th of a second f/5,6 (due to the max zoom extension of 90mm focal length). This means 1/20 at f/4, 1/40 at f/2.8, 1/80th of a second at f/2 - the latter being the 1 to 1 likely ratio for the old times before image stabilization with a 90mm lens. Imagine yourself with such a lens and a 3200 film, badly needing to open your lens aperture all the way to f/2 - and you will get the sense of the original situation.

Furthermore, as much as I knew Tmax 3200 film, an interesting race of grain vs noise could be held here, and unlike Neopan 1600 I am not sure at all Tmax 3200 would have the upper hand.

Yet of course the case on behalf of more info image presentation is not less relevant than mine, nor the possibility of a better control of the RAW software and PS, that will come with more practice.

What does matter for me, like many new guys once acquinted with wet push processing going to the very limits before practicing enough the standard, is to know where can I go with the G1 RAW at 3200. I think it is very much usable for street photography.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I absolutely agree with you Ruben. As well, it is what YOU see and present that matters in the end!

Best of light!
 
I think we all, or at least those involved in street photography here, should take some long range perspective about what are we talking and debating.

At the times of film supremacy professional photojournalists seldom used Tmax 3200, and took it more as tryial than as a serious tool to stick to.

Now, we are measuring the limits of the most practical and advanced camera tool the digital industry has put in our hands, the mirrorless micro 4/3 and we are are trying to get a feeling of its limits.

My practical conclusion is crystal clear. Auto and JPEG up to 1600 untill sunset, Auto and RAW up to 1600 from sunset onwards.

A lot have been said about the "small difference" between JPEG and RAW, confusing me too for a while. And it is true for a well lighted image.

But the real gap comes to the surface when you deal with low light situations (although not necessarily as low as in my extreme example). Then the RAW shows what is worth to pay for in terms of card and computer space, as well as on processing time.

I am aware many among us are not used at all to frequently make images at low light. But for those who do, the G1 small size, its micro 4/3 sensor, and RAW - it all amounts to a golden tool, which in case it is not further developed by Panasonic, it will remain a cult camera for years to come, despite its existing shortcomings.

And BTW one extraordinary bonus of the G1 EVF for the night shooter, I don't remember anyone has mentioned it elsewhere, is the exclusive capability, to greatly enhance the night light level of the image at the EVF, as if it was a warfare night vision device.

Cheers,
Ruben

My next tryials: Zuiko OM prime time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is shot with a E-P1 at ISO3200, 17mm at f/2.8 at 1/15 second. It was quite dark and the light that was actually there was a mixture of red lights from the heaters, incandescent light from indoors and street lamps. A tricky WB challenge, and the picture is still a little too red I think.

But I have never before been able to shoot in situation lake this, with this level of details, colors and contrasts.
 
Last edited:
Hi Geiralex,

Your picture is the strongest argument I have "read" on behalf of the EP1 and the micro 4/3, and I cannot understand why it is not celebrated by the folks as it deserves.

I have double clicked on the pic, arrived to flickr, there I downloaded the original size, further enlarged it and I am carrying a smile ear to ear for a quarter of an hour already.

But facts are stuborn things - congratulations ! AWAKE FOLKS - WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH ISO 3200 !

Ruben
 
Thank you for the comment, and for the interest, ruben!

The picture is quite grainy when looked at 100%, and the jpg straight from the camera is far out there when it comes to white balance. The raw-file however, which I posted here, has only adjusted the white balance, and a little curve adjustment.

There are "artifacts" from high ISO, some blue spots in the shadows under the table, and also a greenish hue on the tiles on the ground.

I can live with that. :)

I have never owned, or used, a Canon 5D, Nikon D700 or any other camera in the high iso masterclass. If I had, I would probably not find this worth a second look. But for a 43rds camera, it is quite astonishing. (And I don't mean the picture itself...)

It opens a new world of evening photography. For me.
 
I think both the G1 and the EP1 picture quality should be measured by a single parameter - similar sized digitals (incl zoom), no matter if they are single focal length cameras, fixed zoom, or dslrs, which by now none nears the same size but the non-micro 4/3.

And by now there is even no need to add the price factor.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
I think the G1 is an awesome little camera. I shoot stock and have had many images accepted into my agency that were taken with the G1. When I am not carrying my M8, the G1 with its 3 zooms, comprising a focal range of 14mm to 400mm (35mm equivalent). take up very little space and is easy on the shoulder and back. I can't say that about my Canon 5D and just 2 lenses. Great camera, but not a comfortable camera to walk around with.
 
Ruben,
Do yourself a favor....
Don't get a E-P1.
You will hate the way the camera just weds to your hand...you will hate the IQ even at 3200 and then push to 6400....You will hate how easy it is to just make images and not think about anything but your vision, with no intrusion from a camera...
Don't get an E-P1......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom