EtoileFinder
Established
I just received my Nokton 35mm 1.2 ,but i'm still waiting for for my r-d1. I will give you news about the combination.
TN
TN
mani
Well-known
Ricardo - those images look like film!
Awesome!
Awesome!
ali_baba
Well-known
that looks a lot better than the m8 @ those ISO's.
anyone agree?
anyone agree?
ampguy
Veteran
I agree
I agree
Ricardo's photo examples are excellent! I'm not convinced one needs to even use RAW for that quality and ISO, once you get the WB set right, but the images posted are small to really tell.
I agree
Ricardo's photo examples are excellent! I'm not convinced one needs to even use RAW for that quality and ISO, once you get the WB set right, but the images posted are small to really tell.
mani
Well-known
I really think the grain from the RD1s is film-like - and from the files I've seen it does seem better at higher ISOs than the M8. The M8's sensor seems to band quite badly when things get dark - as can be seen in this image for instance (and even worse than this have been posted in the past).
I haven't tried pushing the Epson to 1600 so often, but I tried some flower shots in a darkened room at 800 - and accentuating the grain in the raw converter and Photoshop (by upping contrast and edge detail) still gives lovely grain texture, without any digital striping.
Here's a 100% crop of an arbitrary dark area - I genuinely don't feel the grain looks digital at all:
I haven't tried pushing the Epson to 1600 so often, but I tried some flower shots in a darkened room at 800 - and accentuating the grain in the raw converter and Photoshop (by upping contrast and edge detail) still gives lovely grain texture, without any digital striping.
Here's a 100% crop of an arbitrary dark area - I genuinely don't feel the grain looks digital at all:
Attachments
EtoileFinder
Established
Finally I receive my RD1 on friday, I try it with the nokton 35mm 1.2 and 40mm 1.4. My first impressions of it was negative, i dislike the feeling of the body which remind me some plastic camera toy and the sound of the shutter is horrible. I hated the exposure dial, which is very stiff. But after loading the picture on my computer, my thought change. I think the quality of the picture was impressive. Then I decide to give it a chance, I take more pictures. Now the sound of the shutter don't bother me anymore, and i'm getting used of the body. But I still think the knob control on the RD1 is really bad in comparison to my hexar and M6. Here is some first sample at iso 800 and 1600.
Tonight i'm going out to take more test picture with the RD1.
Tonight i'm going out to take more test picture with the RD1.
Last edited:
RIVI1969
Established
mani, ali baba and ampguy,
Thanks for your comments in my images. Yes, I know they are small samples and if you want for reference I can send you larger files, in fact at full size look much nicer since you can really get the grain and texture that I like so much
Yes, they look like film and my recipe is always the same:
1. shoot RAW only. at iso 1600 the raw files present a very pleasant to my eyes coarse grain, and still keep sharpness and definition. At iso 1600 the jpgs show the smearing water color effect which kills the analogue feel and also the tonal range is a bit narrow that is why I don't recommend its use.
2. My cameras are always underexposed half stop in order to help the highlights to retain additional information. My findings show me I can squeeze maybe an additional stop of latitude which make my files closer to the classic film look.
3. No matter the iso, I never use noise reduction.
I guess that's all I do! I am more than happy to share the little I know so please don't hesitate to contact me and if you want to see more pics visit my gallery www.ricardovillagran.zenfolio.com
I am also waiting for the 35mm 1.2 I just bought I cannot wait to use it, in the mean time I am very happy with the CV 35mm 2.5 and my Leica 50mm F2 I use wide open for those shots.
Have a great day!
Ricardo
Thanks for your comments in my images. Yes, I know they are small samples and if you want for reference I can send you larger files, in fact at full size look much nicer since you can really get the grain and texture that I like so much
Yes, they look like film and my recipe is always the same:
1. shoot RAW only. at iso 1600 the raw files present a very pleasant to my eyes coarse grain, and still keep sharpness and definition. At iso 1600 the jpgs show the smearing water color effect which kills the analogue feel and also the tonal range is a bit narrow that is why I don't recommend its use.
2. My cameras are always underexposed half stop in order to help the highlights to retain additional information. My findings show me I can squeeze maybe an additional stop of latitude which make my files closer to the classic film look.
3. No matter the iso, I never use noise reduction.
I guess that's all I do! I am more than happy to share the little I know so please don't hesitate to contact me and if you want to see more pics visit my gallery www.ricardovillagran.zenfolio.com
I am also waiting for the 35mm 1.2 I just bought I cannot wait to use it, in the mean time I am very happy with the CV 35mm 2.5 and my Leica 50mm F2 I use wide open for those shots.
Have a great day!
Ricardo
RIVI1969
Established
yanidel
Well-known
I agree, I like the grain a lot. Usually I leave ISO1600 in B&W as in very low light many times the noise is made of too many different color pixels.
I am actually thinking of shooting everything in 800/1600, if speeds allows of course.
ampguy
Veteran
Yes, I just did some tests
Yes, I just did some tests
and had to actually add 1/3rd for JPGs with some backlight. But I could not achieve the color natural grain of Rivi's RAW 100% crops at 1600 color, but could at JPG ISO 800.
However, after looking at Rivi's website, there is a lot of digital manipulation going on, soft focus and other stuff, so I sitll think JPG 800 is a much purer and less manipulated way to shoot.
Also, what kind of film "grain" are we going for here? Rivi's "grain" is coarser than fine grained films, and not as coarse as say Tri-X or Portra 400.
Yes, I just did some tests
and had to actually add 1/3rd for JPGs with some backlight. But I could not achieve the color natural grain of Rivi's RAW 100% crops at 1600 color, but could at JPG ISO 800.
However, after looking at Rivi's website, there is a lot of digital manipulation going on, soft focus and other stuff, so I sitll think JPG 800 is a much purer and less manipulated way to shoot.
Also, what kind of film "grain" are we going for here? Rivi's "grain" is coarser than fine grained films, and not as coarse as say Tri-X or Portra 400.
RIVI1969
Established
ampguy:
To get the "monochrome" noise I process my raw files in Lightroom and under the "Detail" menu, there are 2 bars to control noise reduction: One is LUMINANCE; which I leave at ZERO and COLOR which I move all the way to 100. You will all the purple/red pixels convert to monochrome grain. This formula works also with jpgs, but as we all know at high iso the water color effect takes from the film look effect.
I agree, I use a lot of PS in many of my images, but in these ones I didn't, I simply process them as most people do. No special effects here!
Cheers!
Ricardo
To get the "monochrome" noise I process my raw files in Lightroom and under the "Detail" menu, there are 2 bars to control noise reduction: One is LUMINANCE; which I leave at ZERO and COLOR which I move all the way to 100. You will all the purple/red pixels convert to monochrome grain. This formula works also with jpgs, but as we all know at high iso the water color effect takes from the film look effect.
I agree, I use a lot of PS in many of my images, but in these ones I didn't, I simply process them as most people do. No special effects here!
Cheers!
Ricardo
yanidel
Well-known
I spent sometime on your website and I find your pictures wonderful. Special mention to the ones of people your know. Framing and expressions are great.
Congratulations.
Congratulations.
LKSC
Established
Here are two images with the R-D1s, ISO1600 @ F1.4. Mobile phone display light with candlelight, and the other, candlelight illumination only.
I find that much of the colour noise in the shadows is in the blue and cyan channels. After RAW conversion, I select those colours in the hue and saturation adjustment in PS and reduce the "lightness". I posted this over a year ago. Pardon me if it is repetition.
I find that much of the colour noise in the shadows is in the blue and cyan channels. After RAW conversion, I select those colours in the hue and saturation adjustment in PS and reduce the "lightness". I posted this over a year ago. Pardon me if it is repetition.
Attachments
RIVI1969
Established
Yanidel, thank you very much for your comment, I look your portfolio too and my favorite were Before the Dive, and Before the Play... both awesome captures Lloyd Chang, your low light shots are very nice I guess you shot those maybe at 1/30th of a sec tops?
Cheers,
Ricardo
Lloyd Chang, your low light shots are very nice I guess you shot those maybe at 1/30th of a sec tops?Cheers,
Ricardo
kshapero
South Florida Man
Since I shoot in RAW, I just shoot white balance on the fly and post process in Epson RAW. Wouldn't this get the same result?
kshapero
South Florida Man
I wonder how you underexpose a half stop when the R-D1 compensates in 1/3's not 1/2's?mani, ali baba and ampguy,
Thanks for your comments in my images. Yes, I know they are small samples and if you want for reference I can send you larger files, in fact at full size look much nicer since you can really get the grain and texture that I like so much
Yes, they look like film and my recipe is always the same:
1. shoot RAW only. at iso 1600 the raw files present a very pleasant to my eyes coarse grain, and still keep sharpness and definition. At iso 1600 the jpgs show the smearing water color effect which kills the analogue feel and also the tonal range is a bit narrow that is why I don't recommend its use.
2. My cameras are always underexposed half stop in order to help the highlights to retain additional information. My findings show me I can squeeze maybe an additional stop of latitude which make my files closer to the classic film look.
3. No matter the iso, I never use noise reduction.
I guess that's all I do! I am more than happy to share the little I know so please don't hesitate to contact me and if you want to see more pics visit my gallery www.ricardovillagran.zenfolio.com
I am also waiting for the 35mm 1.2 I just bought I cannot wait to use it, in the mean time I am very happy with the CV 35mm 2.5 and my Leica 50mm F2 I use wide open for those shots.
Have a great day!
Ricardo