[awscreo]

So I've recently purchased the Ricoh GR II, and have been enjoying it quite a lot so far. But, being spoiled by my K-1 super clean files (especially since I almost always shoot at base iso for my landscape work), I'm finding myself cringing a bit at high iso files with GR II. I understand it's not entirely rational, the GR shots come out looking pretty artistic straight out of camera, and I don't usually adjust a lot, I even started using jpegs (been using only raw's with my last 2 bodies), and again, shooting the camera is pure joy. I think I need some GRAIN therapy And some friendly advice (hope people don't think I'm attacking the GR lol).

My GR gallery so far - Ricoh GR II | Flickr

[boriscleto]

You have an aversion to gluten?

[victormeldrew]

Well your post came at a good time because I'm trying to decide whether to buy one myself and I have to say that gallery helped convince me it's perfect for me. Thanks!

As for grain...noise, actually...there's nothing there that I think distracts from the image. Clean crisp images are way out of fashion right now anyway!

[BigMackCam]

There are two different things to consider here... Colour noise and luminance noise.

In my opinion (and it's only my opinion), colour noise is your enemy. You should be shooting RAW for higher ISO files, and using decent post-processing software to remove colour noise. Lightroom is very good for this, so is Darktable, and I'm sure plenty of other RAW processors are also highly capable.

As for luminance noise - which is more like the grain we experience with analogue film (though not exactly the same) - you have choices here. You can choose to reproduce your images at a particular size, and on a particular medium, such that viewing from a particular distance means that the luminance noise isn't an issue (the smaller the reproduction size and/or viewing distance, the less noticeable noise will be). This is the best approach if you want to retain as much detail as possible. Alternatively, if you're reproducing images at larger sizes and/or for close-up viewing, you can choose to carry out some gentle luminance noise reduction. I say gentle because a heavy-handed approach is going to obliterate detail and/or give an unnaturally-smooth look to images. Gentle luminance noise reduction will make the noise seem less harsh, and more acceptable at higher reproduction sizes - but you'll still see it, to some extent.

Generally, I'd advise that you carry out colour noise reduction, but avoid luminance noise reduction unless you find the noise intrusive at your chosen reproduction size. In those cases, apply gentle luminance noise reduction only. If that's not enough, accept the fact that you'll need to work with a smaller reproduction size. A great 6x4" image is better than no image at all, right?

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 08-20-2018 at 04:16 PM.

[bertwert]

If you look at this image you can see it's full of grain, but it is still a good photo

[awscreo]

Well your post came at a good time because I'm trying to decide whether to buy one myself and I have to say that gallery helped convince me it's perfect for me. Thanks!

As for grain...noise, actually...there's nothing there that I think distracts from the image. Clean crisp images are way out of fashion right now anyway!

I've actually seen pretty similar noise way back when I was using a mft camera, but maybe K-1 spoiled me too much) I'm trying to overcome this flaw in me, I'm looking at Daido Moriyama's work now, maybe someone can suggest more of stuff like that? Gritty, artistic and interesting work that revels in grain and highlights it at times

---------- Post added 08-20-18 at 04:15 PM ----------

If you look at this image you can see it's full of grain, but it is still a good photo

I'm still scared!

---------- Post added 08-20-18 at 04:15 PM ----------

You have an aversion to gluten?

thankfully it's a totally non-biological grain that I'm afraid of)

---------- Post added 08-20-18 at 04:17 PM ----------

There are two different things to consider here... Colour noise and luminance noise.

In my opinion (and it's only my opinion), colour noise is your enemy. You should be shooting RAW for higher ISO files, and using decent post-processing software to remove colour noise. Lightroom is very good for this, so is Darktable, and I'm sure plenty of other RAW processors are also highly capable.

As for luminance noise - which is more like the grain we experience with analogue film (though not exactly the same) - you have choices here. You can choose to reproduce your images at a particular size, and on a particular medium, such that viewing from a particular distance means that the luminance noise isn't an issue (the smaller the reproduction size and/or viewing distance, the less noticeable noise will be). This is the best approach if you want to retain as much detail as possible. Alternatively, if you're reproducing images at larger sizes and/or for close-up viewing, you can choose to carry out some gentle luminance noise reduction. I say gentle because a heavy-handed approach is going to obliterate detail and/or give an unnaturally-smooth look to images. Gentle luminance noise reduction will make the noise seem less harsh, and more acceptable at higher reproduction sizes - but you'll still see it, to some extent.

Generally, I'd advise that you carry out colour noise reduction, but avoid luminance noise reduction unless you find the noise intrusive at your chosen reproduction size. In those cases, apply gentle luminance noise reduction only. If that's not enough, accept the fact that you'll need to work with a smaller reproduction size. A great 6x4" image is better than no image at all, right?

I don't even think this pet-peeve of mine is rational) I would probably not print any non-landscape images larger than 8x10, so I doubt noise will show up. I tend to pixel peep, and this is where issues come in

[victormeldrew]

Check out Trent Parke...


---------- Post added 08-20-18 at 04:22 PM ----------

Or Eric Kim (who loves the GRII by the way) he is not afraid.

[BigMackCam]

I don't even think this pet-peeve of mine is rational) I would probably not print any non-landscape images larger than 8x10, so I doubt noise will show up. I tend to pixel peep, and this is where issues come in

It's good that you recognise that Pixel peeping is the bane of us digital photographers in many ways, and the desire to obliterate noise at 100% leads to many an over-smoothed photo. At 8x10", unless you're right at the high end of your camera's available ISO range, you really shouldn't be applying any luminance noise reduction... or if you must, make it very gentle indeed.

Colour noise reduction is best performed at 100% reproduction, IMHO, because failing to address it properly can affect the overall colour in your images... but I would judge your luminance noise based on screen-filling image size at most if you're printing at reasonable sizes...

[awscreo]

Check out Trent Parke...


---------- Post added 08-20-18 at 04:22 PM ----------

Or Eric Kim (who loves the GRII by the way) he is not afraid.

Eric Kim has been the main reason I got GR II over the upcoming Fuji XF10 His photos are very cool.

The above shot is amazing!

I can feel the fear slipping away

[sergysergy]

for me grain goes well with black and white...or the other way round

[BigMackCam]

for me grain goes well with black and white...or the other way round

It can work well, but it's not the only option.

I hate to keep mentioning this article as it seems awfully like I'm pimping it, which isn't my intention... but please take a look here at an example from the Pentax Q at ISO 3200 (yes, really):

Pentax Q - Lightroom processing example - PentaxForums.com

At the very least, this shows how in-camera JPEG processing can over-smooth an image with noise reduction, and the far better results that are possible using RAW and decent post-processing software. Note that there is still noise ("grain") left in the final processed image, but it's appropriate and acceptable given the retention of detail...

[awscreo]

Another thought - maybe it'd be interesting to try using Rawtherapee for GR files, I've seen some very nice profiles good people in that thread put out that lower noise, and I always liked the RT's color reproduction.
Maybe will be interesting to use RT for a while and see what I can come up with. I think it even has film simulation, might suit GR files well

[DeadJohn]

No grain problems in any of your photos IMO.

Don't expect the GR to match the K-1 at higher ISO. The GR has an okay sensor, an amazing sensor if you consider the camera size. The K-1, though, I'd guess is around 3 stops better in low light.

[awscreo]

No grain problems in any of your photos IMO.

Don't expect the GR to match the K-1 at higher ISO. The GR has an okay sensor, an amazing sensor if you consider the camera size. The K-1, though, I'd guess is around 3 stops better in low light.

I don't have any issues at all at base iso with GR, it's clean and beautiful. But, starting at say 2000 and upwards it's getting pretty messy indoors, not even night shots. I'm not expecting an old apsc sensor to compare to my K-1, just saying that K-1 spoiled me in terms of high iso performance and it sometimes bothers me when I work with high iso files from GR. But as people point at above, i need to learn to embrace it and change the way I look at those files.

[Cerebum]

I tend to bin anything with colour noise and keep and occasionally antique anything with grain. You don't have to completely smooth everything just have two processing mindsets