Disappointing ricoh gr iii image quality

hirainme · 07-28-2020, 11:09 AM

Hi

I just start shooting with my GR III but RAW files are terrible! I notice very poor shadows detail with color/artifact posterization

Maybe I'm wrong with settings or just I received a bad copy????

Look at the grey shadows tonality.... is that an issue?

I attached a converted raw file for example

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

**david94903** · 07-28-2020, 12:20 PM - **4 Likes**

As a RAW file, the image looks fine and about what I'd expect. A RAW file is an "unprocessed" file and needs to be processed in a photo editing program like Photoshop or ON1 or many others. The JPEG file will be the processed file. I shoot RAW+ so I get one of each. Sometimes the JPEG is just what I'm looking for and sometimes I want the RAW so I can go in and change the settings. With the GRIII, using JPEG, there are a bunch of "looks" you can choose from. If you choose one of those but shoot RAW only, you will not see those settings applied to the image.

**FozzFoster** · 07-28-2020, 12:28 PM

I would suggest:
-increasing the exposure by about a full stop.
-cutting highlights a wee bit to compensate for the exposure lift.
-increasing the shadows to bring out detail.
-increase contrast maybe to sharpen after the exposure lift.
-increasing vibrance and saturation to taste...
-might need to pump some noise reduction after the exposure lift too..

stevebrot · 07-28-2020, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by hirainme

I just start shooting with my GR III but RAW files are terrible!

I agree, the photo is less than inspiring. With RAW, the initial results depend on the default settings for your RAW processing tool and artifact is also often a function of the tool. How are the in-camera JPEGS?

Steve

hirainme · 07-28-2020, 01:37 PM

Hi, thanks for the responses

I attach a crop of the previous image, maybe the issue is clearer at 100%

---------- Post added 07-28-20 at 01:47 PM ----------

I don't know why, but the crop does not retain the posterization the image shows in lightroom.... all seems pretty standard here

but what i see in lightroom is very different...

---------- Post added 07-28-20 at 01:50 PM ----------

does anyone know if it is possible to choose the camera calibration profiles from lightroom? I don't mean lens profile but the ricoh profiles such as Standard, positive film ecc...

**dms** · 07-28-2020, 02:24 PM

I also think it is underexposed, by lot, unless you already reduced exposure in pp. Suggest you open the raw file and add exposure till you blow out one of the three colors. That should suggest how much increased exposure would be too much. Of course it depends on the image but you can estimate after that, or review the image and and adjust the exposure (jpg on LED and raw have different headroom but likely small difference).

**BigMackCam** · 07-28-2020, 02:59 PM

If you have a means of providing a raw file (maybe via Google drive or similar), I'd be happy to take a look at it - if that would help. I use Darktable, RawTherapee and Lightroom 6, amongst other tools. Without looking at the raw file in one of those, it's difficult to say if your file is good or bad, since it really depends on default profiles and user adjustments.

I will say that, without some form of adjustments (often applied by default by software), all raw files look terrible compared to JPEG... and from what I've seen, the GRIII's raw files look considerably better than those from my Pentax K-3, from which I obtain superb results...

**dms** · 07-28-2020, 03:02 PM

From EXIF you have iso 100, 1/1000 s, and f/2.8, which would suggest (for example for slide film) about 1-2/3 stop more exposure than full sun—or about right for partly shade setting or cloudy dull condition. But with the digital image (if noise in the shadows is a concern) you should consider raising the exposure for the shadows and not blow the highlights.

This is something you need to try in pp till you have figured out what exposure increase is right for you. And it will depend on the DR of the scene, but you likely can get a value that usually works. Another issue is whether that is okay using matrix metering vs center weighted--but again some experimenting will sort it out--and that is the beauty of digital--you can immediately assess it.

stevebrot · 07-28-2020, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by hirainme

does anyone know if it is possible to choose the camera calibration profiles from lightroom? I don't mean lens profile but the ricoh profiles such as Standard, positive film ecc...

What version of Lightroom are you using?

When Lightroom has supported recent Ricoh/Pentax cameras, profiles similar to the in-camera custom image settings are included by Adobe along with the camera-specific Adobe Standard profile. Those are usually shown along with Adobe Standard in the profiles section of the Develop module and are presumed to have been developed in cooperation with Ricoh/Pentax.

If your copy of Lightroom does not support the GR III, Lightroom will use the profile embedded in the DNG file. Usually, the embedded profile is adequate.

Edit: I managed to pull additional information from the EXIF. Your GR III camera is supported and the file was processed from DNG using the Adobe Standard profile.

Steve

stevebrot · 07-28-2020, 03:58 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by hirainme

I don't know why, but the crop does not retain the posterization the image shows in lightroom.... all seems pretty standard here
but what i see in lightroom is very different...

I will check using my regular workstation, but am not seeing the posterization you describe on my laptop. Perhaps there is something subtle happening between Lightroom and your monitor calibration. I had that happen once when using the ICC profile that came with a new monitor. The colors were strange with posterization in transitions.

Steve

**Fontan** · 07-28-2020, 04:43 PM

Yeah something is wrong here. I am pretty sure if the exposure compensation was like -0.3 you would notice, right. What mode are you on? Are the settings straight out of the box?

**clackers** · 07-28-2020, 05:18 PM - **2 Likes**

So, hirainme, with RAW files, they are incomplete images, the onus is on you to get the exposure, the contrast, the saturation, the colour balance, the noise reduction and the sharpening to your taste.

That's with your skills and the functions available to you in your software.

The camera's JPG is *its* attempt to do that, based on guesswork. Like a phone does, it has taken the RAW file and made choices to get what you replay in the back of the viewfinder.

You'll find over time, you can do a better job of RAW development than any camera can. To begin with, you know what the subject matter in the photo is, that's a big head start.

hirainme · 07-29-2020, 04:18 AM

I really must thank you all for all the suggestions I'm receiving!

I start taking pictures since 2010 and I'm pretty confident in postprocessing
When I export teh image from lightroom to my pc and then I upload it on this forum, the posterization disapperas!
I know it is a picture well executed but what I see on lightroom is different form underexposed areas or lacking in details, I really see some sort of posterization or grey halos...
I can now only assume it could be a matter of lightroom settings, I'll try to understand what is the cause.
It's very strange indeed because if I open the image with PAINT for example, the issue is no more visible, and I really can't get it....

---------- Post added 07-29-20 at 04:19 AM ----------

Originally posted by BigMackCam

If you have a means of providing a raw file (maybe via Google drive or similar), I'd be happy to take a look at it - if that would help. I use Darktable, RawTherapee and Lightroom 6, amongst other tools. Without looking at the raw file in one of those, it's difficult to say if your file is good or bad, since it really depends on default profiles and user adjustments.

I will say that, without some form of adjustments (often applied by default by software), all raw files look terrible compared to JPEG... and from what I've seen, the GRIII's raw files look considerably better than those from my Pentax K-3, from which I obtain superb results...

It would be great if you could! Just to understand if you can see the same issues I see on my PC...

---------- Post added 07-29-20 at 04:38 AM ----------

Originally posted by stevebrot

What version of Lightroom are you using?

When Lightroom has supported recent Ricoh/Pentax cameras, profiles similar to the in-camera custom image settings are included by Adobe along with the camera-specific Adobe Standard profile. Those are usually shown along with Adobe Standard in the profiles section of the Develop module and are presumed to have been developed in cooperation with Ricoh/Pentax.

If your copy of Lightroom does not support the GR III, Lightroom will use the profile embedded in the DNG file. Usually, the embedded profile is adequate.

Edit: I managed to pull additional information from the EXIF. Your GR III camera is supported and the file was processed from DNG using the Adobe Standard profile.

Steve

I currently use the recently cloud version that has just been updated

**ehrwien** · 07-29-2020, 04:55 AM

Perhaps it could be a problem with colour profiles? Perhaps the colour profile embedded in the GR photos is sRGB, but you have a setting in Lightroom that uses AdobeRGB for showing the files, and on export it uses sRGB again?

hirainme · 07-29-2020, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by ehrwien

Perhaps it could be a problem with colour profiles? Perhaps the colour profile embedded in the GR photos is sRGB, but you have a setting in Lightroom that uses AdobeRGB for showing the files, and on export it uses sRGB again?

I checked, and it was Adobe RGB correctly selected in my Ricoh...

07-28-2020, 02:24 PM	#6
dms Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,192	I also think it is underexposed, by lot, unless you already reduced exposure in pp. Suggest you open the raw file and add exposure till you blow out one of the three colors. That should suggest how much increased exposure would be too much. Of course it depends on the image but you can estimate after that, or review the image and and adjust the exposure (jpg on LED and raw have different headroom but likely small difference). Last edited by dms; 07-28-2020 at 02:46 PM.

07-28-2020, 03:45 PM	#9
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by hirainme does anyone know if it is possible to choose the camera calibration profiles from lightroom? I don't mean lens profile but the ricoh profiles such as Standard, positive film ecc... What version of Lightroom are you using? When Lightroom has supported recent Ricoh/Pentax cameras, profiles similar to the in-camera custom image settings are included by Adobe along with the camera-specific Adobe Standard profile. Those are usually shown along with Adobe Standard in the profiles section of the Develop module and are presumed to have been developed in cooperation with Ricoh/Pentax. If your copy of Lightroom does not support the GR III, Lightroom will use the profile embedded in the DNG file. Usually, the embedded profile is adequate. Edit: I managed to pull additional information from the EXIF. Your GR III camera is supported and the file was processed from DNG using the Adobe Standard profile. Steve Last edited by stevebrot; 07-28-2020 at 03:52 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lifespan of ricoh gr / gr II / gr III - how long do/did you have your ricoh?	lunarwitch	Ricoh GR	11	11-20-2019 12:36 PM
Image sync app for GR III	aaacb	Ricoh GR	15	07-13-2019 02:54 PM
GR III vs KP Image Quality	sibyrnes	Ricoh GR	22	04-04-2019 05:22 PM

07-28-2020, 12:20 PM - 4 Likes	#2
david94903 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: San Rafael, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 806	As a RAW file, the image looks fine and about what I'd expect. A RAW file is an "unprocessed" file and needs to be processed in a photo editing program like Photoshop or ON1 or many others. The JPEG file will be the processed file. I shoot RAW+ so I get one of each. Sometimes the JPEG is just what I'm looking for and sometimes I want the RAW so I can go in and change the settings. With the GRIII, using JPEG, there are a bunch of "looks" you can choose from. If you choose one of those but shoot RAW only, you will not see those settings applied to the image.

07-28-2020, 12:28 PM	#3
FozzFoster Custom User Title Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Alberta Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	I would suggest: -increasing the exposure by about a full stop. -cutting highlights a wee bit to compensate for the exposure lift. -increasing the shadows to bring out detail. -increase contrast maybe to sharpen after the exposure lift. -increasing vibrance and saturation to taste... -might need to pump some noise reduction after the exposure lift too..

07-28-2020, 12:29 PM	#4
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by hirainme I just start shooting with my GR III but RAW files are terrible! I agree, the photo is less than inspiring. With RAW, the initial results depend on the default settings for your RAW processing tool and artifact is also often a function of the tool. How are the in-camera JPEGS? Steve

07-28-2020, 02:59 PM	#7
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,671	If you have a means of providing a raw file (maybe via Google drive or similar), I'd be happy to take a look at it - if that would help. I use Darktable, RawTherapee and Lightroom 6, amongst other tools. Without looking at the raw file in one of those, it's difficult to say if your file is good or bad, since it really depends on default profiles and user adjustments. I will say that, without some form of adjustments (often applied by default by software), all raw files look terrible compared to JPEG... and from what I've seen, the GRIII's raw files look considerably better than those from my Pentax K-3, from which I obtain superb results...

07-28-2020, 03:02 PM	#8
dms Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,192	From EXIF you have iso 100, 1/1000 s, and f/2.8, which would suggest (for example for slide film) about 1-2/3 stop more exposure than full sun—or about right for partly shade setting or cloudy dull condition. But with the digital image (if noise in the shadows is a concern) you should consider raising the exposure for the shadows and not blow the highlights. This is something you need to try in pp till you have figured out what exposure increase is right for you. And it will depend on the DR of the scene, but you likely can get a value that usually works. Another issue is whether that is okay using matrix metering vs center weighted--but again some experimenting will sort it out--and that is the beauty of digital--you can immediately assess it.

07-28-2020, 03:58 PM - 1 Like	#10
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by hirainme I don't know why, but the crop does not retain the posterization the image shows in lightroom.... all seems pretty standard here but what i see in lightroom is very different... I will check using my regular workstation, but am not seeing the posterization you describe on my laptop. Perhaps there is something subtle happening between Lightroom and your monitor calibration. I had that happen once when using the ICC profile that came with a new monitor. The colors were strange with posterization in transitions. Steve

07-28-2020, 04:43 PM	#11
Fontan Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 5th floor Posts: 1,610	Yeah something is wrong here. I am pretty sure if the exposure compensation was like -0.3 you would notice, right. What mode are you on? Are the settings straight out of the box?

07-28-2020, 05:18 PM - 2 Likes	#12
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	So, hirainme, with RAW files, they are incomplete images, the onus is on you to get the exposure, the contrast, the saturation, the colour balance, the noise reduction and the sharpening to your taste. That's with your skills and the functions available to you in your software. The camera's JPG is its attempt to do that, based on guesswork. Like a phone does, it has taken the RAW file and made choices to get what you replay in the back of the viewfinder. You'll find over time, you can do a better job of RAW development than any camera can. To begin with, you know what the subject matter in the photo is, that's a big head start.

07-29-2020, 04:18 AM	#13
hirainme New Member Join Date: Jul 2020 Posts: 10 Original Poster	I really must thank you all for all the suggestions I'm receiving! I start taking pictures since 2010 and I'm pretty confident in postprocessing When I export teh image from lightroom to my pc and then I upload it on this forum, the posterization disapperas! I know it is a picture well executed but what I see on lightroom is different form underexposed areas or lacking in details, I really see some sort of posterization or grey halos... I can now only assume it could be a matter of lightroom settings, I'll try to understand what is the cause. It's very strange indeed because if I open the image with PAINT for example, the issue is no more visible, and I really can't get it.... ---------- Post added 07-29-20 at 04:19 AM ---------- Originally posted by BigMackCam If you have a means of providing a raw file (maybe via Google drive or similar), I'd be happy to take a look at it - if that would help. I use Darktable, RawTherapee and Lightroom 6, amongst other tools. Without looking at the raw file in one of those, it's difficult to say if your file is good or bad, since it really depends on default profiles and user adjustments. I will say that, without some form of adjustments (often applied by default by software), all raw files look terrible compared to JPEG... and from what I've seen, the GRIII's raw files look considerably better than those from my Pentax K-3, from which I obtain superb results... It would be great if you could! Just to understand if you can see the same issues I see on my PC... ---------- Post added 07-29-20 at 04:38 AM ---------- Originally posted by stevebrot What version of Lightroom are you using? When Lightroom has supported recent Ricoh/Pentax cameras, profiles similar to the in-camera custom image settings are included by Adobe along with the camera-specific Adobe Standard profile. Those are usually shown along with Adobe Standard in the profiles section of the Develop module and are presumed to have been developed in cooperation with Ricoh/Pentax. If your copy of Lightroom does not support the GR III, Lightroom will use the profile embedded in the DNG file. Usually, the embedded profile is adequate. Edit: I managed to pull additional information from the EXIF. Your GR III camera is supported and the file was processed from DNG using the Adobe Standard profile. Steve I currently use the recently cloud version that has just been updated

07-29-2020, 04:55 AM	#14
ehrwien Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Posts: 2,782	Perhaps it could be a problem with colour profiles? Perhaps the colour profile embedded in the GR photos is sRGB, but you have a setting in Lightroom that uses AdobeRGB for showing the files, and on export it uses sRGB again?

07-29-2020, 05:26 AM	#15
hirainme New Member Join Date: Jul 2020 Posts: 10 Original Poster	Originally posted by ehrwien Perhaps it could be a problem with colour profiles? Perhaps the colour profile embedded in the GR photos is sRGB, but you have a setting in Lightroom that uses AdobeRGB for showing the files, and on export it uses sRGB again? I checked, and it was Adobe RGB correctly selected in my Ricoh...