File :-(, x, )
heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
My first experiment with color ISO 1600 shots on my Ricoh! They came out VERY usable. Color noise reduction to 100, blacks bumped to five, done. The tones are fine, the grain is nice, the sharpness is still pretty damn good, especially taking the time to use multi-point AF rather than just snap focus.

Man what a great weekend... bizarre and cool. I ended up party hopping from a gallery opening to a block party where I saw an ex to a newspaper party that was at the house I spent this summer at with said ex! LOL! Anyone remember those times? Wow... anyways, crazy crazy night, and the Ricoh was the perfect low-light party camera. I'm proud of it.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
No mirror slap = often sharp 1/15 handheld exposures.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
mmm jello

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOHCamera ModelGR DigitalMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.3Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:03 12:29:56Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/2.4Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/2.4Brightness-4.1 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length5.90 mmExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
Needs way less NR. It looks horrible, to be honest. It's sharp still, sure, but it has that blotchy "I've done NR" way too much.
>> Anonymous
>>174497
This was in reference to the OP post; didn't see the other two, which look fine.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
To the dude who said that f/1.4 was not enough for low light shooting: these are at f/2.4 and a fifteenth... your call if they're terrible, obviously, but I think they turned out fine.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOHCamera ModelGR DigitalMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.3Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:03 12:29:39Exposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/2.4Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/2.4Brightness-4.8 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length5.90 mmExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormal
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>174497
Really? because they're pretty grainy, not the watercolor-y smear of NR. I just took out the color chroma noise, not the luminance noise.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
NAY THEE

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOHCamera ModelGR DigitalMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.3Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:03 12:30:00Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/2.4Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/2.4Brightness-2.3 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length5.90 mmExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
>>174503
Yeah, the OP does. It just has this obvious chroma-noise-only-reduction look that I'd actually only really seen before playing with the ACR sliders to see what it would look like if I slid that up to maximum. Just back off it a little.
>> Anonymous
>>174506
And this one has the same thing going on. The heavy luminance noise and the desaturation noise gives without the color noise just looks obvious and weird. Maybe the kind of lighting you were in? Because the middle ones look great, but the OP and>>174506just look quite bad.