birds in a bush #222

[garygruber]

 

[Digger...]

Very cool pic. Question, whys it noisy?

 

[denum]

Very nice catch.

 

[jeffashman]

Nice shot!

 

[garygruber]

Very cool pic. Question, whys it noisy?

The noise is in your head, not my photo...

 

[Digger...]

The noise is in your head, not my photo...

Dont know about that mate, why you posting another person's shots then?

 

[garygruber]

Dont know about that mate, why you posting another person's shots then?

I'm not sure what you are referring to. That is my photo, took it yesterday in my backyard.

 

[jeffashman]

I'm not sure what you are referring to. That is my photo, took it yesterday in my backyard.

She's referring to the graininess of the image (aka noise). From our perspective, the image has noise in it, probably from ISO 1400, plus if you cropped it, that will enhance the noise, then depending on how you uploaded it, that will also affect the IQ. It's still a wonderful image, but it is grainy from the viewer's perspective. Hope that helps.

 

[Digger...]

I'm not sure what you are referring to. That is my photo, took it yesterday in my backyard.

Firstly a rude reply to a basic question, why is it noisy. Secondly in the same post you say "not my photo". Im gonna leave it at that.

 

[Digger...]

She's referring to the graininess of the image (aka noise). From our perspective, the image has noise in it, probably from ISO 1400, plus if you cropped it, that will enhance the noise, then depending on how you uploaded it, that will also affect the IQ. It's still a wonderful image, but it is grainy from the viewer's perspective. Hope that helps.

She's a he Mr the jeff. Let me just check... yep i am.

 

[jeffashman]

She's a he Mr the jeff. Let me just check... yep i am.

oops, sorry...

 

[garygruber]

Firstly a rude reply to a basic question, why is it noisy. Secondly in the same post you say "not my photo". Im gonna leave it at

"The noise is in your head, not my photo..." I would think anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the English language would know that the word "IN" was assumed: "The noise is in your head, not (IN) my photo". Any other meaning makes no sense.

 

[garygruber]

She's referring to the graininess of the image (aka noise). From our perspective, the image has noise in it, probably from ISO 1400, plus if you cropped it, that will enhance the noise, then depending on how you uploaded it, that will also affect the IQ. It's still a wonderful image, but it is grainy from the viewer's perspective. Hope that helps.

This may sound arrogant, but that is not my intention. I've been doing this for over 50 years -- anything that is in my photos, or not in my photos is quite intentional. I have a formal education in photography, and am quite fortunate to have a gallery that represents me. The people who pay a lot of money to purchase my work are quite happy with the images.

One of the things missing today among many photographers is an understanding of the history of our medium. I consider this to be a key element in watching the transition of technique over the past 200 years or so. What defines a photographer has absolutely nothing to do with what they learn in YouTube videos -- although I have learned a thing or to from them.

What I see is a preponderance of focus on two very inconsequential aspects of photography: 1. noise. 2. bokeh. In my book, this is not rational. If 'bokeh' was a key factor in judging the quality of a photo, what would happen to masters like Ansel Adams, Brett, Edward, and Cole Weston, etc. ? If lack of 'noise' was a key factor, journalism for the past 70 years would have to be ignored because over 95% of photographers shot TRI-X exclusively under trying conditions. Do you know the name Josef Koudelka? He is famous for his decades long collection of images of gypsies, a group of people whose assimilation has made them all but invisible today.

I could list another dozen street photographers who relied on grainy film as their mainstay. The point here is to try not to 'parrot' the conventions of a generation (or two) who need to spend less time on the internet and more time in books to help give them a fuller understanding of how precious our art is. I don't think I'm asking a lot.

 

[Digger...]

"The noise is in your head, not my photo..." I would think anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the English language would know that the word "IN" was assumed: "The noise is in your head, not (IN) my photo". Any other meaning makes no sense.

This may sound arrogant, but that is not my intention. I've been doing this for over 50 years -- anything that is in my photos, or not in my photos is quite intentional. I have a formal education in photography, and am quite fortunate to have a gallery that represents me. The people who pay a lot of money to purchase my work are quite happy with the images.

One of the things missing today among many photographers is an understanding of the history of our medium. I consider this to be a key element in watching the transition of technique over the past 200 years or so. What defines a photographer has absolutely nothing to do with what they learn in YouTube videos -- although I have learned a thing or to from them.

What I see is a preponderance of focus on two very inconsequential aspects of photography: 1. noise. 2. bokeh. In my book, this is not rational. If 'bokeh' was a key factor in judging the quality of a photo, what would happen to masters like Ansel Adams, Brett, Edward, and Cole Weston, etc. ? If lack of 'noise' was a key factor, journalism for the past 70 years would have to be ignored because over 95% of photographers shot TRI-X exclusively under trying conditions. Do you know the name Josef Koudelka? He is famous for his decades long collection of images of gypsies, a group of people whose assimilation has made them all but invisible today.

I could list another dozen street photographers who relied on grainy film as their mainstay. The point here is to try not to 'parrot' the conventions of a generation (or two) who need to spend less time on the internet and more time in books to help give them a fuller understanding of how precious our art is. I don't think I'm asking a lot.

Well you should've said that in the first place instead of the vague reply.