Film VS Digital

[JerryPH]

Now, before I got into Digital ... I though noise was grain and would have commented in that way.

That is becuase it is more common to accept it in film, and less common in digital world to accept it. Also, in the film era, there were a LOT less people shooting compared to today and the low quality of even high end cameras up to 3-4 years ago to shoot lower levels of noise at high ISO was rare.

People would crank up the ISO, treat it like film grain and accept it... and often use the term grain interchangeably, which it is not. Today, ISO 6400 is way more usable than it was in the 80s (lets call that the final hey-day of film and the start of more serious dSLR technology being released to the general public).

Film grain is very acceptable and often enhancing to a photo. The same cannot be said of digital noise, which is more a splotchy artifact kind of look than grain ever was.

Digital noise... sucks.

 

[Josh66]

Digital noise... sucks.

I can tell the difference... It doesn't look bad to me though. It looks pretty good, actually.

1600 ISO, 350D. No NR - other than Lightroom's default settings.

 

[JerryPH]

Thats no real amount of noise, Josh, raise it up to 3200 or 6400... lol

You nailed the exposure... and thats not the level of noise I am talking about... nice pic, though!

 

[Josh66]

Thats no real amount of noise, Josh, raise it up to 3200 or 6400... lol

I can't. 1600 is the highest the 350D goes...


And, Thanks.


EDIT
Is getting the exposure right really so hard? I think that helps more than anything....

 

[JerryPH]

Is getting the exposure right really so hard? I think that helps more than anything....

Well, judging by the number of times I missed... uhhm, yeah!

 

[Josh66]

Learn to love your meter...

 

[usayit]

Something I have learned over time through various other photographers and channels...

"How does it print?"

This was back in the film days but still easily applies to digital as well. I try not to fixate on the technical qualities of each pixel/grain but the photo as whole printed (output-ed?) to the intended final medium. "Pixel Peepers" as the younger digital generation have fondly coined simply can never appreciate a photo until they learn to step back.

Negatives almost always shine best on print
Slides almost always shine best projected

..
..

Robert Capa's Masterpieces are a pixel peeper's worst nightmare.

 

[usayit]

Film grain is very acceptable and often enhancing to a photo. The same cannot be said of digital noise, which is more a splotchy artifact kind of look than grain ever was.

Digital noise... sucks.

Jerry, ever experiment....

Take a high ISO, fairly digitally noisy photo but properly exposed
* Turn off any sharpening
* Turn off Noise Reduction on Luminance
* Apply only Chromatic (Color) noise reduction
* Perform any basic photographic adjustments (white balance, contrast, etc)
(note.. I use lightroom)

Now take it and before you start examining the results at 100% crop, simply print it... let say 5x7 or 8x10. The results are quite interesting.... (at least for me).

I learned.
* I found many of these noisy photos print just fine.... and details (assuming properly exposed) are maintained quite nicely.
* I found that color based noise in digital photos is the most distracting. I prefer "grainy" digital photos with details maintained rather than the smooth (some say plastic) look often resulting from noise reduction.
* Just like negatives, the resulting images cannot be fully appreciated except in print.

and

* the best noise reducer on the web is smaller jpegs..

 

[Garbz]

I think the perceived image quality of camera bodies and their price these days has conditioned people into looking at noise for the first sign of quality. Nothing says this more than that second post. EricD first and foremost pointed out the picture of the owl and then mentioned the "noise" in the background. But Josh made no comment on the owl at all.

This I think has nothing to do with film grain vs noise, but rather a conditioning caused my marketing photos of cameras. When the D3 came out did anyone comment on the 51AF points? I think they were all to busy picking themselves up after seeing what could be the silkiest smoothest most noise free image ever. People these days care more about upgrading their camera bodies to reach the all awesome milestone of the D700 or the 5D MkII rather than actually spending money on f/1.4 glass or other lenses that would far improve their artistic breath rather than reduce the noise of their glass limited artistic ability.

And the picture has noise so what? Do you think any halfway competent photographer wouldn't know how to minimise it. Suppose that was actually noise and looked worse in the owl picture, does it make it any less of an awesome picture? Digital noise does look worse but is a noisy picture not still preferable to no picture at all, or a picture so blurry the subject can't be made out? I guess we've moved passed that.


People these days don't know what makes a good photo and outright complain at the technical limitations (budget limitations?) of the photographer. They don't deserve to see nice photos

 

[Battou]

You are starting to sound like a senior citizen complaining about the way teenagers dress these days.

Grrrr... I swear to God, thats what I most often see from Battou... one compainfest after another (which may not be the case, its not like I view every post here, but the parts of the site that I do visit... these are the impressions that I do get).

Obviously you and I spend the bulk of our time in different sections of the forum, I am not really that much of a ***** and I don't throw coniption fits that often, but you do seem to find them when I do.

It is not wrong to not know somethinng and give an opinion based on limited knowledge. The info may be wrong, but that is a chance to educate... not get bent out of shape. Also, this is not a court of law where the term "ignorance of the LAW is not an acceptable excuse" is even on the same planet of being an acceptable term or phrase to use in this case. You're talking about a perception of bloody grain in a film shot vs digital noise, fer pete's sake! :lmao:

I do agree that some people have not caught on by now that grain IS NOT noise. Film grain is caused by many things and is not as linear as digital noise would be, it is not as all encompassing as digital noise is either. Digital noise is known as a form of artifacting that gets introduced into the image by the digital camera due to the sensor & the software's inability to record the finer points of the scene due in high ISO and/or highly dark/shadowed areas... whereas "grain" is an inherent part of the film processing and image creation process, and can give it a certain "feel" or "character" but arises from similar reasons like in digital.

Mike really hit it right on the head with his perception of the issue, I will bet that most here have not shot film much if at all... that is no excuse to go out on a rampage.

Sorry, but this is not a once or twice occurance, repetedly being ignored trying to explain over and over again only to kill any hopes of further commenting for the last couple years got seriously old.

Hmm, I was going to make a comment on your Owl shot about the "graininess" and what film you shot with ... maybe I should have.

With most photographers, grain or noise is considered a depreciating property ... especially to Digital photographers that look at it as a failure of the camera sensor to properly capture the image. Film photographers tend to see it as payment for higher light sensitivity.

I wish you had, it would have made my day and this thread prolly would not have happened.

To answer the question it is expired ASA 800 Fuji Superia bought off the shelf at the drug store.

 

[JerryPH]

Learn to love your meter...

Understand the Zone System... and learn why your meter's love for you is not faithful... lol

 

[skieur]

I shot film well before you were born, Battou, and whether it is grain or noise, if it detracts from the shot or distracts from the centre of interest then it doesn't belong.

On the other hand, given the range in quality and size of LCD screens out there someone is likely to see film grain or digital artifacts in almost any shot.
Moreover, if the grain or noise is fine, even a 8 X 10 print will not show it.

I don't see the grain in the owl shot as being a particular problem but since it is background anyway, it is rather easy to take out, without affecting the owl.

skieur

 

[Battou]

I shot film well before you were born, Battou, and whether it is grain or noise, if it detracts from the shot or distracts from the centre of interest then it doesn't belong.

On the other hand, given the range in quality and size of LCD screens out there someone is likely to see film grain or digital artifacts in almost any shot.
Moreover, if the grain or noise is fine, even a 8 X 10 print will not show it.

I don't see the grain in the owl shot as being a particular problem but since it is background anyway, it is rather easy to take out, without affecting the owl.

skieur

I too saw it as not being a particular problem considering it was old poorly maintained and color casting 800 speed film, cropped heavily and processed with software known to exadgerate any such flaws in an effort to reduce the appearence of the very blown out highlights. That said, the suggestion to remove it was as respectivly as I could muster declined. Considering I simply do not have the computer memory to save every photoshop mix file, I don't save the mix file. I would have to start over from sctatch to make such a change. It's just not worth the effort, that is why only one of the three shots was processed at all. I would have to screw up considerably to go through and reprocess a shot requiring that much work imeadiately after posting it.

I digress.....It's not the photo of the owl or the visable grain or even people bringing it up, that is the problem, it's the "I see spekeling, I scream Noise" attitude in the current generation. Like I said earlier in responce to dxqcanada, Had one comment said "film grain" or something to that effect this little tiraid of mine would not have come about. I am simply tired of saying "It's not Noise, it's grain" or "I shoot film...Expect grain" (Wich has been in the "Biography" field of my profile for as long as the fiels has been there.)

 

[JerryPH]

Jerry, ever experiment....

Take a high ISO, fairly digitally noisy photo but properly exposed
* Turn off any sharpening
* Turn off Noise Reduction on Luminance
* Apply only Chromatic (Color) noise reduction
* Perform any basic photographic adjustments (white balance, contrast, etc)

Now take it and before you start examining the results at 100% crop, simply print it... let say 5x7 or 8x10. The results are quite interesting.... (at least for me).

I learned.
* I found many of these noisy photos print just fine.... and details (assuming properly exposed) are maintained quite nicely.
* I found that color based noise in digital photos is the most distracting. I prefer "grainy" digital photos with details maintained rather than the smooth (some say plastic) look often resulting from noise reduction.
* Just like negatives, the resulting images cannot be fully appreciated except in print.

and

* the best noise reducer on the web is smaller jpegs..

lol... yes, I've done it, but limited my tests to 4 X 6 sized shots. I'm not one that prints a lot, the noise is not as easily seen on prints... unless you start to go closer to a 1:3 ratio (33% of full size) or bigger.

I've also noticed that a noisy shot will print out ok... but becuase I can go 100% on screen, and see it there, and it is possible to address it.

The 2nd best noise remover is a reduced JPG... the #1 is (for me), Noiseware Pro. Reducing the size of the JPG does "hide" a lot of the grain as well.

We're in agreement on almost pretty much the whole thing. As mentioned, though, I do not print out a lot... and when I look at my prints full sized, or after a nice crop, it bugs me to see it, and since it is easy to address... I get rid of it and am happier.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Frankly I'm not sure I get what this thread is about. I still don't get why you care about people knowing the difference between noise and grain?

As someone pointed out, there are a lot of people on this forum who have never used film (probably some who don't even know what film is ) so I don't see the point of your stressing out about it.

If you only want comments from people who know grain, you are in the wrong place. Go to a film oriented forum. I was going to suggest a pro forum but I've seen the same type of comments there. Unfortunately, being a pro does not necessarily mean you know much about film today.


As far as photo education I don't think it has changed any. There wasn't any then, there isn't any more today unless you go and look for the knowledge. The vast majority of camera owners don't ever get educated, they just shoot snaps. They may not be very happy about the results but that doesn't mean they are going to try and figure it out. How many of them even read the manual?

Actually, I think today's photographer has a better chance of learning something thanks to forums like this one.

Cheers.