some times i like noise

[bribrius]

far as image noise. I try to use it for effect on occasion. I like it. I compare it to film grain. I know no one else that does this.

 

[TWright33]

I compare it to film grain. I know no one else that does this.

Everyone I know does this.

 

[bribrius]

I compare it to film grain. I know no one else that does this.

Everyone I know does this.

Really???????????????????

That makes me feel better. Everyone I know asks me why I do it!!!! They like crystal clear photos! Thanks!

 

[minicoop1985]

I don't like noise. I have a toddler. Silence is a VERY rare phenomenon.







OH, ok, I get it now. I do compare noise to grain, but I'm not really into it. Sometimes I like film grain though.

 

[TWright33]

I compare it to film grain. I know no one else that does this.

Everyone I know does this.

Really???????????????????

That makes me feel better. Everyone I know asks me why I do it!!!! They like crystal clear photos! Thanks!

I was the same way until I started shooting some bands at dark clubs. I think it adds to the image

 

[Derrel]

I grew up shooting Tri-X Pan in 35mm size....loads of grain were an integral part of EVERY single image made with Tri-X. To me, and to hundreds of millions of older people across the globe, we can look at a picture and SEE "the picture" even if it has some noise. But it seems like a lot of people who are new to photography, or who began with digital cameras, have a very strong reaction to noise. I see loads of internet critiques that mention, "Bad, bad noise", and "Pretty high noise level," and things like that, as if noise is really a serious limitation that can never be overcome, no matter how awesome the PICTURE might be. It's one of the things that many people focus on, to the exclusion of "the PICTURE" that is formed in those millions of dirty, awful,nasty, noisy pixels.

It's a lot like the people who whine and complain about the head on a beer drawn from a keg...they really don't have a firm grasp on the whole beer thing...

 

[limr]

I like grain but I don't like noise.

What can I say, I'm a film snob

 

[bribrius]

I grew up shooting Tri-X Pan in 35mm size....loads of grain were an integral part of EVERY single image made with Tri-X. TO me, I can look at a picture and SEE "the picture". Bit it seems like a lot of people who are new to photography, or who began with digital cameras, have a very strong reaction to noise. I see loads of internet critiques that mention "bad noise", and "Pretty high noise level," and things like that, as if noise is really a serious limitation. It's one of the things that many people focus on, to the exclusion of "the PICTURE" that is formed in those millions of dirty, awful,nasty, noisy pixels.

For a while, quite a while ago, I tried adding film grain in post processing. That is how much I missed having film. Not kidding. Then I realized it was really kind of b.s. just raise the iso and cross the fingers... lol Plus I dislike pp. There is that point where it just deteriorates the image to the point of look piss poor and fake, hard to tell sometimes. you are also raising the noise while raising the noise reduction at times, which in itself most would think would be counter intuitive by all accounts.

 

[JosephW]

Noise is an integral part of concert shooting, it really does add to the grain, grit of a concert and the music. Sporadic, icky, colourful noise is not the kind of noise I like. I like grain, monochrome grain and noise that is somewhat clean and smoothed over in its viewing.

 

[bribrius]

I like grain but I don't like noise.

What can I say, I'm a film snob

well, you know that is basically what we are trying to replicate to a point. oddly enough.

 

[jaomul]

I have pictures taken at high iso with plenty noise that I really like and sometimes add some to black and white shots. I think lots of people do this

 

[limr]

I like grain but I don't like noise.

What can I say, I'm a film snob

well, you know that is basically what we are trying to replicate to a point. oddly enough.

I do understand that, but it just doesn't look the same to me. Maybe I've only seen "bad noise" and it didn't impress me.

 

[bribrius]

I like grain but I don't like noise.

What can I say, I'm a film snob

well, you know that is basically what we are trying to replicate to a point. oddly enough.

I do understand that, but it just doesn't look the same to me. Maybe I've only seen "bad noise" and it didn't impress me.

ehh.. Lot of times, you are right. And a lot of us, probably should be on film. Digital tries to copy the past while keeping the new. , bw, sepia, noise, various effects in post processing. Suppose it tries to keep the new while still providing the old. whether it succeeds might be a debate in itself!!

 

[Derrel]

I prefer a well-exposed, sharp, crisp, and decent shot made at 1/500 second at ISO 1600, over a low-noise, smooth, well-exposed blurry smear made at 1/30 second at ISO 100. Every. SIngle. Time. And yet, the internet is filled with people who continually harp about, "Using the lowest ISO possible." They preach about using ISO 100 all the fricking time, you know, for , "The least possible noise, and the widest dynamic range." It's kind of amusing to watch Neil Van Niekerk's big presentation given in New York, where one of the audience members questions his use of ISO 800 and a 1/200 second shutter speed when shooting a two-person wedding portrait outdoors, in open shade and using a modern, Full-Frame d-slr. Apparently the audience member felt that Neil should have used a lower ISO level, and risked shutter speed blur, or subject motion to capture a once-in-alifetime portrait...you know....in order to be sure and make an image with that low,low noise level. Check out the question and answer beginning at the 11:10 mark:

 

[bribrius]

I prefer a well-exposed, sharp, crisp, and decent shot made at 1/500 second at ISO 1600, over a low-noise, smooth, well-exposed blurry smear made at 1/30 second at ISO 100. Every. SIngle. Time. And yet, the internet is filled with people who continually harp about, "Using the lowest ISO possible." They preach about using ISO 100 all the fricking time, you know, for , "The least possible noise, and the widest dynamic range." It's kind of amusing to watch Neil Van Niekerk's big presentation given in New York, where one of the audience members questions his use of ISO 800 and a 1/200 second shutter speed when shooting a two-person wedding portrait outdoors, in open shade and using a modern, Full-Frame d-slr. Apparently the audience member felt that Neil should have used a lower ISO level, and risked shutter speed blur, or subject motion to capture a once-in-alifetime portrait...you know....in order to be sure and make an image with that low,low noise level. Check out the question and answer beginning at the 11:10 mark:

he is right obviously. Perhaps the stigma come from some of the older cameras where iso was a more serious concern and 800 was really high (I have a camera like that still). Also everyone has been in a position where we took a shot and had to discard it as the noise was too high, so many probably programmed themselves to avoid it at all cost not really considering camera technology, noise reduction and the lesser of evils compared to blurred photos and wrong dof?. He is right on the exposure as well, under expose high noise. Try to bring up the light it becomes more apparent. I have had luck (some ) under exposing then over exposing in post and diminishing the noise. If I underexpose something in the 1600's the noise is more apparent, if I run it through post and jack the exposure in post I can usually get rid of some of it. But other times, if the iso is already extremely high and I have the exposure on already but im still lacking in shadows then I try to bring up the shadows the noise just becomes so obvious there really does seem to be that noise limitation, still.

All of which usually come from pushing the limits too much, in which those times even though I shoot mostly jpeg I kind of see it coming and shoot raw. The contrast seems to effect the noise as well, I can boost the contrast and drop the shadow noise, but there is still that limit of course especially if you don't want high contrast but it works in some high contrast bw it seems. Comes a point where you are working against yourself too. Running high iso, noise reduction, boosting contrast to diminish noise, boosting the exposure in post while darkening with contrast and then you hit the shadow recovery. Amazing you even end up with a balanced photo at all but that seems to be what happens when you run too high and it goes to crap. some you want it, some you don't. I dunno nothing though. got me... lol