some times i like noise

[Derrel]

Which one is ISO 125 and which one is ISO 1000?

[ _D3X2824_2016x.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

[ _D3X2829_2016x.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

Click the links under each image to see the 2,016-pixel tall images, straight out of the RAW converter.

 

[snerd]

The bottom is 1000 ISO.

A discerning eye? Or did I look at the exif? bwahahahaha!!!!

 

[bribrius]

I did see Twright's photo - I guess I didn't really consider that 'noisy.' I didn't see anything until I magnified to past 100%. Then I trotted over to see your brook photo and again, I didn't immediately think of it as 'noisy' until I magnified it.

The picture you posted above is pretty cool in an abstract way. Something about it reminds me of Steven Spielberg's "Duel" - which is weird because I didn't even see that movie! Just snippets. But here the noise does certainly dominate in a way that doesn't add to the scene. Here's where grain would work but noise wouldn't.

you liked a version of this I posted a couple months back (if I recall). Over 6000 iso

 

[chuasam]

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.

you don't know very many people then.

 

[chuasam]

I'm perverse like that.
I started out with a ridiculously grain free ISO 64

and decided..ya know what...
GRAIN would make it look better

 

[gsgary]

I like grain but I don't like noise.

What can I say, I'm a film snob

Aficionado. Just sounds better than snob. Film Aficianado. See?

Lol

don't encourage her. All those film people think they are better than us digital people. They have their own little click with secret decoder rings. why even those gone digital keep a film camera in the closet because they don't want to be excommunicated from the club.

Thats because we are

 

[gsgary]

I'm perverse like that.
I started out with a ridiculously grain free ISO 64
View attachment 83338
and decided..ya know what...
GRAIN would make it look better
View attachment 83339

You don't get ****ing grain in digital

 

[dubiousone]

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...

Methinks Derrel is on to something here...

 

[timor]

Mistaking noise with grain ? Or pretending, that one shoots real film instead of electronic substitute ? Harmless. Harmless as long as one doesn't mistake real life with virtual one.

 

[gsgary]

Mistaking noise with grain ? Or pretending, that one shoots real film instead of electronic substitute ? Harmless. Harmless as long as one doesn't mistake real life with virtual one.

Your at it again, your getting as bad as me [emoji3]

 

[timor]

Mistaking noise with grain ? Or pretending, that one shoots real film instead of electronic substitute ? Harmless. Harmless as long as one doesn't mistake real life with virtual one.

Your at it again, your getting as bad as me [emoji3]

I have nothing against digital, it is a super technology giving new, new methods and possibilities of creating images, but also allows much more to mistake luck for craft.

 

[chuasam]

I'm perverse like that.
I started out with a ridiculously grain free ISO 64
View attachment 83338
and decided..ya know what...
GRAIN would make it look better
View attachment 83339

You don't get ****ing grain in digital

You can simulate grain digitally using any number of products from alienskin or Nik.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[gsgary]

I'm perverse like that.
I started out with a ridiculously grain free ISO 64
View attachment 83338
and decided..ya know what...
GRAIN would make it look better
View attachment 83339

You don't get ****ing grain in digital

You can simulate grain digitally using any number of products from alienskin or Nik.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And it looks ****

 

[Vince.1551]

Silence is golden ... Jk lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

You don't get ****ing grain in digital

You can simulate grain digitally using any number of products from alienskin or Nik.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And it looks ****

I am looking at it on a big monitor, at a measured 9 and 5/8 in ches wide by 12 inches tall, and the fake grain does not look very good. The issue? Faked coarse grain like that looks...fake....faux...ersatz...bogus...whatever word one wishes to describe it with, it looks like a deliberately introduced artificial way to mask the image. With film, the grain IS THE ACTUAL IMAGE...with a grain overlay on top of an ulra-high-resolution 36 million pixel capture, with no noise, no grain, low acuity but HIGH resolving ability, the faked grain looks oddly...well...cheezy. You have the coarseness of the grain of Tri-X, but with zero nuance..ZERO clumping! Big, broad areas of flat tonality, with no local contrast. To an old time film shooter like me, this fake Tri-X grain looks like crap, because it is such a poor imitation of film. it is NOT a film image.

This reminds me a lot of the fake wood-grain vinyl decals Chrysler and other car makers used to apply to vans and station wagon doors....the height of gauche. Same thing. If the grain had ANY, and I mean literally ANY kind of direct correlation with the image underneath, it might make some sense, and would give some visual variety. But this fake digital heavy grain effect is to film what fake vinyl on a car door panel is to the original real, genuine wood veneer door panel insets of the "Woody" wagons of the mid-20th century...

http://autos.ca.msn.com/editors-picks/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=23546090&page=3a

and this...now this? this is f&&&&&g hilarious!http://jalopnik.com/how-ten-modern-cars-would-look-with-wood-panelling-499