Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 4

end

Archive 2013 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #1 · p.5 #1 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

The unexamined life is not worth living.
-- Socrates

May 07, 2013 at 06:00 PM

Jefferson
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #2 · p.5 #2 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

More noise...

http://jeffersonposter.smugmug.com/Category/Scuderia-Corsa-Ferrari/i-SGzVhFJ/0/X2/PaddockShots-162-X2.jpg

This was center point... spot metering on the "track map" on the wheel...

May 07, 2013 at 08:36 PM

jimmy462
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #3 · p.5 #3 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

David Baldwin wrote:
... I loved low light work and quickly encountered film grain, paticularly when I "pushed" Trix or faster film. Seemed to me that grain made photographs graphic, interesting, gritty, like a pointillist painting. I learned to love the "feel" heavy grain delivered.

Hi David,

Boy, does this topic hit home!

It was jarring to me, when I went digital, to lose the granularity of film emulsions in my images...truth be told, it still gnaws at me. I felt (and still often do feel) that something is missing from my overly-clean images. And I've given this subject a lot of thought over the past ten years or so...

When I first began gathering images with my 300D Digital Rebel it was immediately obvious to me that the change of medium from emulsion to electronic sensor was going to mean dealing with the loss of individual emulsion characteristics. Graininess, or granularity, were selective choices available to me when deciding how best to go about capturing my subject matter. Each type of film brought with it its own "feel" and it required of me a lot of experimentation to see what it could and could not do for me creatively.

And then there was a bit of "did my gamble/experiment pay off?" with a particular film...did my hopes for "fat" grain and high contrast work as I wished for that portrait series?...did my hopes for fine-grained, high-resolution, wide DR work out for that eclipse series?...did my hopes for high-ASA, filter adjusted daylight film work out better than my high-ASA Tungsten roll?...and on and on. The emulsion medium itself offered creative choices beyond subject, light, environment and exposure values for what I was trying to either convey or portray.

And I do miss it. So, I guess this is my long-winded way of saying, I concur.

Here's a shoot-out I'd love to see...a series of identical scenes, like a high-contrast portrait setup, a twilight cityscape, a daytime landscape, etc. all shot with a variety of digital camera sensors versus, oh say, a dozen analog setups with different emulsions. And then presented, museum style, a comparison of the digital "negatives" (actually positives!) versus the emulsion negatives/positives. Then a comparison of processing/post-processing techniques available to both mediums. Then a comparison of presentations for final output...both print and projection (both slide and computer). A study, if you will, in the creative choices available to photographers through the employment of various medium.

Anyhoo, this topic reminds me that it's long past time for me to dust of my OM-1...or, maybe, hunt down a Canon film body for all this glass I've ended up with...!

Jimmy G

May 07, 2013 at 10:10 PM

kezeka
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #4 · p.5 #4 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

Jefferson wrote:
More noise...

This was center point... spot metering on the "track map" on the wheel...

I looked at this photo for half a second before saying "damn 5D2 banding" out-loud to myself. I don't see it often in my photos but when it rears its ugly head there is no lack of four letter words. I don't know about the rest of the people involved in this discussion, but I consider the banding in elevated low light areas of the 5D2 crappy and not artful or pleasing noise.

May 07, 2013 at 11:49 PM

Jefferson
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #5 · p.5 #5 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

kezeka wrote:
I looked at this photo for half a second before saying "damn 5D2 banding" out-loud to myself. I don't see it often in my photos but when it rears its ugly head there is no lack of four letter words. I don't know about the rest of the people involved in this discussion, but I consider the banding in elevated low light areas of the 5D2 crappy and not artful or pleasing noise.

Except that I don't own a 5DII...

Do you often talk to yourself?

May 07, 2013 at 11:56 PM

Jefferson
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #6 · p.5 #6 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

You liked that one so much… I know you’ll love this one… for the same reasons of course… IMHO of course…

http://jeffersonposter.smugmug.com/Category/Scuderia-Corsa-Ferrari/i-49dzHzk/0/X2/PaddockShots-151-X2.jpg

May 08, 2013 at 12:10 AM

artd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #7 · p.5 #7 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

gdanmitchell wrote:
I happen to teach in the arts, and one question I have my students consider is how best to deal with work that they don't "get" but which others seem to believe has value. There are a few options:
...
3. With the context that someone thinks that this has value, make an effort to try to understand what they see in it and what they value in it. Two outcomes are possible. You might confirm your dislike for it, which is fine if you have first been honestly open to seeking what it might possess. Or you might discover something of...Show more →
Access wrote:
Another option is to just ignore it. Neither like nor dislike, ignore it and move on.

If you don't get it, then maybe it's just not for you -- there is no need to form an opinion on everything, or even to study why you have no opinion of it.

Except, you already have walked into the situation with a pre-formed opinion. You've established an opinion of what constitutes worthwhile art (e.g. "Good art is timeless") and apply that criteria to decide whether the art is worth examination. If the art doesn't meet your preconceptions of what is "good" then you ignore it. That's fine, although let's be honest, that is just the same as the a priori rejection Dan illustrated in the other scenarios.

May 08, 2013 at 01:07 AM

Access
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #8 · p.5 #8 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

artd wrote:
Except, you already have walked into the situation with a pre-formed opinion. You've established an opinion of what constitutes worthwhile art (e.g. "Good art is timeless") and apply that criteria to decide whether the art is worth examination. If the art doesn't meet your preconceptions of what is "good" then you ignore it. That's fine, although let's be honest, that is just the same as the a priori rejection Dan illustrated in the other scenarios.
Well art, or even what makes good art, is such a subjective thing to begin with. But I think most would at least agree that timeless piece is better than something that is forgotten in a year or two.

Nothing wrong with ignoring something that doesn't matter or isn't relevant to you. Dealing with 'information overload' is a necessary skill in the modern age.

As a photographer, it's helpful to be able to tell -- intuitively and quickly, if a photo is good or bad. Building this up makes editing that much easier.

May 08, 2013 at 02:10 AM

dhphoto
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #9 · p.5 #9 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

But why are you shooting wide open at 50 ISO (which decreses dynamic range anyway) and pushing the file so far? OF COURSE it will break up.

Get the exposure right, use a sensible ISO and all your problems will disappear.

Jefferson wrote:
You liked that one so much… I know you’ll love this one… for the same reasons of course… IMHO of course…

http://jeffersonposter.smugmug.com/Category/Scuderia-Corsa-Ferrari/i-49dzHzk/0/X2/PaddockShots-151-X2.jpg

May 08, 2013 at 07:46 AM

jj_glos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #10 · p.5 #10 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

^ How many stops was that pushed? Shutter at 1/8000?

May 08, 2013 at 08:25 AM

artd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #11 · p.5 #11 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

Access wrote:
Well art, or even what makes good art, is such a subjective thing to begin with. But I think most would at least agree that timeless piece is better than something that is forgotten in a year or two.

Nothing wrong with ignoring something that doesn't matter or isn't relevant to you. Dealing with 'information overload' is a necessary skill in the modern age.

Sure. But, the point is that to make the decision to ignore something, you've already come into the scenario with a pre-determined opinion that it lacks value. You've decided it doesn't meet your criteria for being "good" and so you will waste no more time on it. That part is fine; what I think is problematic is to try and define what makes good art if that definition essentially doesn't amount to much more than "It's good because I like it."

I agree that people need to be selective about what they choose to invest their time in. And actually, that's where the collective evaluations of art in places like museums and galleries is quite helpful. Someone else has already collected works to put on display which they think might be worth some extra attention.

There are thousands photos posted on the internet everyday. And so we've become atuned to looking at a photo and making a snap judgement. This one's good, that one's bad. Of course, we have to operate that way. But, "art" isn't necessarily meant to work that way.

A wise person once told me "If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten." There's less potential for growth if you doesn't challenge your preconceptions from time to time. If you choose only to contemplate art which you like at the outset and ignore everything else, then you'll have a much smaller chance to discover something new and interesting.

May 08, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Access
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #12 · p.5 #12 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

artd wrote:
A wise person once told me "If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten." There's less potential for growth if you doesn't challenge your preconceptions from time to time. If you choose only to contemplate art which you like at the outset and ignore everything else, then you'll have a much smaller chance to discover something new and interesting.
Yes and this has been said many other ways, and it's not a bad way to think if you are a designer or engineer or a scientist. But for photography, the second you bring people into it, things change. You can shoot it exactly the same way, but every given person, every given day, it will have different results. That is the world I live in. You can do what you are comfortable with, what you can do efficiently and proficiently, make it as effortless as possible (ゆっくりしていってね！！！ ) . Sure you can try new things from time to time, but it doesn't have to be your MO if you want to be successful.

May 08, 2013 at 01:27 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #13 · p.5 #13 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

Access wrote:
As a photographer, it's helpful to be able to tell -- intuitively and quickly, if a photo is good or bad. Building this up makes editing that much easier.

Yes, but...

For me, there is no question that when I'm creating photographs, the ability to work quickly and intuitively without trying to over-think everything is critical. Usually. But not always. Sometimes I have to think very carefully and a lot and learn to look far beyond my initiate intuitive response. Usually. But not always.

When it comes to considering the work of others, the former approach can end up being "more of the same" quite quickly, and trying to consider a context that isn't the one you are most familiar with is almost necessary.

At least I think so.

May 08, 2013 at 01:35 PM

Jefferson
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #14 · p.5 #14 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

dhphoto wrote:
But why are you shooting wide open at 50 ISO (which decreses dynamic range anyway) and pushing the file so far? OF COURSE it will break up.

Get the exposure right, use a sensible ISO and all your problems will disappear.

I had inadvertently put the flash in High Speed Sync.. I also have the camera’s, custom function Fn-16… Safety Shift in Av or Tv enabled… and I think because being in Av mode, it adjusted the shutter speed to 1/8000 and kept the aperture at f/2.2. If I had been in Tv mode, the camera would have stopped down and kept the shutter speed as set, at least I think that’s how it works…

After about 15 shots or so…( I was paying more attention to the activity going on around me, as the cars were preparing to leave the paddock and move to the track, than to my camera settings), I set it back to the basic ETTL setting and later shots stopped down again, to about f/5 or so…, I think because the shutter speed was now limited to 250, the lens stops down… even with Fn-16 and in Av mode… in an attempt to get the correct exposure. I had seen this before and was trying to make use of that observance in hopes of keeping a “wide as I could get” aperture… also the reason for the ISO 50…

My thought was to have the background OoF with as wide an aperture as possible… It was a bright day, mid afternoon, so I used ISO 50, thinking that ISO 100 or 200 (with the shutter limited to 250), would result in an aperture that would not give me the background that I was looking for…

Maybe I’ll try a ND and shoot @ ISO 200 or so…

Anyway, back to the thread subject…. When I got home and looked at the files, I brought the exposure back in LR and thought some looked interesting. So I kept them… seemed they might fit in this thread…

I still like some of those shots… not my all time favorites, but the first two I like.

This is what I was shooting before I hit High Speed Sync. button...

5Dc, with Canon 50 1.4 in Av mode set @ f/2.2, ISO 50, Flash in ETTL ...

exif.. ISO 50, 1/200, f/5...

http://jeffersonposter.smugmug.com/photos/i-x56HcF4/0/X2/i-x56HcF4-X2.jpg

Edited on May 08, 2013 at 04:47 PM · View previous versions

May 08, 2013 at 02:07 PM

artd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #15 · p.5 #15 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

Access wrote:
Yes and this has been said many other ways, and it's not a bad way to think if you are a designer or engineer or a scientist. But for photography, the second you bring people into it, things change. You can shoot it exactly the same way, but every given person, every given day, it will have different results. That is the world I live in. You can do what you are comfortable with, what you can do efficiently and proficiently, make it as effortless as possible (‚ä‚Á‚‚è‚µ‚Ä‚¢‚Á‚Ä‚ËIII ) . Sure you can try new things from time to time,...Show more →
I'm not saying that's not a valid approach, and if you're content with that, right on

But personally, I don't find that just sticking with what you know and are comfortable with is a philosophy that encourages creativity.

May 08, 2013 at 02:14 PM

xrayvision
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #16 · p.5 #16 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.

The noise that I see at higher ISO with my 1Ds3 is often desirable. I have added noise to an image prior to printing and if you do it right it adds contrast and sharpness to the print. It's a little tricky. Its easy to get a just plain noisy look which isn't so nice.

May 08, 2013 at 04:48 PM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.