p.1 #1 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
Often on FM I come across comments that suggest it is now completely orthodox to want all images processed so that all noise is removed. I am wondering if digital imaging has rewired our photographic brains to consider that noise is inherently a problem, not an aesthetic tool.
I will try to be clearer. I cut my photographic teeth processing my own black and white film. 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.
Now with digital, we have smoothing and noise reduction algorithms galore, and while I understand in some contexts sensor noise is death, I do wonder if we are being brainwashed into believing that all noise/grain is bad, and are therefore in danger of forgetting the creative opportunity of graphic noise.
p.1 #2 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
I don't ever want a noisy image and have never considered ISO (i.e. the variable that controls noise) to be a creative element. However, there are many times I've wanted grain, especially for B&W imagery and the addition of grain in post processing is for me a creative element.
p.1 #3 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
Film grain or digital noise can lend certain images a touch of artistic touch, rendering beautiful images, indeed. Chroma noise in digital images. on the other hand, is something else.
p.1 #4 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
Graphic noise is very different from electronic noise.
Graphic noise is extremely simple to add to a clean image.
I tend to feel that all "effects" like noise or 'cross-processing' or 'instagramming' or over-done high-pass techniques, etc. are desirable for a small number of images and tend to be over-used and over-done by too many photographers. Variety is the spice of life, but if you put curry powder in everything it loses its meaning and dulls the taste buds.
I still process T-Max B&W (rarely), but never liked pushing and used Microdol-X diluted 1:3 with Tri-X to reduce grain. I like my digital files as noise free as possible.
p.1 #5 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
I can see the artistic side of adding various effects like noise, but as with any technique it can be overdone to the extreme. Instagram is one good example, where I see a lot of pictures from friends that look butchered up, when a cleaner shot would've done a better job.
It depends on your personal tastes. There's nothing wrong with it, but as with anything it will appeal to a certain group of people. I do enjoy trying new ideas and what not, but adding noise isn't for me.
p.1 #7 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
"I like my digital files as noise free as possible"
OK, I am not picking on you, just trying to understand a trend. Humour me please, I am trying to put something subconscious into words.
If someone photographs scenes with zero tolerance for noise (or film grain), aims for natural colours and total sharpness, and wants to raise details in their shadows (a la 5D2 debates here on FM) is the resulting image a photograph at all (speaking in a graphical sense). Isn't it then just an attempt to put a frame around nature as opposed to an artistic selection/fantasy/sketch?
I do have a problem with the apparent homogenizing influence of digital, as opposed to film's tendency to encourage a graphical result. Perhaps I am wrong, but there does seem to be an issue here.
p.1 #8 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
(not feeling picked on, continuing the discussion)
If someone photographs scenes with zero tolerance for smoothness, aims for heavy grain and high acutance grain, and wants to let details in shadows go black, is the resulting image a photograph at all (speaking in a graphical sense)?
(Note that was a rhetorical question, but the one that inspired it was not though it should have been.)
Look, all 'photographs' are processed and do not merely "put a frame around nature". Even the act of selecting an instant out of the billions available makes an editorial imposition that interferes with "reality". You can for example capture a politician or a friend with their tongue stuck out wetting their lips on a dry day, but that probably would be unrepresentative of who they really are.
All digital photos are processed by a computer. Some are processed by the camera computer and others by the desktop computer.
I think that debates about the validity of "retouching" (meaning post-processing) and "editing" (in the slacker sense meaning post-processing and photo-shopping have very limited utility.
p.1 #9 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
I really dislike the Noise Ninja etc. "wax" look, with the same passion as I dislike "creative" HDR or tilt / shift miniatures. If I get a clean image because I shot at low ISO, that's absolutely wonderful. I have a lot of detail. But if I shot at high ISO, I will remove chroma noise but will not go out of my way to remove luminance noise. It's simply a part of it, and it looks better in my book than a waxy photo.
p.1 #10 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
I like my files captured by the sensor as noise free as possible because I consider them only as starting points. That said, these days I don't often use noise reduction in processing or post-processing.
I use EttR to reduce noise in capture. I tend to shoot at lower ISOs and take other measures to counter-act the need for higher ISOs. I shoot at slightly less noisy ISOs even among those: 160, 320, 640 and sometimes 1250; on the 5D2. I sometimes use HDR techniques to reduce noise in capture.
p.1 #11 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
Well OK, I am not aiming for utility!
"If someone photographs scenes with zero tolerance for smoothness, aims for heavy grain and high acutance grain, and wants to let details in shadows go black, is the resulting image a photograph at all (speaking in a graphical sense)?"
Well yes, it could easily be. My point is that such work is intended to be graphical, a bit like an artist choosing to work in charcoal or other distinctive medium. You don't have to work like that, I am just concerned that an automatic presumption that digital images should look real is undermining creativity.
Just observing what I feel everytime I read about a new way to remove noise, such processess are an extra technique that digital allows, not an aesthetic requirement. Am editing to say that I am worried that noise reduction is turning into the "law of noise reduction" in the same stultifying crass way that people talk about the "law" of thirds. Might just have a bee in my bonnet of course.
p.1 #12 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
I don't usually adjust the noise reduction properties from default in LR4 and I shoot 6400 and even 12800 all the time with my 5DIII. The additional texture doesn't bother me. It is much more natural looking than it was on my 5DII at 6400 and especially higher.
p.1 #13 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
In the early days of digital, many complained that the lack of grain made the images look less detailed. Most people are psychologically over that now, but an image that is inherently unsharp may benefit from a bit of noise if your brain sees it as "better." I feel it is akin to when first using Dolby A NR in the early 70s. The music sounded dull, as if the high frequencies were gone, but that was simply the reduction of tape noise.
I'd rather have a clean image and add grain/noise in PP if needed.
Since I shot film for more decades than digital, a little noise is OK with me. I often utilize chroma noise reduction, but only a minimal amount of luminance NR. The smeary, plastic look bugs me more than a bit of noise.
p.1 #14 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
Some people say there are two kinds of photography; interpretive and documentary. I believe all photographs have elements of both. The most important aspects of processing a photograph are at the "pre-processing" stage, when you decide where to point the camera and when to push the button. That's 'interpretive' at it's most base level.
I figure the same goes for digital noise: it might help the photo, and it might hurt the photo, depending on what effect you want. Of course, I think it's best when the amount of noise in a photo is left to the discretion of the photographer.
p.1 #16 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
"There is very few cams that produce nice noise on higher ISO. Plus distribution of noise/grain is pretty different than on film."
Ok, I will stick my neck out. Here is a link to a large 5D2 image, I think I shot it at ISO 3200. You don't have to like the shot, but its got the kind of "filmy" grain look that I myself like:
p.1 #17 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
David Baldwin wrote:
If someone photographs scenes with zero tolerance for noise (or film grain), aims for natural colours and total sharpness, and wants to raise details in their shadows (a la 5D2 debates here on FM) is the resulting image a photograph at all (speaking in a graphical sense).
If someone wants to photograph with zero tolerance for noise they need to either get some treatment for their OCD or find a new hobby. All data capture techniques have noise.
Is a heavily processed digital image a photograph? Maybe. Define "photograph". Is it an accurate depiction of a scene? Is anything? Cats, dogs, insects and people all "see" things differently. Which sees things most accurately?
p.1 #18 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
Monito wrote:
I tend to shoot at lower ISOs and take other measures to counter-act the need for higher ISOs. I shoot at slightly less noisy ISOs even among those: 160, 320, 640 and sometimes 1250; on the 5D2.
Surprising that you stated in many other threads how much the 5D III is needed while you yourself are still shooting the 5D II. Above you pretty much use the 5D II camera as I do, but when I argued that this is one reason why I don't need the 5d III, you contradicted all the time.
p.1 #19 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
retrofocus wrote:
Surprising that you stated in many other threads how much the 5D III is needed while you yourself are still shooting the 5D II. Above you pretty much use the 5D II camera as I do, but when I argued that this is one reason why I don't need the 5d III, you contradicted all the time.
My statements rarely contradict themselves and when they do it is because I have learned; but not from you. As usual you have not read logically: just because you don't want a 5D3 for lower noise doesn't mean that others are fools for wanting a 5D3 for lower noise. That was the point you missed.
It is obvious to all except a few that if I want a 5D3 for less noise than a 5D2 it does not contradict operating a 5D2 a certain way to achieve low noise results.
p.1 #20 · Anyone out there actually like "noisy" images.
David Baldwin wrote:
Ok, I will stick my neck out. Here is a link to a large 5D2 image, I think I shot it at ISO 3200. You don't have to like the shot, but its got the kind of "filmy" grain look that I myself like:
