Grain, Noise and the stamping out of mistaken terminology.

[whiz]

In reference to the image quality you can discern when using high ISO film, the particles that comprise the light sensitive emulsion get bigger. (not so much in later technolgy film)
The resulting image quality degradation is discernable because of this size increase. The bits that make the picture up are bigger. This quality is referred to as "grain"

With digital cameras, the bits that are sensitive to light never change in size. However with current technology, the level of amplification required, combined with manufacturing variation and differing environmental conditions make consistant responses from the image sensor able to be seen in the manner of significant variation in an image.
This is known as "noise" as it is a spurious variation in signal level.

So if you think that calling your digital camera's memory cards "film" is appropriate, you are of the same level of correctness as calling noise, "grain"

Now I know that some of you people steadfastly refuse to acknowledge change in various areas of your life.

If you are of the mind that computers are not "adding machines" and that the universe does not actually revolve around the earth, surely you can let go of this notion and move forward.

(Yes, this is a deliberately hotly provocative thread and I invite attempts to cling to the past.)

[Oneputt]

???????????????Your point is?????????????

[PiroStitch]

Not sure what your point here is, but if you are referring to people calling noise as "grain" well then call me guilty

When I refer noise as grain, it is merely an observation that it reminds me of film grain.

Am I an anti-change person? No. Does that make me less knowledgeable? No.

From the number of posts I've read, I have yet to see someone cling on to the past and refer to CF cards as film, etc.

[Mitchell]

Isn't the point of language to communicate?
If there is general understanding of what is meant by 'grain' in digital image, why get upset by the use of the word?

Call me past clinger, but I don't care whether you call it grain or noise - I'll still know what you mean

[Aussie Dave]

I can see where you're coming from Whiz, though I'm not sure if the tone in your post is justified (IMO).....unless this is coming from a previous thread I'm not aware of ?!?

And in reference to a CF card being like film, that depends on how you look at it. They are both recording media for images, even though they are completely different in their operation.

There are so many misconceptions with digital photography, you have only named a few. I can see that the more we perpetuate the misconception, the more people think it is correct....but that's life.

That being said, at least we now all know the true meanings. Looks like we've all learnt our lesson for today

[whiz]

Well, sometimes storms in teacups are hard to stir up.

There is no reference to any particular post in this forum. Just trying this out on the general public here before posting this somewhere else...

Muhahahahaha..... <-- Evil laugh fades . Whiz exits stage right.

[Marty]

Whiz,
I also don’t get the point of your thread.
I do fully understand the technicalities you are trying to convey, but the style of your post doesn’t do anything for your argument.
I would much prefer to be out shooting then debating the correct or incorrect use of terminology.
Marty

I am now going out to press more buttons..!!!!

[sheepie]

Well, sometimes storms in teacups are hard to stir up

Perhaps if that was your intent then http://www.dpreview.com would be a better place to try We tend to be much more interested in the real issues here.

I guess most people understand the technical difference between 'grain' and 'noise'. The reality, or at least general consensus, is probably an understanding that the effect noise has on an image is similar to the effect of grain on film.

Personally, I don't have too much of an issue with noise - there are times when it can be used to advantage.

I also have not seen too many instances on this forum where people have referred to 'grain' in their images rather than 'noise'. Sure, they have pointed out the similarity of the two, but to refer to digital noise as grain from the start? Can't say I've seen it happen here.

[DionM]

Sorry, I own a Canon, what is this digital grain/noise thing you refer to Must be a Nikon thing

Whatever it is called, I think we all know what it means. I would venture to suggest that even "noise" is incorrect, as it results from amplification of the signal ... so perhaps "gain byproducts" is a better description ...

[Big V]

Maybe the term hot pixels! That is what we call them in cooled astronomy cameras...

[Suri]

This is a topic that is embellished across the various internet DSLR forums, and is argued infinitum, and it is little wonder people get confused by it all.

Before Digital - when noise was grain, I used to delight in the creative possibilities that faster film provided, and accepted without question the end result of attempting photography in the dark. What is the hang up with a few bumps and bruises in the picture - allow for it, use the tool within the contraints of it's design and construct the image within this knowledge.

I wonder how many people didn't like Van Goghs' Art because he painted pictures that appeared blurry!?

Go back a few years and grain in a picture meant action and urgency almost a synonym for photographic speed and impressionism - now it seems to be merely a hotly debated camera defect, fit only for an engineered designed death.

What a pity!