DSLRUsers.com

I was thinking the other day about noise captured in images.

While people talk about having a noiseless shot at high iso, is that really desirable or are we loosing some artistic appeal?

Just wondering what are your opinions on the subject.

Everyone today wants pin sharp silky smooth .reach out and touch it pictures . I guess because the cameras are producing it.
I don't see losing noise as any great loss .

Although film grain can be a desirable enhancement to many photographs, I personally find digital noise undesirable.

I don't find that noise has a similar look to grain, and I love grain personally.

That said, a high level of noise doesn't seem to make a good black & white or heavy sepia tone shot seem all that bad some of the time. It can make it seem older and dirtier, which can be better for the image depending on the type of effect you're going after.

Nnnnsic wrote:I don't find that noise has a similar look to grain, and I love grain personally.

That said, a high level of noise doesn't seem to make a good black & white or heavy sepia tone shot seem all that bad some of the time. It can make it seem older and dirtier, which can be better for the image depending on the type of effect you're going after.

Two different subjects Leigh - one being film grain (i.e. film) and the other digital (i.e. digital)

drifter wrote:Everyone today wants pin sharp silky smooth .reach out and touch it pictures . I guess because the cameras are producing it.
I don't see losing noise as any great loss .

I found that to be the case of the photographers, but not those looking at a printed image. I'm not talking about excessive noise but in so many cases when printed - you can be very hard pressed to find these imperfections we see at 100% crop on our screens.

I think the purpose of the image should always be considered as a factor in our critical analysis of it. With the tools we have now we can analyse an image in so much detail that was not considered in the past.

I'm one that votes that some times an image with a bit of noise, a blown highlight, not pin sharp 'can' have an artistic quality about it that if we are not careful we may dismiss in our critical technical analysis. And throw out a gem ... because we know it could have been better if....

I personally hate noise for daytime shots. However, some people add noise to wedding shots for atmosphere.

I like it for night shots providing you dont loose too much detail or distracts from the subject.

depends on the outcome that you want out of the shot....

I have been shooting film for years and really got into grain. I started getting addicted to 3200 speed Tmax (Kodak) and then even more so, ilford delta 3200 ('richer' grain see ).

This is something I always lament when considering my up and coming digital purchase. I love grain, but well, digital grain... it's not much chop is it.

I do have to say though, I don't have a digi SLR so take my ramble with a grain of salt. I'm looking forward to being able to say for sure, when I get that cam.


Rob

robster wrote:I do have to say though, I don't have a digi SLR so take my ramble with a grain of salt.

I'm sure traditionally evaporated salt had grain. Nowadays, with the industrially made stuff, I wonder whether it is just noise?

On a different note, has anyone ever substatiated the claim that the D2H's LBCAST sensor produces more "film-like grain" than other sensors?

Cheers
Steffen

On a different note, has anyone ever substatiated the claim that the D2H's LBCAST sensor produces more "film-like grain" than other sensors?

I don't think mine does. How about yours? The noise at low ISOs is quite bad with slightly underexposed images and does not look much like film-grain to my eyes.

I have added noise (in photoshop) to images in the past and probably will do in the future as well. It all depends on whether it is relevant to the subject.