"Noise" be darned, I say.. Bah, humbug!

[Greywoulf]

I have perhaps a different philosophy re all this concern about "noise". -I just disregard it and shoot what I like the way I like to! ">}) So AFAIC, unless you've got a shot that's so 'fuzzy' it disappears into pixel cotton when you get it up to, say, 8x10, a little softness around certain edges doesn't mean a hill of beans to me as long as the shot is itself otherwise interesting and attractive!

We've all become so 'techie' in this country now, you'd think that (besides bokeh, which is strangely acceptable and desirable?) the only acceptable photo art is that which is taken with mathematical precision and needle sharpness! -Bah! Humbug, I say! :Curved:
-If you want everything to be crystal sharp in low light, then just always shoot with flash and you'll get it! (Along with a certain 'flatness' of perception?!)

Whatever happened to appreciation of a photo for the beauty captured in it, or for what it says to you, what impact it has on you? The famous photographers of Life and Magnum didn't (and still don't!) go around worrying about whether every corner of their shot was sharp and crisp; -it's getting the shot that says something that moves people, that's what's important! (IMHO..)

So, 'noise' be darned! I for one appreciate every time I pick up a modern camera the new found ability to get great available light shots that were almost impossible a mere decade ago! :Love:

 

[LynnTX]

I agree with your points, more than I disagree. I sometimes put up with some "noise" in order to get a shot I would have missed just a few years ago in many cases.

 

[rbsinto]

I still don't understand why "grain" which was desirable and often imparted a certain "feel' to a Film photograph, suddenly, with the advent of Digital, became "noise", an unwanted artifact, and the bane of photographers.

 

[jm2e]

I thought it had more to do with whether you were looking for snapshot memories or if you were looking for great photography art. Since the #1 criticism of digital vs film is noise, then when trying to be great one must avoid noise. Otherwise, like you said. F that. Damn the noise nazis!

 

[Julien]

I still don't understand why "grain" which was desirable and often imparted a certain "feel' to a Film photograph, suddenly, with the advent of Digital, became "noise", an unwanted artifact, and the bane of photographers.

I have the feeling that it was the other way around actually. Since digital came along, people have gone back to film and loved its advantages (dynamic range for example) as well as its defaults (grain namely). I'm sure that when film was the only medium available, grain wasn't so much sought after as it can be today (Silver Efex Pro comes to mind, amongst many other apps and plugins).

When I do shoot digital and film side by side on the same assignements, I do find the digital photos too flat and plasticky, they lack of texture whereas the film ones don't. But being able to shoot at mind boggling high ISOs is a breakthough for my work, sometimes I wonder how I managed (struggled?) before :smile:

 

[W.Ray]

I have the feeling that it was the other way around actually. Since digital came along, people have gone back to film and loved its advantages (dynamic range for example) as well as its defaults (grain namely). I'm sure that when film was the only medium available, grain wasn't so much sought after as it can be today (Silver Efex Pro comes to mind, amongst many other apps and plugins).

When I do shoot digital and film side by side on the same assignements, I do find the digital photos too flat and plasticky, they lack of texture whereas the film ones don't. But being able to shoot at mind boggling high ISOs is a breakthough for my work, sometimes I wonder how I managed (struggled?) before :smile:

Pretty accurate although for me I still like to keep grain to a minimum when shooting film!

 

[agw0]

Grain isn't noise

I still don't understand why "grain" which was desirable and often imparted a certain "feel' to a Film photograph, suddenly, with the advent of Digital, became "noise", an unwanted artifact, and the bane of photographers.

Grain isn't noise. Noise affects mainly the shadows, and as such can be seen as more prominent, and distracting than grain, which in turn affects mainly the mid-tones and highlights. For B&W anyway, and that's all that counts for me.:smile:

I have the feeling that it was the other way around actually. Since digital came along, people have gone back to film and loved its advantages (dynamic range for example) as well as its defaults (grain namely). I'm sure that when film was the only medium available, grain wasn't so much sought after as it can be today (Silver Efex Pro comes to mind, amongst many other apps and plugins).

Grain, for a long time, has been both a means of artistic expression, and the price to pay for speed, depending on how you look at it. Also, one shouldn't forget that the really grainy films (like Royal-X and HIE) have (long) been discontinued.

While I rarely go beyond ISO400 film, I'm not particularly obsessed about grain (or lack thereof), nor do I particularly fuss about some amount of noise when shooting digital. Also, I don't understand the amount of obsession some digi-only shooters show about noise (or lack thereof), as well as about some other technicalities (like "CA" - I've yet to see CA in one of my B&W negatives :biggrin.

 

[Cheesecycle]

Also, I don't understand the amount of obsession some digi-only shooters show about noise (or lack thereof), as well as about some other technicalities (like "CA" - I've yet to see CA in one of my B&W negatives :biggrin.

I can't speak for others, but for myself the technicalities such as CA, edge sharpness, etc is less of a focus when shooting/editing. I will read about such technicalities when purchasing a lens, or to simply learn about it, but when it comes to the images I'm not overly concerned. If there is an amount of CA or grain or some other aspect where it becomes distracting from the image itself, I will try to remove it or reshoot (if possible), but knowing about these things and seemingly obsessing over them just allows me to make better lens purchases as well as better know which lens/settings I want to use for a particular shot. The 50 1.4D will have ridiculous CA wide open in certain situations, so in those situations I would either stop it down or use a different lens.

As I shoot more film I find many of these issues are less of a concern. Film grain and digital grain are just different. Especially in print. Film grain can almost seem to give an image texture, while digital grain often just looks like digitized imperfections. Either way, knowing enough about them allows you to use it to your advantage if you can, or restrict it from being distracting if you have to.

 

[Fort Photo]

Great post. Of course it's still good to know your gear's sweet spot and weaknesses but at the end of the day using it to get the shot is the most important of all. I remember an interview with a Nikon engineer a few years back where he emphatically encouraged people to stop hamstringing their shooting experiences by worrying about things like diffraction and noise and to just use the camera like it didn't have any limitations as it was designed by Nikon to be used like that. Basically, you pay attention to the business of having fun and making great photographs and leave the tech worries to the engineers. Of course being OCD I can't really do this and am always agonizing over limiting things like noise, hah. That said, posts like yours and the Nikon engineer's help me keep it in check and keep focused on the art of making images first and OCD perfectionist bits second.

 

[ShaunK]

I still don't understand why "grain" which was desirable and often imparted a certain "feel' to a Film photograph, suddenly, with the advent of Digital, became "noise", an unwanted artifact, and the bane of photographers.

It's not noise that's the problem for me, per se... it's the wrong kind of noise. I despise the color or chroma noise. It's just ugly and doesn't compare to anything film. MY D70s is horrible at this, hence, I don't usually shoot above ISO 640. However, my D2X has noise which, while not perfect, is to me much closer to film grain... especially when I shoot in B&W (yeah, that's right, I do it in-camera!!! :Teeth::biggrin. I really like the look of my D2X at about ISO 800 in B&W.

 

[Kisatchie]

I shoot film. Grain looks nice, but digital noise looks awful.:tongue:

 

[Greywoulf]

I shoot film. Grain looks nice, but digital noise looks awful.:tongue:

LOL! -Could you explain the difference to me?
(Other than what the professional camera mag reviewers tell us to think about it??) :biggrin:

I think what you may be trying to say is B+W "grain" looks okay, but color usually does not? -And isn't that the same with bOTH digital and film? -Try shooting B+W digital with a high ISO, then do the same with a 'grainy' B+W film. Then tell me you could see a difference..?

This business of better 'noise' IMO is very much a way for camera advertisers and makers to keep selling us the 'latest thing'! -The same thing like with this mega-pixel bit? If you're not making 10ft by 12ft posters, why do you need a camera with 20MP? And are 20 tiny MPs really much better than 6 BIG ones, for almost all amateur photography purposes?

 

[Kisatchie]

LOL! -Could you explain the difference to me?...

I think what you may be trying to say is B+W "grain" looks okay, but color usually does not?...

I was talking about B&W grain. I don't use any color film that has noticeable grain, because it just doesn't look right to me.:smile:

 

[Joves]

I have to agree. So many times I hear the OMGs the noise at 3200 and, I just have to laugh. Apparently some of the younger shooters have never shot film and, gone over 400ISO. I used to shoot high ISO B&W in the old punk rock days just for the edginess it gave the images and, to be able to shoot at night with any decent shutter speeds. Plenty of grain/noise in those. I really dont find the newer cameras luminance noise to be all that egregious myself, if you compare it to the old chroma noise of the older models. Though I could be wrong about all of this, it has been known to happen.

 

[socrdude]

that is the great part of photography.. many people see different things through the view finder.. that is what is so great. One persons dislike is another persons love.

What ever works for you or your client, works. no matter what someone else says.

If you like it, it works.

I shoot for me or my client..

 

[Greywoulf]

that is the great part of photography.. many people see different things through the view finder.. that is what is so great. One persons dislike is another persons love.
What ever works for you or your client, works. no matter what someone else says.
If you like it, it works.
I shoot for me or my client..

Totally agree...
It's like, I always hear about how bad a lens is regarding 'vignette'... Yet just the other night at my photo club someone very proficient with Photoshop gave a demo on how to make some of your photos come more alive by eliminating lighter edges and adding vignette darkening to them! And IMO she was right, too...
Go figure, right? :wink: