jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
No way could I have taken this portrait with a smoooooth DSLR...
I deliberately chose ISO 1250 to get a bit of grit in. And notice the way the M8 handles the shadows.
This, btw, is Chris McBride, one of the grand old men of the African bush. Author of Liontide, White Lions of the Timbyvati, researcher and conservationist.
I deliberately chose ISO 1250 to get a bit of grit in. And notice the way the M8 handles the shadows.
This, btw, is Chris McBride, one of the grand old men of the African bush. Author of Liontide, White Lions of the Timbyvati, researcher and conservationist.
Last edited:
kipkeston
Well-known
I use 1250 without reservation. I love its bit of grit. Tungsten brings the M8 to its knees for me, so I just don't use the camera there.
dof
Fiat Lux
Makes me think of how photographers once turned to orthochromatic b+w films to enhance weathered male skin tones.
ali_baba
Well-known
that would look great in B&W!
nice capture.
nice capture.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Beautiful Portrait Jaap ...A Classic
that & the three childern "Marching Along"
are my TWO Favs of yours
Cheers! helen
that & the three childern "Marching Along"
are my TWO Favs of yours
Cheers! helen
Morca007
Matt
And so it begins, just as people started to love Grain (formerly to be avoided), now we have appreciation for noise...
Edit: Just so I'm clear, I don't think that is a good or bad thing, and I quite enjoy your photo, independent of noise concerns.
Edit: Just so I'm clear, I don't think that is a good or bad thing, and I quite enjoy your photo, independent of noise concerns.
Last edited:
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
I hate sensor noise.
There is nothing aesthetically pleasing about it.
It has nothing in common with grain visually, atleast when I see it.
There is nothing aesthetically pleasing about it.
It has nothing in common with grain visually, atleast when I see it.
willie_901
Veteran
noise = the uncertainty in the data ... not that there's anything wrong with uncertainty
The shadows don't look that great to me. I really don't like how the hat brim or the right side of his neck are rendered. The blue cast on the leather strap over his right (in the frame) shoulder does not look right either. The skin tonality is very pleasing.
The shadows don't look that great to me. I really don't like how the hat brim or the right side of his neck are rendered. The blue cast on the leather strap over his right (in the frame) shoulder does not look right either. The skin tonality is very pleasing.
Last edited:
Nh3
Well-known
Digital noise is like listening to radio which is not tuned properly.
Extremely unpleasant!
Extremely unpleasant!
nome_alice
Established
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Why should it have anything in common with grain? It is not grain. If I want grain I should use film.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
it has nothing in common because I like grain and think it's pretty.
That's my opinion.
I'm sorry Jaap, I think the noise really takes away from the picture.
I mean...there are ways to add texture to the picture, but by letting the sensor under perform?
I'm glad you enjoy it though. I am told that that is what really matters.
That's my opinion.
I'm sorry Jaap, I think the noise really takes away from the picture.
I mean...there are ways to add texture to the picture, but by letting the sensor under perform?
I'm glad you enjoy it though. I am told that that is what really matters.
J. Borger
Well-known
Very nice portrait Jaap!
Sensor noise printed looks a lot better than shown on the web...... and that is what realy counts ....... and is hard to show!
For me ISO 640 is the hot spot for the M8: color and B&W!
I do not like noise free M8 pictures at Iso 160.
Sensor noise printed looks a lot better than shown on the web...... and that is what realy counts ....... and is hard to show!
For me ISO 640 is the hot spot for the M8: color and B&W!
I do not like noise free M8 pictures at Iso 160.
aizan
Veteran
skin tones can't take much digital noise, imo.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I've noticed that noise means squat when the image is printed ... as said above it looks totally different on a monitor and I agree, is unappealing!
aizan
Veteran
i dunno. i've seen plenty of noisy prints from dslrs (and leica m8s).
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think it may depend on the paper ...I had an image that I really liked but it was somewhat ugly in the shadows due to noise. I printed it with my R2400 on smooth matt paper and it looked very different. I guess on gloss that may not be the case?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
What I mean is that it is stating the obvious to say noise
is not like grain. It is like saying a steel axe makes a different noise chopping down an tree from a flint axe. As it happens I have done 90% of my film work over the years on slow slide film, as I disliked grain. Strangely enough I find that I don't dislike digital noise to the same extent.
I freely admit that the thread (and the title) were meant to provoke a discussion
gavinlg
Veteran
It looks a little as though you wanted a wider aperture to use but couldn't because the ISO was boosted quite high and you reached your top shutter speed.
I don't mind the noise but I think personally very slightly lower ISO (640?) would have worked a little better. Slightly wider aperture would have blurred that (slightly) distracting background.
Thats all technicality though, it's a good portrait.
I don't mind the noise but I think personally very slightly lower ISO (640?) would have worked a little better. Slightly wider aperture would have blurred that (slightly) distracting background.
Thats all technicality though, it's a good portrait.
Last edited:
yanidel
Well-known
Excellent picture. I think 640 and 1250 give great creative look when used at light level where ISO 160 or 320 would also work. The problem with 1250 is really when light is very low and is the only option, I don't find it pleasing anymore, I try to restrict to 640.