I love sensor noise...

fdigital said:
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.
Click to expand...


Shutterspeed was 1/250th...;)
 
willie_901 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling you need to calibrate your monitor. On mine it looks like normal shadow cast.
 
jaapv said:
I have a feeling you need to calibrate your monitor. On mine it looks like normal shadow cast.
Click to expand...


I have a Well calibrated Eizo and it looks like shadow cast to me also.

Nice shot; did you output to an SRGB workspace for posting here?
 
Keith said:
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!
Click to expand...
Something I've been telling people for years - except none of them make prints anymore! :eek:
 
I often like luminance noise, depending on the sensor...sometimes the "grain" is indeed pleasing. I especially liked it on the Sigma DP1...it's nice on the R-D1 as well.

Chroma noise, though, I never like.
 
I can understand the appreciation of the aesthetic, but i've never liked digital noise. If i wanted 'grit,' and was shooting digital, i'd ALWAYS use the lowest ISO, and add grit/grain/whatever LATER, in PS with a filter. Shooting intentionally at a high ISO is like shooting JPG instead of RAW, using 'picture styles.' What if you change your mind? What if you wanted to sell the image to a stock agency and they didn't share your love of noise? Too many What Ifs that are unnecessary.

I always thought the optimal and most beneficial workflow with digital was to Capture the best quality file and then manipulate copies, preserving the original for future consideration.

Whatever. Nice photo, but as an art director, i would certainly never buy or print an image that had obvious digital noise. If you have the 'luxury' of shooting exclusively for yourself, none of that matters.
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
I can understand the appreciation of the aesthetic, but i've never liked digital noise. If i wanted 'grit,' and was shooting digital, i'd ALWAYS use the lowest ISO, and add grit/grain/whatever LATER, in PS with a filter. Shooting intentionally at a high ISO is like shooting JPG instead of RAW, using 'picture styles.' What if you change your mind? What if you wanted to sell the image to a stock agency and they didn't share your love of noise? Too many What Ifs that are unnecessary.

I always thought the optimal and most beneficial workflow with digital was to Capture the best quality file and then manipulate copies, preserving the original for future consideration.

Whatever. Nice photo, but as an art director, i would certainly never buy or print an image that had obvious digital noise. If you have the 'luxury' of shooting exclusively for yourself, none of that matters.
Click to expand...

I shoot for stock and can't allow digital noise and expect acceptances and sales. That said, I think the picture is the thing and I am not into the finer points of noise or grain. So I shoot my D300 for stock and my film RFs for myself.

I must take exception to your analogy of noise to the raw/jpeg conundrum. Shooting raw is a pain for me in that Adobe always makes me buy the latest iteration of their product if I get a new camera not covered by their old software. To make sure my images are preserved in raw form for posterity is a little presumptious on my part. I don't think there will be that kind of demand. Raw is not the best method of preservation anyway because of each manufacturer's different formats and constant evolution, whereas tiff and jpeg are universal and likely to remain that way.

The old bromides about jpeg are gradually erroding. I shoot jpeg and can correct the images once or twice and gain acceptances with third generation jpegs. They've come a long ways since the early days.

This image would be just as fine for me with no noise, although I don't have any strong objection to it either. What DOES bother me is the pure white speck on the subject's hat, Very distracting to me.
 
Love grain. Hate noise.

Sorry, but buy an old film camera and shoot a roll of Neopan 1600. Higher ISO and such charming, creamy, speckled grain...

That just looks like static on a tv. Not pleasant.
 
Last edited:
hlockwood said:
I second the motion. Let's see it in B&W.

Harry
Click to expand...

Ok. Four versions:
1. Original
2. Noise-Ninjaed for that DSLR-look
3 Black and White
4. Just for fun - a fake movie-still


IMG_20081025_0501.jpg



chris2.jpg



chris3.jpg




chris1.jpg
 
Why does everyone hate noise when they should be hating noise reduction?
The original looks good, and I prefer natural higher iso images over extremely clean over-processed photos, and especially better than photos with fake grain photoshopped in to it later. Do rock n' roll singers sing perfectly and then later edit their voices to make them grittier? Nope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom