Is All Noise/Grain Bad? Let's Explode The Myth

[yogestee]

Is all noise/grain bad?? Or can noise/grain actually add to the feel, mood or mystique of an image??

Would you crank up the ISO to get a properly exposed and sharp image?? Or would you throw your hands in the air, pack up and go home when the light levels drop??

OK shooters,, post your best images where you think noise/grain gives something to the image.. Film shooters are also welcome.. Post those shots of Tri-X or Ektachrome pushed beyond their limits..

Let's dispel the myth..

I'll start.. The first image without noise reduction, the second with..Shot at 1600 ISO..

350D/Sigma EX 50-150mm F/2.8 APO

[jgrussell]

Plug-ins like Topaz Adjust wouldn't have a market if some noise didn't add to an image. It's the difference between this:

http://jgrussell.smugmug.com/photos/611461633_N522g-O.jpg

and this:

http://jgrussell.smugmug.com/photos/608116090_2piq5-O.jpg

[yogestee]

Plug-ins like Topaz Adjust wouldn't have a market if some noise didn't add to an image. It's the difference between this:




I haven't heard of Topaz Adjust but it seems to do the trick.. Is it down loadable??

[bsaber]

Subscribing... this is quite an interesting topic I think.

[sjones]

I can love film grain (Daido Moriyama!), but I generally never liked digital noise, but…some digitals seem to pull off noise better than others, and I've seen some good gritty black & whites from Ricoh digitals. The 1600 ISO on the Buddhist shot works well from what I see; and no, I don't care how it might look at 100 percent crop.

[number six]

Is all noise/grain bad?? Or can noise/grain actually add to the feel, mood or mystique of an image??

Would you crank up the ISO to get a properly exposed and sharp image?? Or would you throw your hands in the air, pack up and go home when the light levels drop??

Two questions with two separate answers, at least from me.

- sometimes noise adds to the image, especially with B/W, but sometimes it's not so pretty;

- throw up my hands? Never!

This is a shot I've posted several times to show you can get a good image at high ISO. It was taken with my 30D at ISO 3200, -2/3 EV, pushed in PP for an effective ISO of 5300. Selective noise reduction on the background and selective sharpening (but no NR) on the face.

384857

I just went back into the archives and reprocessed the original, but this time with no NR and no sharpening:

384858

I think the noise in the background is rather unpleasant. But it can be fixed without sacrificing sharpness, as shown in the top pic.

-js

[stsva]

This guy has some background noise at ISO 400, but I like it:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=384396&stc=1&d=1249349271

In my view, noise is not always a bad thing. Some images benefit from the grainy texture noise adds. The "noise police" can be as bad as the "sharpness police" in condemning even the slightest divergence from 100% image purity/accuracy. To me, that's a technological, not artistic, view of things.

[yogestee]

Two questions with two separate answers, at least from me.

- sometimes noise adds to the image, especially with B/W, but sometimes it's not so pretty;

- throw up my hands? Never!

This is a shot I've posted several times to show you can get a good image at high ISO. It was taken with my 30D at ISO 3200, -2/3 EV, pushed in PP for an effective ISO of 5300. Selective noise reduction on the background and selective sharpening (but no NR) on the face.

384857

I just went back into the archives and reprocessed the original, but this time with no NR and no sharpening:

384858

I think the noise in the background is rather unpleasant. But it can be fixed without sacrificing sharpness, as shown in the top pic.

-js

For a 3200 ISO image "pushed" to 5300 ISO this image of the cat look remarkably clean..

What can happen if the background noise is too intrusive it can take over especially if background is way out of focus.. The noise will look sharper than the background blur..

I sometimes use the blur tool in Photoshop to smooth out the noise in the background..

[yogestee]

Subscribing... this is quite an interesting topic I think.

Thanks bsaber,,,keep checking this thread regularily..I'm certain you'll get some great information..

[yogestee]

I can love film grain (Daido Moriyama!), but I generally never liked digital noise, but…some digitals seem to pull off noise better than others, and I've seen some good gritty black & whites from Ricoh digitals. The 1600 ISO on the Buddhist shot works well from what I see; and no, I don't care how it might look at 100 percent crop.

I agree.. I also like film grain as long as it's been controlled..

I used to shoot a lot of theatre/stage work pushing Tri-X 400 to 1600 ISO, sometimes to 3200 ISO with pretty good results.. I had the processing down to a fine, developing my B/W in D76 or ID11.. It's not rocket science but the secret is in the agitation..

[kauffman v36]

ahhhh 400 pushed to 1600, i cant imagine that. i loove tri-x 400 pulled to 200 though, the grays are amazing. i gota try it at 1600 after i pull tmax 3200 to 1600

[yogestee]

ahhhh 400 pushed to 1600, i cant imagine that. i loove tri-x 400 pulled to 200 though, the grays are amazing. i gota try it at 1600 after i pull tmax 3200 to 1600

I used to buy Tri-X by the brick.. I'd have to say it was my favourite film.. So easily processed because of it's latitude during exposure and development.

As you said, it's probably got the longest tonal range of any B/W film.. Funnily I never thought of pulling Tr-X by a stop but I'd often pull the development by around 10% or 15% when the subject was very contrasty..

[number six]

For a 3200 ISO image "pushed" to 5300 ISO this image of the cat look remarkably clean..

What can happen if the background noise is too intrusive it can take over especially if background is way out of focus.. The noise will look sharper than the background blur..

I sometimes use the blur tool in Photoshop to smooth out the noise in the background..

I could have used heavier NR on the background, since it's OOF anyway. Selective NR is often just the thing when you have a shallow DOF.

-js

[DStanic]

with noise reduction (in photoshop/LR anyways) I like to adjust the color NR at times, but leave the luminance as I find that effects the detail of the image. Color noise just screams "this is a digital image!" A little luminance noise looks more natural.

[bsaber]

Thanks bsaber,,,keep checking this thread regularily..I'm certain you'll get some great information..

Indeed, I will! :D

[Daniel Browning]

Is all noise/grain bad?

No way. I try to capture as much light as possible when I'm taking a photograph so that noise is reduced, but that doesn't mean the noise is bad.


Or can noise/grain actually add to the feel, mood or mystique of an image??


Yes. It also adds to the perception of sharpness. That's one reason why I will add grain in post.


Or would you throw your hands in the air, pack up and go home when the light levels drop??


I don't know the meaning of them horrible words.


OK shooters,, post your best images where you think noise/grain gives something to the image..


I don't have one handy, but there are some sites around the web demonstrating the benefit of grain. Here's the first one I found that has a mouseover comparison:

http://blog.epicedits.com/2008/02/27/photoshop-technique-digital-film-grain/


Let's dispel the myth..


I've never seen that particular myth in the wild. By the way, your comparison of a NR image vs. a normal image doesn't show that grain is good. It just shows that NR is bad. A better comparison is a normal, non-noisy image compared to one with noise added, IMHO.

[yogestee]

I've never seen that particular myth in the wild. By the way, your comparison of a NR image vs. a normal image doesn't show that grain is good. It just shows that NR is bad. A better comparison is a normal, non-noisy image compared to one with noise added, IMHO.

I've never really had much success adding noise in post production..

Daniel,,,could you post an example or two demonstrating noise added via PP??

[PhotosGuy]

Daniel,,,could you post an example or two demonstrating noise added via PP?? Here's a proof with film grain added in PP:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1085873&postcount=4

Petteri's Pontifications on Grain.
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/n_Digital_BW/a_Digital_Black_and_White.html?page=5

I'll post some film shots when I find them.

[yogestee]

Looks like this thread has had a quick death!!

[jgrussell]

I haven't heard of Topaz Adjust but it seems to do the trick.. Is it down loadable??Yes, here (http://www.topazlabs.com/adjust/). It's not free, but worth the $49.95 price IMO.

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^IMHO a lot of those Topaz Adjust examples on that site looked like over done HDR! :shock:



IMHO grain is good in Black and White (it's almost expected) in colour, usually not so much.

This photo has had "Alien Skin" grain added. Copies a 400 speed film (Kodak maybe... can't remember which one I chose).
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/3793544907_e45e17dc19.jpg


Large size (just a few pixels over too large for POTN):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/3793544907_35fcab303f_o.jpg

[Josh_30]

If it looks like "film grain" then it's fine, especially in B&W images. I tend to like the more grungy B&W's anyways. Chroma noise I hate, but luminance noise I can deal with just fine. I'd always rather have a grainy shot at high ISO than no shot at all.

I've read articles where many photographers add noise as their final step, b/c digital images done in a studio can sometimes be too "perfect".

[yogestee]

If it looks like "film grain" then it's fine, especially in B&W images. I tend to like the more grungy B&W's anyways. Chroma noise I hate, but luminance noise I can deal with just fine. I'd always rather have a grainy shot at high ISO than no shot at all.

I've read articles where many photographers add noise as their final step, b/c digital images done in a studio can sometimes be too "perfect".

I agree grain especially in B/W film can be really nice.. I love the look of photo-journalistic (is there such a word?) photos with grain structure..That's what made Tri-X so appealing to me..

I'm not too sure about added noise/grain in a digital image,,the jury is still out for me.. I find it looks way to "added" if you know what I mean..

Digital images shot at high ISO without noise reduction look heaps better than low ISO images with noise added..

[Stealthy Ninja]

Digital images shot at high ISO without noise reduction look heaps better than low ISO images with noise added..

Depends on what you use. If you use PS's default "add grain" then yeah, I'd agree. Some of the more pro "film simulators" look very similar to scanned film.

Check that out:
http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/exposure/

and maybe a bit o' this:
http://www.creativepro.com/article/reviews-alien-skin-exposure-2-0-and-imagenomic-real-grain

[nemo man]

I can see that it would be so easy to get obsessed about adding grain as it has been recently in removing it.:smile:

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^ It's called "Grain Peeping" I think. :p

[DYORD]

Is all noise/grain bad?? Or can noise/grain actually add to the feel, mood or mystique of an image??

Would you crank up the ISO to get a properly exposed and sharp image?? Or would you throw your hands in the air, pack up and go home when the light levels drop??

OK shooters,, post your best images where you think noise/grain gives something to the image.. Film shooters are also welcome.. Post those shots of Tri-X or Ektachrome pushed beyond their limits..

Let's dispel the myth..

I'll start.. The first image without noise reduction, the second with..Shot at 1600 ISO..

350D/Sigma EX 50-150mm F/2.8 APO

The first pic looks better in my opinion. You lost most of the details in the 2nd pic.

[fly my pretties]

To be, any image in which you are trying to convey atmosphere, especially in monochrome, benefits from digital/film noise.

http://i29.tinypic.com/syvwj5.jpg

Taken in a mental asylum.

[DStanic]

I think my friend is afraid of high ISOs. He was shooting with his XSi at ISO400 or maybe 800, and using a flash.. his images didn't look natural. I shot these with my 30D at ISO3200 with my f/4L. I did some minor adjustments in LR (including medium noise reduction) and increased the sharpness a bit, but overall I'm quite happy with how the 30D handles ISO3200 (in RAW anyways).

385913

385914

[nemo man]

An interesting thread.

I'm not sure about this but I think grain looks better on B&W because it gives more 'texture' to a shot - some people say a shot has more 'atmosphere'. With colour, shot on ditigal, the grain tends to just result in weird coloured pixels where they shouldn't be. I always presumed this was because digital ISO levels are achieved by boosting the signals received by each photo-site on the sensor. When this is done (say, ISO 800) the signal gets distorted and results in inconsistent colours. With film, at ISO 800, the grains on the film surface are physically larger and so the recording of the light is more accurate than an artificially boosted digital signal. High ISO B&W digital looks better than high ISO colour, because the only difference it makes is one of luminescence, not colour.

I like the examples of B&W shots just posted by Ninja and 'fly my pretties' (that must be from 'Bleak House'?)

Have I got all that right?

[yogestee]

The first pic looks better in my opinion. You lost most of the details in the 2nd pic.

I agree.. Have a look at the monk's robes.. In the first image you can actually see the weave,,in the second it's all but disappeared.. Noise reduction can do that,,you can lose fine detail..

[yogestee]

To be, any image in which you are trying to convey atmosphere, especially in monochrome, benefits from digital/film noise.

http://i29.tinypic.com/syvwj5.jpg

Taken in a mental asylum.

This is what I mean.. A grungy, grainy image that has a load of impact..

[chauncey]

Jurgen, I'm not a noise fan when it can be avoided and oftentimes ya can't and as I cannot do "art", adding noise seems contradictory as we don't "see" it.

With your monk, the texture in the robe and the face would seem to dictate keeping the noise to save the texture, however...

In that particular image, making a selection of the monk, a simple proposition in this case, and cranking up the noise reduction for the background would seem to give you the best of both worlds.

[DYORD]

IMHO, probably.. we try to avoid the noise as much as possible because we can always put the noise or grain in post processing. If you did a shot with noise, and eventually you decided to remove it, it wouldn't be as easy.

[nemo man]

This is what I mean.. A grungy, grainy image that has a load of impact..


I agree. I'd give that 10/10 I think. Great shot.

[canonloader]

This is all just my own personal opinion, but I started taking pics with my Brownie in the early 50's and developing them myself, with my Dad's supervision, in our darkroom. He was a WW2 Army Photographer. My memories of those days was that everyone was doing everything possible to reduce the grain in their photographs. Personally, I thought grain ruined a picture. The ideal was to get your paper print to look like what your eye saw.

I do not see the fascination with the "artistic" grainy photograph of today. Coming from my background, my first impression is, someone is trying to sell me something they know is bad by calling it good. Sound familiar? I will finish by asking a question. When was the last time you saw a grainy picture in National Geographic? ;)

[sjones]

...I do not see the fascination with the "artistic" grainy photograph of today. Coming from my background, my first impression is, someone is trying to sell me something they know is bad by calling it good. Sound familiar? I will finish by asking a question. When was the last time you saw a grainy picture in National Geographic? ;)

Better yet, when was the last time I looked through a National Geographic?

Anyway, let me get this straight. If, hypothetically, you like the color blue, anyone who else doesn't is no more than a fraudulent used car salesman.

[canonloader]

Better yet, when was the last time I looked through a National Geographic?

Anyway, let me get this straight. If, hypothetically, you like the color blue, anyone who else doesn't is no more than a fraudulent used car salesman.

Possibly you do not even get TV in Japan. Were you aware that National Geographic has it's own channel now? They have expanded beyond the books.

Anyway, hypothetically, I never mentioned the color blue or anything to do with color at all, or, used car salesmen. I was talking about grain in photographs, my personal feelings about it, and in the case of the sound familiar comment, I was alluding to politicians, which are far below the used car salesman level and much better liars.

[DStanic]

I was in a motel and looked through some 20yr old NATG magazines they had on the nightstand. There were alot more blurry and noisy/grainy images then i was used to seeing in mazagines. Obviously things have changed with digital (still great photos though).

[sjones]

Possibly you do not even get TV in Japan. Were you aware that National Geographic has it's own channel now? They have expanded beyond the books.

Anyway, hypothetically, I never mentioned the color blue or anything to do with color at all, or, used car salesmen. I was talking about grain in photographs, my personal feelings about it, and in the case of the sound familiar comment, I was alluding to politicians, which are far below the used car salesman level and much better liars.

Yeah, you know, Japan has never been big with electronics. Anyway, why would I care that National Geographic has its own channel?

And of course you didn't mention the color blue, that's why I said hypothetically. But I reckon you just can't help but be a little wily; because I know you get my point.

Fine, you don't like grain; you are not alone. Other people do.

If it is your goal to replicate what you see before you as would a mirror, that is also fine, but fortunately, that is not the only approach to photography.

Grain is an aberration, but one of those aberrations that, for some viewers, happens to enhance the feel of a photograph. If people like it, they like it: it is not the consequence of some inveigling pitch. But I must concede: unlike those pretentious artsy types, preternaturally saturated colors would never breach the incredulous reserve of the common folk, who know a real photo when they see one (because we all know reality is two dimensional).

Let me ask you something, why is the Robert Capa photo linked below one of the most famous photographs of World War II? (By the way, if you like it or not is absolutely irrelevant; it is immutably one of the most famous photographs of WWII. It's also just one of the most famous photographs).

If it was technically perfect in wonderfully clinical digital color, proper focus, no grain or blur, would it have garnered such distinction?

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the photo sets a standard (that being that all others should be mucked up in development), but just demonstrating that this "fascination" of which you so derisively speak extends back a few decades.

http://www.worldsfamousphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/omaha_beach.jpg

[canonloader]

What's your point in all this? Like everyone else in this thread, I typed out my thoughts and opinions on the subject. Many others here also do not like grain. Why are you singling my opinion out?

but just demonstrating that this "fascination" of which you so derisively speak extends back a few decades.
Your "fascination" extending back a few decades is a joke. The fight by photographers going back over a hundred years was to get rid of noise. To put it back in a perfectly good noise free image with software seems like a corny joke to me. To tell me I should like it is just rude.

Now let's see, where was that unsubscribe button?

[sjones]

What's your point in all this? Like everyone else in this thread, I typed out my thoughts and opinions on the subject. Many others here also do not like grain. Why are you singling my opinion out?


Your "fascination" extending back a few decades is a joke. The fight by photographers going back over a hundred years was to get rid of noise. To put it back in a perfectly good noise free image with software seems like a corny joke to me. To tell me I should like it is just rude.

Now let's see, where was that unsubscribe button?

No, the first paragraph of your thread benignly and reasonably expressed your opinion. The second part insulted the intelligence of people who like grain who, now as we learn, are, in your eyes, partaking in some type of "corny joke."

Secondly, I am not telling you that you should like grain; I made that perfectly clear ("Fine, you don't like grain; you are not alone.") You used National Geographic as a reference, I used Robert Capa as a reference, although I also made it clear that Capa's photo should not set a standard by any means (unlike your point with National Geographic).

"The fight by photographers"---you speak for all photographers!? That's impressive.

My "fascination" is a joke; so my interest and my photography is a joke? That is unequivocally one of the rudest comments I have ever read on this site directed at anyone, and I've come across some pretty contentious exchanges. You don't ever comment on my photography, directly or through insinuation, unless I ask.

[airfrogusmc]

If it fits your visual statement then yes grain is good. Its up to you (the photographer) to know when its appropriate and when its not. When its not working with the statement it really becomes the focus of attention. If its really working it belongs and thus doesn't stick out and draw attention.

[airfrogusmc]

What's your point in all this? Like everyone else in this thread, I typed out my thoughts and opinions on the subject. Many others here also do not like grain. Why are you singling my opinion out?


Your "fascination" extending back a few decades is a joke. The fight by photographers going back over a hundred years was to get rid of noise. To put it back in a perfectly good noise free image with software seems like a corny joke to me. To tell me I should like it is just rude.

Now let's see, where was that unsubscribe button?

It depends on the image. There is an entire school of photography that uses acutance developers to increase grain and sharpness. So to say that photographers were all trying to get rid of the noise for the past 180 some years is just not true.

[cdifoto]

Not all noise is bad. It's only the chrominance that spewed forth from the fiery depths of hell. Luminance is sprinkled by good faeries.

[airfrogusmc]

What is the photograph about? If its an image that infinite detail is important then grain and noise are maybe not the best answer and very sharp images with everything in focus maybe the answer. But thats only a small portion of the photographic world. What about all the images that are more about a mood or atmosphere. Those photographs that show more than the obvious and are about more than detail and sharpness. Theres more to photography than tack sharp photos of landscapes and birds. Thats not saying one is better than the other its just saying its all out there and its all OK.

[airfrogusmc]

sjones,

I'm really dig'n your photos on your site. I have a couple of favorites.

http://sjones.smugmug.com/gallery/9178438_pMWT9#612506117_aigBs

I love the different textures in this one and the play on cultures.
http://sjones.smugmug.com/gallery/9178438_pMWT9#612505732_GL947

http://sjones.smugmug.com/gallery/9178438_pMWT9#612507087_3JNu8

I gotta stop because I could probably comment and post most of your images here. Great stuff.

[canonloader]

You don't ever comment on my photography, directly or through insinuation, unless I ask.
Or what? Dude, your on a bad trip, jonesin real hard. Take a break before you bust a gut.

[yogestee]

I think both canonloader and sjones you guys should chill out a bit and agree to disagree before the moderators lock what could become a useful and informative thread :)

[nemo man]

Or what? Dude, your on a bad trip, jonesin real hard. Take a break before you bust a gut.


Biff! Bash! Kerrung!! Pow! (as Batman might say), Kerpow!! Biff! Bash! (again).

Sorry Canonloader, surely that should be "you're" not "your"?

Biff, bash!

[chauncey]

Sorry Canonloader, surely that should be "you're" not "your"?

So what?

[nemo man]

So what?

yuryuur theyes goflaur

That's why.

[sjones]

sjones,

I'm really dig'n your photos on your site. I have a couple of favorites.

http://sjones.smugmug.com/gallery/9178438_pMWT9#612506117_aigBs

I love the different textures in this one and the play on cultures.
http://sjones.smugmug.com/gallery/9178438_pMWT9#612505732_GL947

http://sjones.smugmug.com/gallery/9178438_pMWT9#612507087_3JNu8

I gotta stop because I could probably comment and post most of your images here. Great stuff.
Well, in light of this thread's tone (at least in regards to my participation), thanks for your comments, a welcoming shift.

[sjones]

Or what? Dude, your on a bad trip, jonesin real hard. Take a break before you bust a gut.

I have yet to hear you make a productive and rational response to any of the questions or issues I posed to you regarding grain. Instead, you chose to suggest that people's photography is a joke because it does not conform to your very specific and extremely narrow definitions as to what constitutes, in your mind, proper photography.

You fabricated, without any reasonable backing, the claim that I was demanding that you like grain or noise, unjustifiably calling me rude, or at least my words. You effectively referred to anyone's photo that employs grain as a "corny joke," and right from the start, you essentially compared photographers' use of grain as the duplicitous act of a lowly politician (which you yourself clarified and confirmed). You were not just expressing an opinion, you were being deliberately provocative, so please do not feign innocence. And if you were just being facetious, which is fine, you should have clarified that from the beginning.

There are photographic styles that I don't like, and I certainly do not expect everyone to like what I do, and I also realize that debate on this site can get heated; that, in some cases, can be part of the fun. Correct me if I am wrong, but I also believe you have, in the past, expressed your dislike for black and white photography in general; and that is OK: if one likes the color red, that person likes the color red, but if that person does not, then that person does not, no love lost.

But when you made the direct "your fascination is a joke" comment, you went one step too far, but something now tells me with your snide "dude, you're on a bad trip" remark that you are incapable of grasping this indisputable fact.

As to what I will do, simple, I will report you to the moderators if you ever exhibit such belligerent disrespect again, and we can hash it out from there. Also, I invite you to PM me if you have issues, so that we can spare the rest of the audience from this silly discussion.

I am now unsubscribing from this thread, as it is not my intent to bring it down. However, I am not running away, and if you are anyone else has further comments, again, please send me a PM.

(By the way, I did take a break, I went to bed, being that it is about twelve hours ahead over here).

[airfrogusmc]

Well, in light of this thread's tone (at least in regards to my participation), thanks for your comments, a welcoming shift.

Thank you for actually doing some interesting work. The stuff from July on your site is amazing.

[yogestee]

yuryuur theyes goflaur

That's why.

Gaelic??

[Stealthy Ninja]

Welsh I'd guess. :lol:

Back on topic.

Like cdifoto said, chrominance noise is bad. Luminance is OK.

Done, debate finished. Time for work. :p

[DYORD]

Since i read this thread.. now I don't hesitate to shoot ISO1600 using my 450D.

[stsva]

Since i read this thread.. now I don't hesitate to shoot ISO1600 using my 450D.

If you liked this thread, take a look at this one:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=730218
;)

[HappySnapper90]

how is any "myth" being "exploded" when only examples posted are small reduced size photos of about 1MP? Or the same as a 4x6 print? If you only need 4x6 prints, you can easily use 1600 speed film or 3200 speed b+w (which is normally 800 speed pushed 2 stops)

[Stealthy Ninja]

how is any "myth" being "exploded" when only examples posted are small reduced size photos of about 1MP? Or the same as a 4x6 print? If you only need 4x6 prints, you can easily use 1600 speed film or 3200 speed b+w (which is normally 800 speed pushed 2 stops)

Depends on how far you stand. If you have a really, really grainy picture billboard size (or even "life size") and you stand a reasonable distance away. It looks fine.

Look at the large movie poster for that Johnny Depp film (you know, the recent one with the gangsters and stuff). The photo on it is super grainy if you look close. But step "viewing distance" away and it looks good and suits the subject matter.

I've seen terribly grainy (as in colour noise) photos that were blown up life size on a wall. When I stepped close to "pixel peep" it looked terrible. Far away, fine.

I guess it depends on the demand for quality. I think if you're trying to sell photography services or a camera or something (with examples) you want it as clean as possible for your billboard/posters. If it's something arty (like a movie poster) then it's OK.

Wow. I wrote a lot of stuff here. My right arm hurts! :shock:

[yogestee]

how is any "myth" being "exploded" when only examples posted are small reduced size photos of about 1MP? Or the same as a 4x6 print? If you only need 4x6 prints, you can easily use 1600 speed film or 3200 speed b+w (which is normally 800 speed pushed 2 stops)

I have a 12x18 inch mounted and framed print of the monk hanging on my wall,, no noise reduction used.. If I thought this image wouldn't look any good larger than 4x6 I wouldn't have wasted my money getting it enlarged..

The point of this thread is to look past the noise/grain and see the image as it is..

[HappySnapper90]

The point of this thread is to look past the noise/grain and see the image as it is..

If you want to talk about noise/grain, you're best to post 100% crops to show how good or bad it is. Otherwise it's like standing 6 feet away from a 8x10 print trying to judge print quality. :rolleyes:

[yogestee]

If you want to talk about noise/grain, you're best to post 100% crops to show how good or bad it is. Otherwise it's like standing 6 feet away from a 8x10 print trying to judge print quality. :rolleyes:

Spoken like a true pixel peeper.. Like I said before,,look past the noise/grain and look at the image as a whole..

[FlyingPhotog]

I can't bring myself to equate Noise and Grain.

Grain is a property you can choose to work with.
Noise is a by-product you have to work to avoid.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Spoken like a true pixel peeper.. Like I said before,,look past the noise/grain and look at the image as a whole..

I was about to say something about pixel-peeping, but you beat me to it. :lol:

[airfrogusmc]

I can't bring myself to equate Noise and Grain.

Grain is a property you can choose to work with.
Noise is a by-product you have to work to avoid.

Yes grain can help you express something gritty or dirty. For instance a very gritty industrial shot where you're try to show the smoke and the dirt grain can help you convey that feeling. Some films have pleasing grain like tri x. I've even got some pretty cool street shots with Kodak recorder film. And then you can use developers (acutance developers) that will actually enhance the grain.

As far as noise goes I shoot all the time with my 5D at 1600 & 3200 and can get very good 11X14s and I'm picky. The secret is very good exposure. You go under and it gets bad real fast.

[Stealthy Ninja]

The secret is very good exposure. You go under and it gets bad real fast.

1+1=2

That's right for sure.

[yogestee]

I can't bring myself to equate Noise and Grain.

Grain is a property you can choose to work with.
Noise is a by-product you have to work to avoid.

I never thought of it this way.. Sometimes it's unavoidable but then it's up to the photographer to control it.. Either we leave noise well alone or we reduce it,,we have that option..

[yogestee]

As far as noise goes I shoot all the time with my 5D at 1600 & 3200 and can get very good 11X14s and I'm picky. The secret is very good exposure. You go under and it gets bad real fast.


The same can be said about colour print film.. Underexpose and grain can get real bad especially with 400iso plus emulsions..

B/W films can be the opposite.. Overexpose and over develop it can get as grainy as a Sahara sandstorm..

[Daniel Browning]

Grain isn't just for communicating something gritty or dirty. Just a slight bit of additional noise is good for increasing apparent sharpness. And it just looks nice. Sorry I don't have any examples right now, but it's a really common and widely used technique. They even add noise to CGI for the same reason (not just for dithering).

[Evil_Edge]

To be, any image in which you are trying to convey atmosphere, especially in monochrome, benefits from digital/film noise.



Taken in a mental asylum.

yes I agree

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q237/carling666/-4912_3_4_tonemapped-1.jpg

[yogestee]

Evil-Edge,,,thanks for contributing,,this thread needs more images..

[nemo man]

This was shot at ISO400. I added grain with Photo Retouche grain filter. Photoshop has an add grain filter, but I find it's not as good. Retouche B&W Studio is also excellent for conversions. http://www.powerretouche.com/index.htm

Tool-shed light AND ON BLACK (http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php?id=3825526138&posted=1&size=large)
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg259/carregwen/forum/D056_toolshed_light.jpg

[DYORD]

How bad is the noise on here?

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk291/DYORD/Photography/dingdong.jpg

shot using ISO 1600

[DYORD]

I keep saying.. probably, we want to avoid noise/grain when shooting because we want the photograph to be at its most "editable" or neutral form. So later in PP, we can do whatever we want.

[yogestee]

How bad is the noise on here?

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk291/DYORD/Photography/dingdong.jpg

shot using ISO 1600

For this size image it looks pretty clean especially if shot at 1600 iso..

[yogestee]

I keep saying.. probably, we want to avoid noise/grain when shooting because we want the photograph to be at its most "editable" or neutral form. So later in PP, we can do whatever we want.

Sometimes noise is unavoidable.. I'd rather bump up the iso setting on my camera to get a sharp, well exposed image than a soft, underexposed image or no image at all..

[Stealthy Ninja]

I keep saying.. probably, we want to avoid noise/grain when shooting because we want the photograph to be at its most "editable" or neutral form. So later in PP, we can do whatever we want.

I agree with this. Same in video. I never understood people (for example) shooting video in "black and white mode" when they could shoot it in colour then desaturate in post. Especially with computer editing.

Sometimes noise is unavoidable.. I'd rather bump up the iso setting on my camera to get a sharp, well exposed image than a soft, underexposed image or no image at all..

Of course this goes without saying. :)

[René Damkot]

Is all noise/grain bad?? Or can noise/grain actually add to the feel, mood or mystique of an image??
Not all noise is bad. Not all grain is bad: Depends on the character.
I prefer TriX over Tmax400 for instance. Likewise, Luminance noise is mostly okay, chrominance noise sucks IMO.
With B&W film, it also depends on the developer used (and the enlarger in the old days). Rodinal can produce a nice pointy grain ;)
Condensor enlargers gave nicer grain then a diifusor IMO.

Would you crank up the ISO to get a properly exposed and sharp image??
Of course.
Solomon Burke at ISO 6400.

http://www.damkot.com/images/RecentWorkOnline/090528_SoBu/content/bin/images/large/rhd_20090528_SoBu_0078.jpg

I'd have preferred better lighting, but that's mainly because the NR in Lightroom isn't that great IMO. (goes blotchy)
Crop of the image on my blog (http://www.getcolormanaged.com/general/lightroomforweb/) for those interested.

OK shooters,, post your best images where you think noise/grain gives something to the image.. Film shooters are also welcome.. Post those shots of Tri-X or Ektachrome pushed beyond their limits..
I don't have any examples online where I deliberately added noise.
I do have some (crops of) scanned images.

Das Ich. Tmax 3200, EI 1600, Tmax developer 1+4:
http://c0170361.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/794047_120964_0bf90e3f3c_p.jpg
Popa Chuby. Neopan 1600 I think. In that case probably EI 800, Tmax 1+9:
http://c0170361.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/793969_120964_0bf90e3f3c_p.jpg

Screenshots of some scans:
Neopan 1600 again. Might have been developed in Rodinal. Not sure, but too much work to search (no EXIF ;)):
http://img.skitch.com/20090817-npws53s4qhk8ngk7r24xf4r515.jpg

Neopan 1600 I guess.
http://img.skitch.com/20090817-ewqp2f7n689ict7awhcs44qf71.jpg

I usually didn't care that much about grain. I just accepted it as a fact of life. ;)
I must have an image somewhere shot on Tmax 3200, developed in paper developer. EI: ISO 12800, and quite some chemical veiling (if that's the proper English word for it)

I'll start.. The first image without noise reduction, the second with..Shot at 1600 ISO..

Too much NR IMO.

[number six]

Color print film grain can be pretty ugly, though. This was shot on Kodacolor 400. No PP except cropping/resizing.

Acceptable for an 800 X 600, maybe:

387628

100% crop is nasty:

387629

[yogestee]

Thanks for your contributions Rene and number six..

I used to shoot a lot of theatre and stage photography pushing Tri-X to 1600 iso and sometimes 3200 iso developed in humble ID-11 or D-76.. What I discovered was if I halved the agiation I would get smaller grain,,grain wouldn't be as noticable in the mid tones where it would often clump..

I would enlarge my negatives using a Meopta Opemus 5 with a colour head and Rodenstock and EL Nikkor lenses.. This enlarger could take upto 6x6 negatives..For 4x5 I'd use a Beseler 45 MXT motorised enlarger with Schneider lenses..

One thing I've noticed and is apparent is that a digital image at higher iso is much cleaner than a film image at high iso..

[number six]

Yep, I shot Tri-X at 800 in the olden days. Always liked the look of the grain, too. Umm, I think I used D76...

[Stealthy Ninja]

Well here's something (I know the files are a bit small to see detail, but just looking for the overall look not pixel/grain peeping). B&W conversions done in CS4 using Silver FX Pro. Unfortunately from jpeg files (from Camera) as I ran out of space on my CF card and couldn't delete anymore.

Which do you prefer?
Orginal:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=387732&stc=1&d=1250571320

Plain B&W conversion:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=387731&stc=1&d=1250571320

B&W with Tri-X 400 grain added:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=387733&stc=1&d=1250571386

100% crop (from which one?!)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=387734&stc=1&d=1250571386

[René Damkot]

pushing Tri-X to 1600

I never pushed unless I absolutely had to... In fact, I used the EI (Exposure Index) of the film, instead of the quoted ISO: better shadow detail.
So TMZ was exposed as ISO 1600, Neopa 1600 as ISO 800, TriX as ISO 250. Development altered to get a good print in my enlarger at grade 2 1/2 paper at minimum exposure time to reach paper black...

[yogestee]

Here is an image I played with today.. Shot digitally with grain added in post processing..

[kay188]

XTi Hacked to be able to do many more ISO's in camera, such as ISO 3200.
Both images shot wide open F/2.8, around 100mm.

ISO2000
http://i32.tinypic.com/fc1hk1.jpg

Topaz Denoised
http://i25.tinypic.com/293erdf.jpg

ISO3200
http://i27.tinypic.com/2r3e05w.jpg

Topaz Denoised
http://i29.tinypic.com/29bhi80.jpg

Which ones do you prefer?