Mr Noisey

[Wirefox]

I am not usually to bothered by digital noise at normal viewing size. But when does noise detract from the image itself? I would value opinions and would be extremely interested if you could post images that you have produced where noise is evident but you still consider the interest of the image dominant enough to override the technical imperfection. It would be also interested in any images where you believe noise adds to the artistic merit of the image.

The shot below clearly suffers from underexposure even though the metering was spotted off of the darker area of the image. It was taken ISO 800, 1/20th sec exposure. No tripod with camera rested on a bench. The noise is made worse by trying to recover exposure in UFRaw. Does this make it a 'bad' image? I am exploring what noise may have as an artistic merit rather than than a camera club indiscretion.

[PopsPhotos]

The noise in that one is not noticable to me. Because I don't look for nor judge on tiny detail, I seldom notice noise and grain, anyway.

However, the successively receeding light flares running up into the center of the picture do bother me. The one around the lefthand light doesn't, but the "tunnel" in the center does. hmmmmmm

Pops

[Colin Southern]

Does this make it a 'bad' image?

Short answer: "No"

Long answer: "People are far too hung up on noise - don't worry about it!"

[Donald]

Long answer: "People are far too hung up on noise - don't worry about it!"

Ditto

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Steve,

I think it's a good image, and the noise isn't too bad; it has to be viewed large to really be seen. However, I am sure Neat Image could reduce the very colourful noise I see in the darker areas, without unduly affecting the sharpness.

EXIF says 1/20s, f6.3 at iso800 (and 45mm on a Canon 40D).

Was it much of a crop?
How much downsizing was done to get it to the 1,024px × 729px we see here? (when enlarged)

Nice flares,

[Shadowman]

I agree with the other comments, noise is only a problem when it is visible from a far distance. If the image looks pleasant from a reasonable distance then you have achieved your goal. If you have to magnify the image before you are pleased with the photographer's results, examining under a microscope, then you have overlooked the impact and purpose of the photograph.

[arith]

Most of my pictures are noisy because I look at them 100% which is the way I hope they will be seen.But as an experiment I tried this noisy image; untreated, treated, the finished article all in postage stamp size.







Absolutely amazing they are all exactly the same, so no need for PP just a bit of sharpening and save loads of time.

[Wirefox]

All these replies align with my thoughts. As you may have noticed I have been wandering into some unfamiliar territory compared with my usual stuff so I really just wanted some views on this type of image.

Steve, you have illustrated he point well with these images. I must say I never view my work at 100% unless I need to do some particularly fiddly cloning.

Dave, the crop was minimal and let SmugMug do the resizing so not sure what effect that will have.

Steve

[arith]

Yes but I got to ask why (general) you got such an expensive camera when all you intend is to display images on the internet. It is a question to anybody with an expensive camera.

Put another way, wots the point, just get a point and shoot because it sure as hell looks just as good as anything at 700 pixel, and it is loads easier to do.

Cor

[Dave Humphries]

~ I must say I never view my work at 100% unless I need to do some particularly fiddly cloning.

Dave, the crop was minimal and let SmugMug do the resizing so not sure what effect that will have.

I agree, 100% is for fiddly cloning and sharpening only - unless the subject was so small that you crop down to 700 px out of 4 or 5 thousand - then it will look noisy and soft Not that I do it often these days.

Hmmm, risky, probably make it softer, although it doesn't look bad to me.
Perhaps SmugMug aren't as bas as other hosts because they are actually trying to sell their member's images.

Cheers,

[arith]

Actually Dave; 100% is the only size I work to. Otherwise I was conned a compact can do everything to 700 pixel even better. The only reason I got a dslr is to do big, and that is the only way to look at them.

If you've heard of leading questions, ones that force a type of answer; small size restrictions on pics does exactly the same thing, gets macro inspired images. If people are only willing to look at small all they see is small. I'm not saying I'm right but how would I or anybody know if making things big and complicated is right, but sure as wotsit can't be if nobody looks.

[Shadowman]

Do you see the majority of the noise in the leaves? Unless I do a closeup, I find nothing appealing about trees shot at a distance when the image is magnified. From a distance the image looks great.

[arith]

Biggest thing that bugged me when I started photography was foliage in the distance looking like a pile of dung, then I found Topaz and a method of sharpening called deconvolution. It does not look like dung anymore but still could have CA and I've found overcast days to be the worst. Then I use the recolor brush with keep brightness and saturation checked.

[Wirefox]

Yes but I got to ask why (general) you got such an expensive camera when all you intend is to display images on the internet

Babe magnet? Well women with tattoos and underarm hair chase you if you appear within 1/4 mile of a school playground. Its best at this time to remind them politely that their partners disappear for nights on end in a white van with padlocked doors....or you could just put your head in a cement mixer it will probably be less painful.

For me the answer is good depth of field blur, getting the flash off the camera and having controls at my finger tips without having to run through yards of menu on a screen the size of a penny black. The problem with my 24" monitor is that I cannot see the whole image at 100% And my chosen medium for display is electronic. I just could not afford to print and store all those large images.

Steve

[arith]

Oh ok then. I don't print hardly anything but when I do it's big, like A1 size and I like to choose from all my pics without the bother of worrying if I did enough to ensure it is sharp enough or if dust will appear or noise, that is the only fun I get from photography. It is the craft part of it I like.

[Davey]

I quite like luma noise in many respects but don't love chroma noise nearly as much. I find chroma noise does detract somewhat from images if it is severe enough. By severe I mean can't help but notice at the intended viewing distance on intended display media.

If it doesn't destroy detail or clarity then I think it shouldn't be an issue. As for luminosity noise it can add to photos even when noticable IMO. The thing I liked about some film era shots is the specific grain of certain types. It can enhance detail in many cases, stops images looking plastic or too clean, cuts down on banding etc which we all know but somehow everyone seems to get caught up in the loop of all noise is bad these days including myself and all my cameras shots have noticable noise.

I decided to just live with it in the end and though I didn't compali nabout grain with film so why do I from a ccd or cmos sensor (esecially my very small ccd). I think clean and no visible noise has its place but it is overdone I find.

[Nomadr]

i quite like noise, especially in B&W, it can give a pic that arty feel,this picture (iso 3200 on a D200) would probably be thrown out of a camera club event but i love it, cheers martyn

[Wirefox]

Martyn, I really like this image. It has a rather tortured soul look about it. This is where noise really works for me it gives it that mysterious baby scan feel. Very nice work

thrown out of a camera club event

That would be the pinnacle of my career! If by some errant loss of sanity I every joined one. Not that I have an axe to grind over camera clubs. I have always had this uneasiness about paramilitary organisations, scouts, cubs, salvation army. Brings me out in cold sweats

Steve

[Nomadr]

my thoughts entirely,i did an A3 print of above picture, you really have to stand back to get it, bit like the old days when you stand back to admire a painting, unlike today when everyone gets their magnifying glass out to examine a digital print, lol.
i suppose its horses for courses as they say, acceptable noise or grain is down to the viewer, cheers martyn

[Stinky]

Princeton

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...9&d=1276826828

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...9&d=1276826828