High ISO vs Post-Processing for intentional grain/noise?

[Rebel]

Has anyone had any experience using a High ISO to add intentional grain/noise to an image? Or is it better to add it in post-processing?

Regards
Matt

[NorthernFocus]

Never done it intentionally but intuitively it seems you have better control doing in post. Plus if you want it to look like film grain it may be different than the noise characteristics of your camera sensor. However, if you do want to try it, high ISO isn't the only way to make an image noisy. Simply under expose at any ISO and then push the exposure in post and you'll get noise.

[DanK]

Never done it intentionally but intuitively it seems you have better control doing in post.

Ditto. Noise from high ISOs is often quite ugly. Also, high ISO robs you of dynamic range.

[dje]

The thing I don't like about high ISO noise is the colour component or so called chroma noise. It looks rather "blobby" instead of grainy.

Dave

[proseak]

Are you after a film-grain effect?

[Manfred M]

I try to avoid noise in my images as much as possible and agree with Dave and Dan K that chromatic noise (the type noise found in digital images) as something I will definitely try to avoid as it is not a look that is at all attractive.

Trying to create it in an image so that it is consistent is not easy as it tends to lurk in the dark areas of an image and less so in the brighter ones. Dan is quite right - it can easily be created by badly underexposing an image and then going for a "correct" exposure in post. I've seen this look not too bad in B&W images, but it is awful in colour ones.

Shooting at high ISO has other side effects too. Not only is noise more prevalent, but your dynamic range and your colour depth suffer as well. I always try to shoot as close to base ISO as possible.

If you really want the grain effect, add it in post.

[rpcrowe]

Matt... if you add the noise in post processing, you can control the amount/type of grain/noise. If you attempt to get noise in the shooting, you are stuck with whatever you end up with!

If you shoot RAW and process the RAW files in Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) you can then select effects Fx (see red circle) and then select Grain (see blue circle) and the three sliders will allow to to control the grain. You can see what the grain looks like as you are working with it...



In Photoshop (I Use Photoshop CC) you can select FILTER > NOISE > ADD NOISE

[Shadowman]

I've taken shots of roughly textured structures where I did not do any noise reduction. As long as there are no smooth, bright, color objects in the composition you can get by with a high ISO capture.

[xpatUSA]

I agree with those who say do it in post. My cameras at high (>800 !!) ISO produce really ugly chroma blotching which looks nothing like film grain. On the other hand, the proprietary converter does have a monochrome mode with a simple but effective grain function.

[Rebel]

Ok thanks guys, looks like I'll go down the post-production route

[Manfred M]

I've taken shots of roughly textured structures where I did not do any noise reduction. As long as there are no smooth, bright, color objects in the composition you can get by with a high ISO capture.

Properly exposed, high ISO images can have limited noise, to a point. I have limited issues shooting at ISO values up to ISO 3200 on the D800 and up to ISO 800 on the GX7, when it purely comes to noise. If I underexpose at those ISOs or if the images have significant areas of dark, I can definitely make out digital noise in those specific areas when I view them at 100% magnification. Generally this is not much of an issue for images that I display on screen, but is noticeable in larger prints.

Certain types of surfaces tend to hide noise - textured surfaces specifically can make digital noise harder to detect.

The issue with high ISO on a modern camera is not really the noise, but the reduced colour depth and reduced dynamic range. To me these two factors are going to impact image quality. Even back in the film days, low ISO films gave better looking images; the same thing is true today. When it comes to image quality, when it comes to ISO, shoot as low as you can.

[miatab]

" Even back in the film days, low ISO films gave better looking images; the same thing is true today. When it comes to image quality, when it comes to ISO, shoot as low as you can."

This is a comforting thought, and I wonder why Nikon et al seem to boast about their cameras' ultra high ISO potentials. Most of us will never have to photograph the back side of the moon. I'm relatively new to digital, and when I bought my now antiquelike Panasonic DMC-LC1 it had a maximum ISO of 400 and I thought, Wow, just like my Nikon F2SB with Tri-X; much later and many P&S digitals later I bought my Nikon Df, with comparatively out of sight ISO potential, and recently contemplated setting ISO back from 800 to 400. Maybe Panasonic was on (for me) the right track.