/p/ - Photography » Thread #3899748

[54 / 9 / ?]

79KiB, 987x800, Leonardo DiCaprio - The Wolf of Wall Street - Deleted Scene.jpg

Anonymous Fri 11 Jun 2021 14:12:24 No.3899748 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3899760 >>3899761 >>3899958 >>3900166 >>3900274

>Noise-reduction

if you use this on your photographs, you are actively degrading the image quality

fuck noise-reduction and fuck Capture One and Adobe

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Jun 2021 14:30:14 No.3899758 Report

Quoted By:

turn the blur down
turn the static up
come on baby let me snap you like a boy does

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Jun 2021 14:35:26 No.3899760 Report

Quoted By: >>3899929

>>3899748
Just because you can have a stupidly high iso it doesn't mean you should. Learn to create images that don't have noise. High iso is, dare I say, a crutch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Jun 2021 14:39:34 No.3899761 Report

Quoted By: >>3899763

>>3899748
>>Noise-reduction
>if you use this on your photographs, you are actively degrading the image quality
no, you're actively improving image quality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Jun 2021 14:45:28 No.3899763 Report

Quoted By: >>3899766 >>3899958

>>3899761
If you need to use it the image was crap in the first place. You are just spit-shining a turd.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Jun 2021 14:50:12 No.3899766 Report

Quoted By: >>3899779

>>3899763
you mean you don't take utterly flawless photos every single time?
post some.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Jun 2021 15:12:04 No.3899774 Report

Quoted By: >>3899780

Imagine not shooting everything at ISO 64

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Jun 2021 15:20:06 No.3899779 Report

Quoted By:

>>3899766
> post some
You'll have to wait for that but no, in difficult light I use a tripod or monopod and a sensible ISO. I never go above 1250 and I hate even going that high.

I know a lot of snowflakes are too lazy to carry tripods/monopods around but if you want nice clean images you got to pay your dues.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Jun 2021 15:21:23 No.3899780 Report

Quoted By: >>3899781 >>3900311

>>3899774
Used to shoot PanF at at 50 back in the day

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Jun 2021 15:23:43 No.3899781 Report

Quoted By: >>3899795 >>3900311

>>3899780
Come to think about it I think Kodachrome was 25, 64 was high seed Kodachrome

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Jun 2021 15:42:46 No.3899795 Report

Quoted By: >>3899996

>>3899781
based
Related: do you know where I can find high-res kodachrome scans online with colors accurate to the unexpired film?
Every example of "kodachrome" on Flickr looks different.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Jun 2021 19:58:28 No.3899929 Report

Quoted By:

>>3899760
>crutch
Things that make your photographs literal shit are not crutches.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Jun 2021 20:50:20 No.3899958 Report

Quoted By: >>3900013 >>3900071

>>3899748
I want to produce good-looking pictures. Removing noise makes them look better, therefore I do it.

If you want to treat the sensor's output as gospel, you should export only un-demosaiced RAWs :)

>>3899763
Every digital sensor has noise, even medium format in broad daylight. It might not be visible but it's always there. You can never reduce it to zero because quantum optics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Jun 2021 21:28:57 No.3899996 Report

Quoted By: >>3900071

>>3899795
That's because there is no one Kodachrome. There were a ton of different speeds and versions of Kodachrome.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Jun 2021 21:58:49 No.3900013 Report

Quoted By: >>3900341

>>3899958
>you should export only un-demosaiced RAWs
I wish it was possible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Jun 2021 23:15:39 No.3900071 Report

Quoted By: >>3900168

>>3899958
>It might not be visible
That is the point, duh. So long as it is not visible at 100% I am happy.

>>3899996
>There were a ton of different speeds
6, 10 and 40 I believe but they were pretty uncommon. 25, 64 and in later years 200. I didn't think 200 really had any advantages over Ektachrome but it still took a week to process where as E6 took 2 hours at the lab

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 01:06:06 No.3900130 Report

Quoted By: >>3900167

I don't use it and have it set to its lowest in camera

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 02:53:39 No.3900166 Report

Quoted By: >>3900170

>>3899748
im sorry but the Lightroom NR algorithm absolutely does not degrade the quality of an image with low noise unless it's intentionally overused

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 02:55:54 No.3900167 Report

Quoted By: >>3900387

>>3900130
>I don't use it
>I have it set to its lowest in camera
which is it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 02:57:02 No.3900168 Report

Quoted By:

>>3900071
>6
my camera will read down to ISO 6... where dat film at?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 03:01:28 No.3900170 Report

Quoted By: >>3900193

>>3900166
>algorithm absolutely does not degrade
Of course it does, you steaming great pudding. It's an algorithm, software generated data, a compromise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 03:50:38 No.3900193 Report

Quoted By: >>3900207

>>3900170
your second sentence makes absolutely no sense. by your logic any processing applied to an image by a computer would result in a loss of quality. I'm sorry you literally don't understand how computers work

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 03:58:52 No.3900207 Report

Quoted By: >>3900211 >>3900214 >>3900342

>>3900193
>any processing applied to an image by a computer would result in a loss of quality
Yes it does, that's why I keep it to the barest minimum

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 04:03:23 No.3900211 Report

Quoted By: >>3900213

>>3900207
Lightroom is nondestructive so you lose no data whatsoever until you export. Additionally, signal processing that might distort or reduce information present is obviously done to increase visual appeal, which is kind of the whole point of any visual art form. Keeping all the information present in fear of losing any is just going to result in shitty looking, boring images. What are your photos, just a gray gradient?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 04:04:54 No.3900213 Report

Quoted By: >>3900218

>>3900211
>Lightroom is nondestructive so you lose no data whatsoever until you export.
I hear the scraping sound of goalposts being moved.Keep up the good work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 04:04:57 No.3900214 Report

Quoted By: >>3900221

>>3900207
ur wrong lmao

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 04:09:35 No.3900218 Report

Quoted By: >>3900223 >>3900362

>>3900213
do you cry when you have to export as JPG or TIF to print? all those kilobytes of data being lost forever?

or more likely you've never printed your work, you're not actually a photographer, just someone who likes to have data occupying space on a hard drive

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 04:11:36 No.3900221 Report

Quoted By: >>3900233

>>3900214
no, u wrong rofl

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 04:14:16 No.3900223 Report

Quoted By: >>3900225

>>3900218
>t.spluttering through the tears of defeat

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2021-06-12 at 12.15. (...).jpg, 497KiB, 2616x1150

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 04:16:27 No.3900225 Report

Quoted By: >>3900229 >>3900231 >>3900299

>>3900223
anon do me a favor and point out which of these images has color noise reduction applied in lightroom to a degree much higher than anyone would ever realistically use?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 04:19:15 No.3900229 Report

Quoted By: >>3900237

>>3900225
not that anon, but im going to guess the right one because i had to pixel peep like a gear faggot.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO gullible.jpg, 43KiB, 375x624

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 04:22:49 No.3900231 Report

Quoted By:

>>3900225

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 04:26:59 No.3900233 Report

Quoted By: >>3900234

>>3900221
The valuable information is signal, noise is what you want to discard. Noise reduction, applied judiociously, raises the signal to noise ratio of an image.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 04:31:49 No.3900234 Report

Quoted By: >>3900240

>>3900233
there's no point, this anon regards any type of signal processing as a loss in "quality" (loss of data)

by his logic, any music that is digitally mastered has lost the original quality that was picked up by the microphones in the studio

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 04:33:36 No.3900237 Report

Quoted By: >>3900243

>>3900229
Pixel peep your own images if you want to know the truth

I could of course post my own comparison but it is not worth the effort because he'll accuse me of cheating just as I accuse hime of cheating.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 04:38:20 No.3900240 Report

Quoted By: >>3900242

>>3900234
Even worse, it's like saying you shouldn't filter static on an analog TV.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 04:41:21 No.3900242 Report

Quoted By:

>>3900240
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signal_processor

its a shame this technology was invented due to the inherent loss of quality :\

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 04:42:41 No.3900243 Report

Quoted By:

>>3900237
anyways anon all joking aside I'm sorry that you aren't good enough at using editing software to achieve good results but you ought to abstain from lecturing others as you really have no idea what you're talking about and anyone serious is going to laugh at your premise

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 05:51:46 No.3900274 Report

Quoted By: >>3900343

>>3899748
you're the sort of person who likes his gps jumping all over the place. filtering signals is for faggots, right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 06:39:38 No.3900296 Report

Quoted By:

Remember gentle anons, you don't have to believe me or the resident fuckwit, just open an image in Lightroom or your processor of choice and wank that noise-reduction slider back an forth a bit and watch what happens.

It's not rocket science, you don't need a microphone or an old TV. Decide for yourselves

>in b4 a blizzard of samefaging from the FWit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 07:03:12 No.3900299 Report

Quoted By: >>3900304

>>3900225
Not sharp. Get a better lens before worrying about noise.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 07:28:04 No.3900304 Report

Quoted By: >>3900386

>>3900299
that's a 100% crop shot wide open anon

but also it makes sense that you don't think someone could make good images without a sharp lens

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO SuperPositive.jpg, 36KiB, 500x500

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 07:48:54 No.3900311 Report

Quoted By:

>>3899780
>>3899781
This would be a fun film to shoot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 09:18:16 No.3900341 Report

Quoted By:

>>3900013
darktable can do it for example

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO autism dance.gif, 1MiB, 600x338

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 09:19:53 No.3900342 Report

Quoted By: >>3900355

>>3900207

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 09:23:55 No.3900343 Report

Quoted By: >>3900355

>>3900274
Yes, autistics like OP are like that.

>must capture the original data!
>editing is bad!
>the computer is always right!
>the sensor's output is sacred!
>beep boop autism brain

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 09:51:28 No.3900355 Report

Quoted By: >>3900362

>>3900342
>>3900343
Tough to be a loser again, eh?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 09:59:08 No.3900362 Report

Quoted By: >>3900377

>>3900355
I'm not that guy >>3900218

You're not only autistic but also paranoid.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_4963.jpg, 80KiB, 480x480

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 10:21:52 No.3900377 Report

Quoted By: >>3900378

>>3900362
>I'm not that guy
Oh yes you are

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO paranoid.jpg, 68KiB, 549x558

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 10:30:52 No.3900378 Report

Quoted By: >>3900385

>>3900377

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO cope.jpg, 109KiB, 497x698

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 10:53:12 No.3900385 Report

Quoted By:

>>3900378

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 10:53:38 No.3900386 Report

Quoted By: >>3900388

>>3900304
Just kidding dude. This is a troll thread after all. I don't see anything wrong with those two photos. They look pretty much identical to me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 10:55:03 No.3900387 Report

Quoted By:

>>3900167
1) I do not apply it in post
2) I have it set to it's lowest in camera since there's no way to fully turn it off

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO cool.jpg, 110KiB, 450x575

Anonymous Sat 12 Jun 2021 10:57:43 No.3900388 Report

Quoted By:

>>3900386

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches