/p/ - Photography » Thread #4320747

[45 / 5 / ?]

4MiB, 2093x2880, DSCN4492§.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Opinions on noise

Anonymous Mon 03 Jun 2024 18:41:36 No.4320747 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4320831 >>4321177 >>4321327 >>4321350 >>4323459 >>4327638

Is adding noise for the better or worse for a picture?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 03 Jun 2024 18:45:18 No.4320748 Report

Quoted By:

I never add noise in post, seems like a silly thing to do.
I don't use noise reduction much, I'm fine with reasonable noise.

BurtGummer !!1cdp+8vuoOY

BurtGummer !!1cdp+8vuoOY Mon 03 Jun 2024 18:48:05 No.4320750 Report

Quoted By:

Depends on what you're trying to achieve.

If you're trying to loosen up the detail and give an image a more candid and instant feel, then it might be worth doing. If you want to make an architectural shot feel more gritty and urban it can help too. Its all about the aesthetic you're going for.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 03 Jun 2024 19:42:02 No.4320759 Report

Quoted By:

Colored noise, like you get on small pixel pitch cameras (crop sensors, sony a7rv), is never good, and reducing it makes your photo worse too by smearing existing colors together and desaturating them. Colored noise is why every full frame camera should be considered black and white only after iso 3200. Crop sensors are even worse. Just use <24mp FF. Anything else quickly becomes worse than film as you leave base ISO and premium lenses.

Some cheap drug store films have "colored noise" but it's a pleasant cyan dominant speckling, not green-purple blotching, so it's not as bad.

All non-colored noise is filmic and can stay.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 03 Jun 2024 19:55:24 No.4320766 Report

Quoted By:

Chroma noise bad
Luma noise good

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 03 Jun 2024 19:57:55 No.4320767 Report

Quoted By:

I sometimes add a very measured amount of noise. Basically if there is some inherent noise in the darker areas of the photo, and the highlights or shadows are more smooth and uniform with less visible noise then I'll add some noise in post to even things out. I feel like a small amount of noise with the right size and roughness can make an image appear sharper.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 03 Jun 2024 23:02:11 No.4320831 Report

Quoted By: >>4321339 >>4321342 >>4327570

>>4320747
as a micro four turder i have embraced the noise and used it as fuel for my journey

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 00:36:46 No.4321177 Report

Quoted By: >>4321856 >>4327638

>>4320747
I shoot every photo at ISO 51200, looks good man

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 00:39:12 No.4321178 Report

Quoted By:

I add noise to my ISO 100 pics man

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 02:21:09 No.4321218 Report

Quoted By:

Adding noise afterwards can look alright if you blend it in a way that more closely resembles film noise (never looking quite there, but kind of close), rather than a uniform setting that doesn't take different exposures into account.

Otherwise, it's usually better to just roll with whatever noise you shot with and *maybe* applying some light reduction at most since it doesn't take much to start destroying detail (but no reduction at all if you're shooting black-and-white, I wouldn't correct for lens color aberrations in b&w either).

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO P1080704.jpg, 4MiB, 2736x3648

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 12:14:03 No.4321327 Report

Quoted By:

>>4320747
In black and white, it brings out the textures of the objects.
IMO black and white can feel too smooth without grain, and I prefer a grittier image, see pic related.
In colour, it can make the image more subjective and less documentative.
I think grain stops contributing to an image much faster in colour than in B&W, I prefer it subtle but still present.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 12:41:37 No.4321339 Report

Quoted By: >>4321407

>>4320831
.. so you shoot at high isos, like .... 800? Pretty daring

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 12:46:02 No.4321342 Report

Quoted By:

>>4320831
Good, noise can be the soul of an image.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 13:12:34 No.4321350 Report

Quoted By:

>>4320747

Am I autistic for thinking people that don't differentiate noise and grain in the context of adding it to an image are deeply retarded?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 15:22:22 No.4321390 Report

Quoted By: >>4321395

Why do boomers dislike any kind of noise and grain in pictures? Is it because they grew up in the film era?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 15:33:35 No.4321395 Report

Quoted By: >>4321444

>>4321390
Because it actually looks bad. Your rose colored glasses for an era you never lived in aside. People with no prior romance for classic photography don’t like noise either.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 16:08:41 No.4321407 Report

Quoted By:

>>4321339
some days I even go to 1250 when I'm feeling especially frisky but mostly i leave it at 200/400 and remind myself to not go gung ho on the sharpening in post

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 17:43:25 No.4321444 Report

Quoted By: >>4321475

>>4321395
Speak for yourself, kiddo. Most people don't actually give a shit about noise as long as it fits the subject and it's not too distracting on its own, as everyone already subconsciously associates noise with photography/cinema anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 19:05:09 No.4321475 Report

Quoted By: >>4321478 >>4321860

>>4321444
No, most people hate it in photos without prior romance for old photography especially its equipment
They also dont notice it in movies because most people sit far away from the screen

Did you think phones smeary noise reduction was the result of some conspiracy and not the logical conclusion of several million dollars worth of market research? Normal people, specifically americans, dislike noisy photos.
>sandpaper skin

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 19:15:59 No.4321478 Report

Quoted By: >>4321480

>>4321475
Phone photos have heavy noise reduction because their tiny sensors have an unacceptable amount of grain even at base ISO. It's a cope, kind of like pretending everyone hates grain in general as much as your autistic ass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 19:29:06 No.4321480 Report

Quoted By: >>4321488 >>4321496

>>4321478
The base iso noise of an iphone 15 pm is like, iso 800 on ff. People outside of the photo circlejerk just dont like noise.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO boomer with a guitar.jpg, 1MiB, 1200x1920

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 19:58:16 No.4321488 Report

Quoted By: >>4321490 >>4321744

>>4321480
Everything has a balance. I always try to go for the lowest ISO possible, but it can't always be helped. My last set of concert photos had to be shot at 8000 to allow for higher shutter speeds and such. I hated working with it, but it did make me better at processing photos and my friend in the band liked them anyway (he even flipped me shit for worrying about it a much as I did since it made editing take longer).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 20:03:55 No.4321490 Report

Quoted By: >>4321495

>>4321488
Yes, musicians, with heavy prior exposure to lots of intentionally grainy photos of punk bands, are going to like noise. To them it looks like 80s concert photos and they think its great. But most people really do not like it at all and want it rockwell’d into oblivion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 20:17:07 No.4321495 Report

Quoted By:

>>4321490
Would it be unfair to ask for examples? I did my part.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Jun 2024 20:18:28 No.4321496 Report

Quoted By:

>>4321480
>People outside of the photo circlejerk just dont like noise.
We need a reference, anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Jun 2024 08:45:18 No.4321744 Report

Quoted By: >>4321827

>>4321488
Those pulled up shadows look a bit nasty.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Jun 2024 14:20:05 No.4321827 Report

Quoted By: >>4322364

>>4321744
Yeah, I'm definitely not used to shooting at high ISOs. Many of the shots were underexposed and I have a bad habit of overcooking anyway. This was the first of the set, I think I got *slightly* better as I went on but I'll need a lot more practice.

C'anoncuck

C'anoncuck Thu 06 Jun 2024 15:39:50 No.4321856 Report

Quoted By:

>>4321177
Motherfucker has an ND400 on and is still overexposed

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 06 Jun 2024 16:03:22 No.4321860 Report

Quoted By: >>4327526 >>4327542

>>4321475
>Most people

Most people are buying point and shoots from 2006. Touch grass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Jun 2024 11:15:17 No.4322364 Report

Quoted By: >>4322398

>>4321827
Not sure what software you're using, but if it's the newer lightroom, AI denoise set to 15% strength removes the nastiest part of the noise without turning people into plastic barbie dolls.
Saved a bunch of photos from a professional shoot with that technique.
Good luck anyway Anon!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Jun 2024 14:36:35 No.4322398 Report

Quoted By:

>>4322364
I'm using RawTherapee 5.10. The noise reduction isn't all that great.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Jun 2024 06:13:09 No.4323459 Report

Quoted By:

>>4320747
Luminance noise from high ISO is fine. Chrominance noise is not. I myself tend to do only use chrominance noise reduction, and when that fails go to B&W. No colour to me is better than screwed up colours.
Patterned noise from trying to recover from hopeless underexposure is fail. Film grain on film is fine but film grain on digital scan from negative as sen on compuyer screen is not same as what's left on an enlarger print on photo paper. Film grain, real or fake does not make boring snaps better anyway. Sharpened grain of any type is common and gringeworthy fail. Overt noise reduction which destroys detail is fail.
I guess added noise could help toning contrast or detail of a photo in some cases but I have not felt need for that. I get plenty enough noise with my low cost hobbyist gear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Jun 2024 12:54:10 No.4327513 Report

Quoted By: >>4327520

Are you're asking me? Like about my personal experiences? For me, personally and from what I've encountered? In my understanding and judgement? Well then what I would have to say is that what I have found to be the case, is that the quality of the images I took in the past is universally indistinguishable, irrespective of how load the environment was around me at the time of shooting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Jun 2024 13:18:14 No.4327520 Report

Quoted By: >>4328647

>>4327513
That said... nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Jun 2024 13:30:27 No.4327526 Report

Quoted By:

>>4321860
Most people switched to using whatever camera is in their cellphone by 2010. The whole of photography industry now fits within a tiny sliver of the market it used to be.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Jun 2024 14:21:29 No.4327542 Report

Quoted By: >>4327567

>>4321860
>Most people are buying point and shoots from 2006
hundreds, maybe thousands, of people are doing that
billions just use phone cameras and remain blissfully ignorant of the NR they are doing and how it makes the photos look because they also never view them on anything bigger than the phone's screen

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Jun 2024 15:32:46 No.4327567 Report

Quoted By:

>>4327542
maybe he meant most people who think for themselves and ask questions
>why do these old photos look better than the ones taken by the $1599 phone im making payments on -everyone's entry point into digishits

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Jun 2024 15:41:41 No.4327570 Report

Quoted By: >>4327592

>>4320831
Mft noise is real and filmic, unlike fake noise added in post

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO file.png, 856KiB, 1156x594

Anonymous Fri 21 Jun 2024 16:37:16 No.4327592 Report

Quoted By: >>4327651

>>4327570
Mft noise looks exactly like all other digital noise and has nothing in common with film grain

Film is made of grain, digital images aren't made of noise. Noise is errors in computer measurement. Grain is just what the emulsion is made out of.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Jun 2024 18:06:03 No.4327638 Report

Quoted By: >>4327655

>>4320747
Why would you actively want to add noise?
Is it just a 'muh sovl' aesthetic thing? Wouldn't grain be preferred then instead of noise?
Not shitting on it, just confused as the goal is to minimize noise in general for IQ.
>t. only been shooting for about half a year
>>4321177
>double dubs checked
My guy can see into a blackhole with that iso

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO P1030485 s.jpg, 3MiB, 3152x3152

Anonymous Fri 21 Jun 2024 18:40:10 No.4327650 Report

Quoted By:

I like to add noise to my digishits because it looks kinda dreamy. Instagram (yes) applies some heavy noise reduction thus my original vision is destroyed. No matter, I hope to print them one day and just admire the composition and general details instead of clinical sharpness. I also hope to get a soft fx2 filter for my main camera and have considered turning down sharpness all the ways because why not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Jun 2024 18:41:08 No.4327651 Report

Quoted By:

>>4327592
Why is g9ii noise smeared? NR in raws? reminds me of the a9iii and eos r3 noise character

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Jun 2024 18:47:26 No.4327655 Report

Quoted By: >>4327656

>>4327638
film grain sims look ok, it helps with dithering away digital errors at high isos

digital noise does not look ok. it looks like a corrupted jpeg at 0% quality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 21 Jun 2024 18:51:35 No.4327656 Report

Quoted By:

>>4327655
Gotcha, thank you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 24 Jun 2024 08:55:21 No.4328647 Report

Quoted By:

>>4327520
Yes it did! Can't you read?

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

Opinions on noise