Noise - maybe it's good?

[luckydude]

OK so the title is BS but I'm sitting here watching Californcation on netflix and thinking this was all done with cameras with a lot of noise. And they use that noise. To good effect.

Anyone else seen that and care to comment?

I post this because there are endless threads here about all the noise in pictures. Here's a 7D example:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/bill+pam/32.html

Yup, if I'm looking for the noise I see it. But if I'm looking at the picture I don't. I just see a guy I know in low light, in a picture I like. I know, the noise is awful. But the pic is not bad, it's one of my favorites.

So are we all too focussed on the noise and not enough on the picture?

 

[TeT]

oof, thats a horrible picture.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I don't mind the noise, but is that Sigma front focusing?

 

[BozillaNZ]

7D, ISO 12800, EF 50 1.4 wide open, 1/50s

http://i.minus.com/ibsIyGIQxSor42.jpg

100% crop:

http://i.minus.com/iUrUeOJWwm04n.jpg

 

[Hillsilly]

I agree. Noise is way, way down the list of attributes that I consider when deciding if I like a photo.

 

[Ryan85]

I don't mind the noise, but is that Sigma front focusing?

lol good one

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Like most things in photography, it is up to the photographer as an artist to decide. The key is that the photographer decides how much noise he or she wants.

There is a huge difference between a photographer choosing to introduce noise in a photograph and a photographer having no choice nor control over the noise.

So intentional noise can be good
unintentional noise can be bad

Neither is absolute.

 

[takesome1]

If you are trying to pass your noisy pics as art to the Technogeeks on this forum your pictures are not going make the grade.

However if you take it to other forums it might be ok and accepted.

This for the most part is the wrong crowd to consult on this matter.

 

[luckydude]

If you are trying to pass your noisy pics as art to the Technogeeks on this forum your pictures are not going make the grade.

However if you take it to other forums it might be ok and accepted.

This for the most part is the wrong crowd to consult on this matter.

I wasn't trying to pass off my crappy pics as anything other than what they are. I mostly lurk here and there are endless discussions of noise in the pics. I can see the noise as well as anyone but sometimes it seems like people can't see the picture for the noise.

Like that crappy pic. Yeah, it's noisy, but I love that picture. I'd much rather have that picture, noise and all, than not have it.

The guy who I suspect might agree is Dustin Abbott, in reading his review of the canon 35mm vs the Sigma, he seems to be looking at the picture more than the technical stuff.

 

[Khufu]

I've got several digital photographs per day for a period of around 3 or 4 years which were all taken on camera phones, interestingly in a time when the camera functions were much quicker to access and shoot with (first Sony Walkman phones with cameras, circa 2006, anyone?! You just slid over a lens cover, documented your day and had it back in your pocket within seconds).

I actually believe this practice developed and benefited my framing skills immensely, technically learning to frame with the restrictions of a prime lens and alls... the colours were often wonderful in bright daylight (and the wee LED light much preferable to camera flashes) - but to look at now, yeah, these images can be terribly grainy, full of digital artifacts and often with poor focus or blurred exposures... but they're amazing... to me. They document my everyday endeavours with people I know and love and I'd be gutted if I were to lose them.

I doubt there are any I'd push for publication in a technical photography magazine or the likes though.

This picture you've shared is great. Your fellow being looks happy and warm & friendly and it's great to capture this!

I personally shoot a fair amount of High ISO, monochromatic pictures with my EOS M & 22mm f/2 lens and I love them, both technically and emotively, to varying degrees!

Since "going full frame" I've come to really appreciate the perspective and artstic merit of a larger focal plane and, trying not to sound like a b*****d, it often feels kind of silly and unnecessary to me that anyone would purchase anything larger and more expensive than an EOS M or SL1 to shoot people or their immediate environment with a crop-sensor system. I really do feel that, whilst the APS-C sensor is a massive step-up from many compact cameras, these larger/apparently more advanced bodies and their expenses are quite excessive, ridiculous even, for photographing friends, family and interiors. (Harsh when people have invested so many pennies, I know, but it's how I feel...)

Simply, there are cheaper, more compact, larger sensor cameras with superior low-light capabilities out there than the EOS 7D2...

Whilst I'm being self-rightious about this stuff - I do really like the perspective of the 22mm on the EOS M but between that and around 100mm, maybe 85mm focal length, I see these photos and they really do feel cropped and compromised to me in a way that would prompt me to just wish I'd shot with the 22mm.

Technically though, eek... there's a lot of compromise here, the image is very soft so there's no magical sparkle in your friend's eyes. The EOS M, and I assume the 7D2, has great jpeg sharpenning/High ISO Noise Handling features though, so banging that right up alongside the High ISO and switching to monochrome can really help produce some great results! I've not even touched on colour noise, have I? Well, I'm going to stop typing now anyways... but I do think it looks better in Black and White

 

[Khufu]

Also, the picture of the lady before this shot (clicking "back" or "left" or whatever) I think is a much better example of shooting decent pictures in these conditions, and compositionally speaking, too. I much prefer how the subject is placed, both in regards to the framing and the background, in this image! There's no harm in throwing yourself around a little to see how framing and arrangement of foreground and background details can compliment an image... not doing is why "that guy" with all the expensive gear who doesn't move around much always produces "meh" shots

 

[Khufu]

If you are trying to pass your noisy pics as art to the Technogeeks on this forum your pictures are not going make the grade.

However if you take it to other forums it might be ok and accepted.

This for the most part is the wrong crowd to consult on this matter.

I wasn't trying to pass off my crappy pics as anything other than what they are. I mostly lurk here and there are endless discussions of noise in the pics. I can see the noise as well as anyone but sometimes it seems like people can't see the picture for the noise.

Like that crappy pic. Yeah, it's noisy, but I love that picture. I'd much rather have that picture, noise and all, than not have it.

The guy who I suspect might agree is Dustin Abbott, in reading his review of the canon 35mm vs the Sigma, he seems to be looking at the picture more than the technical stuff.

...and I love that you have and get to love that picture, too!

You've noticed there's conflicting opinions here already so I don't see any need to dismiss everyone here as being on one side of a fence and ready to collectively attack or agree with any single posting or opinion - carry on being curious and inquisitive, we'll never let the internets wear us down! ;D

 

[DWM]

I think fellow photographers always notice more noise than the average person. The one taking and editing the image will see a lot more than even your fellow photographers. Maybe we do put too much emphasis on noise. I always start getting really unhappy when I try to do heavy cropping on wildlife shots because that is where it is amplified the most. Yet I can show that image to a non photographer and they will love it. In the end we are the ones camera makers have to satisfy because we buy the cameras.

 

[Besisika]

oof, thats a horrible picture.

You are nice! You want to be sincere but still nice to him.

OP; let's make a deal: if you want me to critique what you say then please read further,

But if you cannot take critique then please stop right now.I won't be nice.


Most likely you heard when they said that the first step in healing process is for the patient to realize that he is sick.
In order of importance, in portrait I value light, focus, expression, background and noise.
For sport and macro that would be different.

If you have heard someone saying that photography is about lighting, believe me he was not lying.
When I assess a portrait, that is the first thing I look at.
Your photo has the ugliest lighting ever.
Because of bad light, you should acquire courage and ask your subject to move to somewhere else, with a better light or where you can modify existing light (quantity, quality and direction).
In worst case scenario, you would pose him in such a way that lighting is the most flattering possible. In shooting concert for example, you wait for the expression as well as the right direction of light.
Dude, you could have asked him to chin up a bit so that the eyes were lit, or better yet use off-camera or bounce flash. Don't be shy. You are a photographer.
Your lighting technique sucks - available lighting !!!!

What is your focusing point? The nose? You shoot at f 1.4 that is shallow, you better be precise.

Expression is great. Not sure if that is your doing or just the subject was great. If it is yours then continue - good stuff, otherwise work on it hard.

Background: you suck again. You could have waited until that thing in green was gone. He is walking. Or simply, ask nicely for him to move.

Noise; you are at 35mm focal length, the subject is not moving, and yet you are at 1/200s - Justify it with non-importance of noise but I won't hear you. To me, that is just a lack of technique.

Maybe the subject likes this photo, but in my eyes, this is a total failure in all plans of my photography.
I wouldn't be surprised if your future bride sues you with this quality of photo.

As I said, the first step is in realizing that you are sick. Noise has no right to be good. It is not for nothing that everybody tries to shoot at ISO 100 whether they are from Camera Rumors or not. Creativity comes later.

I hope, you are not angry.
I am telling you what I see.
If you said, it is a good photo, I wouldn't argue. It is a matter of taste.
It is really ok to take good photos. I do that most of the time (if not almost).
But qualifying this as one of your favorites was too much for me; giving yourself the right to criticize people who do all to reduce noise in their photos just added salt to the wound.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The problem with noise is that it takes away resolution and IQ. That's sussosedly what a person wanted when he laid out $$$ for a DSLR.

A $50 P&S can give you noise and low resolution for a lot less.

 

[sagittariansrock]

oof, thats a horrible picture.

You are nice! You want to be sincere but still nice to him.

OP; let's make a deal: if you want me to critique what you say then please read further,

But if you cannot take critique then please stop right now.I won't be nice.


Most likely you heard when they said that the first step in healing process is for the patient to realize that he is sick.
In order of importance, in portrait I value light, focus, expression, background and noise.
For sport and macro that would be different.

If you have heard someone saying that photography is about lighting, believe me he was not lying.
When I assess a portrait, that is the first thing I look at.
Your photo has the ugliest lighting ever.
Because of bad light, you should acquire courage and ask your subject to move to somewhere else, with a better light or where you can modify existing light (quantity, quality and direction).
In worst case scenario, you would pose him in such a way that lighting is the most flattering possible. In shooting concert for example, you wait for the expression as well as the right direction of light.
Dude, you could have asked him to chin up a bit so that the eyes were lit, or better yet use off-camera or bounce flash. Don't be shy. You are a photographer.
Your lighting technique sucks - available lighting !!!!

What is your focusing point? The nose? You shoot at f 1.4 that is shallow, you better be precise.

Expression is great. Not sure if that is your doing or just the subject was great. If it is yours then continue - good stuff, otherwise work on it hard.

Background: you suck again. You could have waited until that thing in green was gone. He is walking. Or simply, ask nicely for him to move.

Noise; you are at 35mm focal length, the subject is not moving, and yet you are at 1/200s - Justify it with non-importance of noise but I won't hear you. To me, that is just a lack of technique.

Maybe the subject likes this photo, but in my eyes, this is a total failure in all plans of my photography.
I wouldn't be surprised if your future bride sues you with this quality of photo.

As I said, the first step is in realizing that you are sick. Noise has no right to be good. It is not for nothing that everybody tries to shoot at ISO 100 whether they are from Camera Rumors or not. Creativity comes later.

I hope, you are not angry.
I am telling you what I see.
If you said, it is a good photo, I wouldn't argue. It is a matter of taste.
It is really ok to take good photos. I do that most of the time (if not almost).
But qualifying this as one of your favorites was too much for me; giving yourself the right to criticize people who do all to reduce noise in their photos just added salt to the wound.

Besisika might be strong in his comments but I would be grateful for an in-depth analysis if I was the photographer.
I agree with the content, of course.
This is a snapshot that could easily be taken with an iPhone with the same or similar results (which is good but not great). Your tools and your skills allow it to be transformed to a great shot. And Besisika described the how of it.
I saw a photo a few days ago of a friend and her daughter on Facebook. I was a great moment of bonding captured on camera, but the image was badly out of focus and noisy (taken with a D3200). It received hundreds of likes. However, an experienced photographer should have been able to transform this to something stellar. If you already have great content (subject) it is your privilege and responsibility as a photographer to record it the best way possible. Allowing noise to be there is one of the factors that is detrimental to that, as is sharpness. It isn't enough of a factor to make a great image into garbage, but if it can prevent the image from realizing its fullest potential, that should be avoided.
And I was actually serious about that Sigma front focusing

 

[takesome1]

If you are trying to pass your noisy pics as art to the Technogeeks on this forum your pictures are not going make the grade.

However if you take it to other forums it might be ok and accepted.

This for the most part is the wrong crowd to consult on this matter.

I wasn't trying to pass off my crappy pics as anything other than what they are. I mostly lurk here and there are endless discussions of noise in the pics. I can see the noise as well as anyone but sometimes it seems like people can't see the picture for the noise.

Like that crappy pic. Yeah, it's noisy, but I love that picture. I'd much rather have that picture, noise and all, than not have it.

The guy who I suspect might agree is Dustin Abbott, in reading his review of the canon 35mm vs the Sigma, he seems to be looking at the picture more than the technical stuff.

I wasn't referring to your pic, but noisy pics in general.

Since this is an equipment site many of the opinions you will hear on any given picture will be bias toward the IQ of the pic generated by the camera rather than composition.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Depends entirely on what you're shooting.

Some genres allow/accept/work "well" with noise - I tend not to balk at noisy low light/high ISO gig photos, for example (although mine aren't noisy) - but (to reference my own "thing") there's no room - ever - for noisy bird images: it's inherently axiomatic that a noisy bird image is a poor bird image.

That's why some of us have spent so much time and effort in developing noise-efficient workflows: as a result I can pop out acceptably (surprisingly, if you pay any attention to the nonsense some people post on here about the "noisy" 7D) clean images all day long at up to 3200-4000 ISO with my 7D; and with the 7D Mk II I can comfortably double that ISO for no more apparent noise.

The subject matter matters when discussing noise...

 

[dgatwood]

Noise; you are at 35mm focal length, the subject is not moving, and yet you are at 1/200s - Justify it with non-importance of noise but I won't hear you. To me, that is just a lack of technique.

Or a lack of a steady hand. Not all of us hold cameras still enough for a slower shutter speed, you know.

 

[pedro]

to me the samples look fine.