Noise

Ava

Ava

Suspended / Banned
Messages
145
Name
Lucy
Edit My Images
Yes
Does it bother you if you see it in a picture?

Just curious.
 
It depends, but yes on the majority of cases it bothers me and it is far from a good/wanted thing. Some photos can get off with it particularly black and white images where perhaps a more gritty look is required.

Clarke.
 
This is a `how long is a piece of string question`. It depends is the answer.

To give another photographic example would be bokeh. To ask if you like it or not would be impossible to answer as you get good bokeh and bad bokeh. Likewise, you have noise which doesn't detract, noise which utterly ruins and in some cases adds to the feel of a picture.

It's the same as film grain in a way, if you like the look, noise can sometimes add to the quality of a picture.

All that said though, if someone is taking a picture at an insanely high ISO on a camera that just can't do it, it is more than likely going to badly affect what could otherwise be a perfectly fine photograph.
 
I have no issue with the grainy kind of noise in fact sometimes I like it, gives a filmy kinda look. I have major issues with banded and coloured noise as well as the horrible artifacty kinda noise my Camera insists on filling blue skies and sunsets with at base ISO.

Film grain is just the best though!
 
I feel that there is a big difference between noise and grain. Noise hardly ever 'adds' to a photo but grain does - to the right shot.
 
Banding yes - most other noise, if tidied up with decent NR software isn't a problem I worry about... would rather get the shot, albeit with noise, than not get the shot at all...
 
I agree with Poddles. IMO, noise ruins a photo, and the more of it, the less a photo looks. Hence the reason for using iso such as 100 or 200, to eliminate as much noise as possible and catch as much detail as possible. Now adding film grain to a shot, that CAN possibly make some photos look cool. :woot:
 
TySharp said:
I agree with Poddles. IMO, noise ruins a photo, and the more of it, the less a photo looks. Hence the reason for using iso such as 100 or 200, to eliminate as much noise as possible and catch as much detail as possible. Now adding film grain to a shot, that CAN possibly make some photos look cool. :woot:
Click to expand...

I am rarely using ISO 200 unless it's bright outside or using a tripod, I'm routinely around ISO 800 and have no problem with 3200 with the D3 if needed. I used to be much more concerned about it but my philosophy these days is picture quality over pixel quality.
 
lensflair said:
I am rarely using ISO 200 unless it's bright outside or using a tripod, I'm routinely around ISO 800 and have no problem with 3200 with the D3 if needed. I used to be much more concerned about it but my philosophy these days is picture quality over pixel quality.
Click to expand...

Higher picture quality does come from lower ISO though. That's factual. So I'm not quite sure what you mean, lensflair.
 
Well, I certainly wouldn't add noise to a picture myself, lol. I was thinking more if there was a small amount of luminance noise in a photo, or if there's a larger amount but only in the dark areas of a photo where it's been lightened in PP. I suppose it does depend on the photo in question as a few said. But if you can detect any at all, does it completely ruin the photo in your eyes or is it just a given?
 
TySharp said:
Higher picture quality does come from lower ISO though. That's factual. So I'm not quite sure what you mean, lensflair.
Click to expand...

well I suppose what I'm getting at is there isn't much point shooting at a low ISO if it means you can't get the shot due to the limitations you are placing on yourself by doing so. while a lot of noise can reduce apparent sharpness, using an ISO that's too low will mean the image won't be sharp because the shutter speed is too slow to freeze the subject or camera shake. increasing the ISO may get you much better shot even if there is a slight increase in noise and you won't notice it at normal viewing sizes anyway. if your not prepared to increase the ISO then something else will have to give, it could be DOF, or the ability to handhold or both if light levels are low enough. Picture quality is more important than pixel quality means the overal result is more important than how clean an image is when you pixel peep.
 
Noise isn't an issue with the D700 and TBH, even from the D70, the noise is less obtrusive at similar ISO values than film grain. NR software reduces the impact of noise even further and what looks awful on screen often vanishes by the time I hold the print in my hot, sticky paws. A noisy image is better than none.
 
I'm with Lensflair on this one. Using a camera that is supposedly terrible for noise (such a small sensor!) if you listen to some people I let the ISO go to a point most people with APC cameras (so much bigger sensors?) think the noise is unacceptable. When it comes to selling prints from an event I tend to win though because a) I still got the shot and b) the noise simply isn't visible on a print.
Something to be said for the fact that non-photographers are the people paying for the prints I guess.
Besides, exposing to the right and selective noise removal are options if you really dislike noise however, if it bothers you to the extent that you are always having to do that then just buy FF and fast glass :)
 
High ISO noise can work quite well if shooting in black and white, it gives the image that grainy look, otherwise it can be very annoying, often spoiling an otherwise good photograph.

:)
 
Well - I don't go out of my way to get noise in a picture - even when I shoot on film, I tend to use the low ISO films and grain minimising developers to cut down the big clumpy crystal look. However - if it's a choice of not being able to get the shutter speed I want at a given aperture, then I'll happily dial up the ISO and accept some noise. I'd sooner have a slightly noisy sharp picture, than a noise free blur!
 
Well it also has to do with your style, and what you plan on doing with it. I shoot HDR's, and I cannot live with noisy pictures, as it only ruins the HDR's. The better the picture, the more detail, the better the HDR result. Beside all of this, I have no idea why anyone would want noisy pictures, when you should simply learn to be a better photographer by learning to use the correct iso that the situation calls for, learn when to use or not to use a tripod, and learn to shoot with a steady hand. I think it's ridiculous to just jump to iso 800 or 1600 just for the heck of it. None of this is making sense to me. Noisy pictures make for worse quality pictures. Period. If you like bad quality, then that in itself is a matter of opinion. But you're trying to say you can take better shots than someone who uses a lower iso, that has better quality? That is unheard of to say. That's just saying you're competing against a bad photographer. Because if I am shooting a photo at iso 200, against someone who is shooting at iso 800 or 1600, on a normal condition day, you better believe my photo is going to smoke theirs out of the water, quality wise. Even if I do it myself, take a photo at two separate iso settings, of course the iso 200 is going to look wayyyy better. So I have no idea why you're trying to say those crazy iso settings are better, and noise is better. Are you covering the idea that maybe you're a bad photographer, and can't take pictures without noise? I truly don't get it. This is stupid. :bonk:
 
TySharp said:
Well it also has to do with your style, and what you plan on doing with it. I shoot HDR's, and I cannot live with noisy pictures, as it only ruins the HDR's. The better the picture, the more detail, the better the HDR result. Beside all of this, I have no idea why anyone would want noisy pictures, when you should simply learn to be a better photographer by learning to use the correct iso that the situation calls for, learn when to use or not to use a tripod, and learn to shoot with a steady hand. I think it's ridiculous to just jump to iso 800 or 1600 just for the heck of it. None of this is making sense to me. Noisy pictures make for worse quality pictures. Period. If you like bad quality, then that in itself is a matter of opinion. But you're trying to say you can take better shots than someone who uses a lower iso, that has better quality? That is unheard of to say. That's just saying you're competing against a bad photographer. Because if I am shooting a photo at iso 200, against someone who is shooting at iso 800 or 1600, on a normal condition day, you better believe my photo is going to smoke theirs out of the water, quality wise. Even if I do it myself, take a photo at two separate iso settings, of course the iso 200 is going to look wayyyy better. So I have no idea why you're trying to say those crazy iso settings are better, and noise is better. Are you covering the idea that maybe you're a bad photographer, and can't take pictures without noise? I truly don't get it. This is stupid. :bonk:
Click to expand...

Id love to see your cloudy day wildlife shots at iso 200. I don't think anyone was saying they boost the ISO for the sake apart from the mono comment which is debatable. But clearly there are many occasions where you will get a better shot with high ISO as its the only way to get a sharp shot.
 
Last edited:
amtaylor said:
Id love to see your cloudy day wildlife shots at iso 200. I don't think anyone was saying they boost the ISO for the sake apart from the mono comment which is debatable. But clearly there are many occasions where you will get a better shot with high ISO as its the only way to get a sharp shot.
Click to expand...

First of all, shooting on a cloudy day at iso 200, can be done. Second of all, there is nothing wrong with adjusting your iso to go with the conditions. That's what it's for. You're completely missing the point here. Yes, if its dark out, and you need iso 800, or so dark, you want to avoid movement, then great. Use it. but THEY are talking about using high iso, and getting noise, just for the hell of it. I thought I have made that clear. But at your attempt to badger me about wildlife on a cloudy day, that's actually cake at iso 200, but thank's anyway. Maybe next time figure out what I am talking about, before attacking for the incorrect reason.
 
TySharp said:
First of all, shooting on a cloudy day at iso 200, can be done. Second of all, there is nothing wrong with adjusting your iso to go with the conditions. That's what it's for. You're completely missing the point here. Yes, if its dark out, and you need iso 800, or so dark, you want to avoid movement, then great. Use it. but THEY are talking about using high iso, and getting noise, just for the hell of it. I thought I have made that clear. But at your attempt to badger me about wildlife on a cloudy day, that's actually cake at iso 200, but thank's anyway. Maybe next time figure out what I am talking about, before attacking for the incorrect reason.
Click to expand...

I did no more than you did. Pretty sure if you read all the comments properly you will find no one was really suggesting that you should boost the ISO as a matter of course.

And if your going to get all funny about it perhaps you should see the difference between a bit of sarcasm and an attack.

And perhaps not accuse the other comments of all being crazy, bad photographers.
 
Last edited:
I just wish that Digital cameras would come with proper low ISO settings - I regularly shoot on Velvia 50 and Fuji Acros 100 pulled 1 stop - so at a EI of 50. Then again I'm shooting landscapes, which aren't noted for their abilities to fly away at a seconds notice, and I'm firmly nailed down on a tripod.
 
amtaylor said:
I did no more than you did. Pretty sure if you read all the comments properly you will find no one was really suggesting that you should boost the ISO as a matter of course.

And if your going to get all funny about it perhaps you should see the difference between a bit of sarcasm and an attack.

And perhaps not accuse the other comments of all being crazy, bad photographers.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're correct, and maybe I took things the wrong way. My apologies.
 
TheBigYin said:
I just wish that Digital cameras would come with proper low ISO settings - I regularly shoot on Velvia 50 and Fuji Acros 100 pulled 1 stop - so at a EI of 50. Then again I'm shooting landscapes, which aren't noted for their abilities to fly away at a seconds notice, and I'm firmly nailed down on a tripod.
Click to expand...

It's a good point. I guess its because there is more demand for higher ISO than lower and you can always use an ND filter. Not saying I agree with it but its also more cost too with putting the amplifiers in for native ISOs I spose.
 
TySharp said:
I see you shoot with a Canon 5d. Lucky! That camera is killer. I hope someday to afford the Mark II.
Click to expand...

Me too. I'm just after a 35 1.4l which will help me in the low light department/noise department. Back to the op, I also use a 50d with my 300 and yesterday afternoon was really gloomy and I went to the monkey forest in stoke and ended up all the time being between 800 and 3200 and apart from the ones where the exposure was off I think they would be perfectly acceptable blown up to a decent size. But of course had I the option I would have liked the ISO lower.
See what you think
WWW.flickr.com/amtaylorphotography
The first 4 are from there. The squirrel was a visitor too. That was shot at 3200 and whilst not as clean as the others neither is is too rough IMHO
 
I never said you should use a high ISO just for the sake of doing it, you said yourself you should use the correct ISO for the shot. Sometimes the correct ISO is going to be much higher than 200. Using a tripod isn't much good for something like candids at a wedding reception, you can't apply what works for landscape photography to all other genres. Even if you used a tripod, you can't freeze subject movement with a 3 second exposure which is what I would need even at f1.4 in some situations if I didn't increase the ISO or add flash.

By the way, if you don't underexpose the shot and then try to correct in post, an ISO 800 shot will be almost identical to an ISO 200 shot at normal viewing or print sizes, the noise is only a problem when viewed at 100% and HDR makes it even worse, of course you rarely shoot HDR without a tripod so of course using the lower ISO makes sense. If these higher ISO shots are of such terrible quality could you let me know which ones on my site were shot at ISO 200 and which ones were shot as high as ISO 3200?
 
amtaylor said:
Me too. I'm just after a 35 1.4l which will help me in the low light department/noise department. Back to the op, I also use a 50d with my 300 and yesterday afternoon was really gloomy and I went to the monkey forest in stoke and ended up all the time being between 800 and 3200 and apart from the ones where the exposure was off I think they would be perfectly acceptable blown up to a decent size. But of course had I the option I would have liked the ISO lower.
See what you think
WWW.flickr.com/amtaylorphotography
The first 4 are from there. The squirrel was a visitor too. That was shot at 3200 and whilst not as clean as the others neither is is too rough IMHO
Click to expand...


You'll love the 35 1.4 I think, I have the nikon version and its a wonderful lens. Still have to shoot high ISO sometimes though.

BTW really like that squirrel shot.
 
Depends on the picture I think.
 
Like I said lensflair, my apologies for jumping the gun. Your photos actually do look great. Your D3 must be able to handle higher ISO settings than my Canon, because my XTI is horrible even at 800. With HDR shots, believe it or not, I shoot 99% off hand. Tripods will get a better shot, but it just takes away from the fun for me, so I shoot all off hand, unless it's a night shot. But anyway, I did check out your photo's like I said, and even your ones at night turned out great.
 
I don't think i've seen digital noise that looks anything like film grain...
 
TySharp said:
Like I said lensflair, my apologies for jumping the gun. Your photos actually do look great. Your D3 must be able to handle higher ISO settings than my Canon, because my XTI is horrible even at 800. With HDR shots, believe it or not, I shoot 99% off hand. Tripods will get a better shot, but it just takes away from the fun for me, so I shoot all off hand, unless it's a night shot. But anyway, I did check out your photo's like I said, and even your ones at night turned out great.
Click to expand...


np, some cameras are certainly more capable than others at high ISO. I also use a D700 and D300s and the D300 certainly isn't as clean as the other two but still acceptable at ISO 800 and higher in the right situation, but I do like to keep it under 800 if at all possible. Like I say, you will seen more noise in my higher ISO shots when viewed at 100% but I don't let that bother me.

I don't do a lot of HDR but I have found it seems to exaggerate any noise which is there and I always use the lowest ISO I can regardless of what I'm doing. I used to be very reluctant to go over ISO 400 especially when I first switched to digital, probably a combination of noisier cameras and the fact that I was basing my decision on viewing at 100% but I eventually realized that prints are much more forgiving of noise than a computer monitor and The images are not viewed at that size on the web anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top