[JJJPhoto]

I can't get over all the talk in various online photography forums about ISO noise on digital cameras ... both DSLRs and compacts.

I have a bunch of 8x10 prints on my walls that were made from ISO 400 35mm film negatives. These 8x10 prints have visible grain that looks like what I see in my prints from compact digital cameras taken at ISO 1600 ... on a COMPACT digital point-and-shoot.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike noise/grain as much as the next person, but I feel like most people have lost their perspective. Below is a snap I took with my old Pentax DL with ISO 3200. This image has less visible noise/grain than my ISO 400 35mm film images.



Would I love to have perfectly noise-free ISO 64000000? Sure. But until that day comes I can't shake the feeling we should stop worrying about noise and concentrate on taking photos.

[simons-photography]

you make a good point just don't go too far to the extreme a noisy image is better than no image.

[PDL]

I used to shoot Plus-x, ASA 125 at ASA 400 (ASA = ISO -- ASA was the US standard, ISO is the international standard - I think in Europe it used to be din) FOR the grain. In film, grain gives a certain texture to the image that some of us used to look for to provide mood, grit and detail.

Noise in digital is regular, non random (VPN, HPN), linear; leaving you with things like Moiré patterns. The issue I have with digital shooters is the assumption that you have to make images noise free. Just look how noise reduction works. It smooths between pixel --- it blends them together, reducing detail and in most cases it makes human skin look like plastic (removes hairs, blemishes, small wrinkles etc).

I like grain - I don't care for regularized, matrix like distractive patterns in my images. In film grain was/is random. With digital you can not get real random because everything is a grid of dots. I do not like "jaggies" - what would be nice is to have a digital sensor that is amorphous like film (it ain't going to happen but I can wish), so grain can come back into the picture just like the good old days.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[simons-photography]

yea sure nothing better than a models skin to be spekled with red and green dots I'm not sure we are talking the same noise here

[MJB DIGITAL]

Oh my god this picture is so terrible because of the grain in it (and motion blur too)

iso800


my flash didnt fire here because i was shooting too quickly immediately after the ceremony and i had to pull this thing up about three stops of exposure and then add lots of brightness in the CS2 bridge

i love the noise in this shot.

here is another (not wedding)

this is shot from across the street on a cheap flash with my ole ist*D about three years ago at night. iso 800


last one, but i could post all day

iso1600. my flash didnt fire on this one either and i had to pull it up.


JJJ, i dont mean to highjack your post or anything. i just want to side with you on this point.
i cant wait to get the k20d and shoot at 6400.
im really hoping that they just put 6400 on that thing because they can. i hear it isnt 'usuable' which means that i can use the crap out of it and get images like you see above. 8)

[Lowell Goudge]

I can't get over all the talk in various online photography forums about ISO noise on digital cameras ... both DSLRs and compacts.

I have a bunch of 8x10 prints on my walls that were made from ISO 400 35mm film negatives. These 8x10 prints have visible grain that looks like what I see in my prints from compact digital cameras taken at ISO 1600 ... on a COMPACT digital point-and-shoot.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike noise/grain as much as the next person, but I feel like most people have lost their perspective. Below is a snap I took with my old Pentax DL with ISO 3200. This image has less visible noise/grain than my ISO 400 35mm film images.


Would I love to have perfectly noise-free ISO 64000000? Sure. But until that day comes I can't shake the feeling we should stop worrying about noise and concentrate on taking photos.

Welcome to my "club" of those who understand that while not "perfect" any DSLR produces images bettern than most films.

I shot Ektachrome pushed to 800 and 1600 ISO and Tri-X 400 pushed as far as 3200 ISO when I shot film.

You think 400 was bad, and grainy, you should see it pushed 1-3 stops.

[simons-photography]

well grain can have its place but mostly people need grainless shots and with colour its a bit different your showing B&W mostly, grain can sure have artistic qualities but i have a picture of a friend and her nice skin is so riddled with grain (was shot on an old P&S) I mean she does bnot look impressive with red and green skin, I generally shoot with large printgs in mind so i need some detail, I was actually pleasantly surprised at how little grain the K10D can have at ISO 1600

[cpopham]

I'd like to add with the original poster, and also to add that like him, I have several high ISO prints which don't look so great on a computer screen, but when printed properly actually look quite good, even to some fairly large sizes.

[simons-photography]

yea I think noise is lost a bit in printing so its not as big a deal as people think but I prefer as perfect as possible I can add noise after

[PDL]

well grain can have its place but mostly people need grainless shots and with colour its a bit different your showing B&W mostly, grain can sure have artistic qualities but i have a picture of a friend and her nice skin is so riddled with grain (was shot on an old P&S) I mean she does bnot look impressive with red and green skin, I generally shoot with large printgs in mind so i need some detail, I was actually pleasantly surprised at how little grain the K10D can have at ISO 1600

Shooting portraits with a P&S (not a APS-C sensor) is like using Tri-x on a 110 camera. The sensor is too small to do good work - unless you are looking for the "Artistic" green and red spotted look.

My arguement is not about using small sensors, my arguement is about being afraid of texture. Noise reduction is all about smoothing ---> blurring --> reduced resolution. Remember silver halide crystals are measured in angstroms, sensor sites are measured in microns. During development halide crystals tend to move and clump, giveing structure (grain) to the image.

You can take images at high ISO's and smooth away all the red and green noise in PP. However, the fine detail and texture is gone and the resulting patterns are in a perfect grid. Film grain is random - sort of falling inbetween the cracks of the pixel grid.

I can live with noise - but it just does not look the same as grain.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[simons-photography]

I like texture but not too much noise/grain

[roentarre]

Noise is always a concern. But you are right that many of us are missing the big picture.

Some of the "obvious" noise on the image do not actually turn up on A3 prints at all. I seldomly believe what I saw on monitors these days

[JJJPhoto]

Shooting portraits with a P&S (not a APS-C sensor) is like using Tri-x on a 110 camera. The sensor is too small to do good work - unless you are looking for the "Artistic" green and red spotted look.

Hmm ... guess it depends on whether you're talking about old point-and-shoot digitals from a few years ago or new ones that do a better job with color noise.

Here is a image that was scanned by me with a high resolution Epson film scanner from the original 35mm film negative ... ISO 100 Fuji:



Here is an image taken with a cheap $200 Panasonic LZ10 at ISO 800:

[Clicker]

I've been trying to explain for years why we all take up photography and how we all see/think differently but for some reason everyone reads too much LOL

Most people are happy with a memory, how it turns out is usually the discussion.

[ryan s]

I can live with noise - but it just does not look the same as grain.

This sums it up for me. "Digital grain" simply doesn't look as good as genuine from a chemical reaction.