[flaviopetrone]

I think it is more appropriate for certain B&W pictures but I'm not too find of how digital noise looks in color.
It does not look like film grain to me.

It depends from the amount of noise, from the vibrancy of the colors and the subject of the shot. By the way I agree that on bnw it bothers me less, sometimes I like it too.

[kadajawi]

I like noise. Not color noise, mind you, that I filter away (Lightroom does a great job). I might also add artificial noise... To my videos I tend to add noise, stills sometimes.

[Mr Bassie]

I don't particularly like it but I will deal with it if I need to push the ISO high enough to take the shot. Often this leads to a B&W conversion in PP.

[Scottnorwo]

graininess can set the mood and make pictures pop. It is a tool to be used by the photographer to enhance his/her art.

[hjoseph7]

Sometimes I add a little noise to give the picture a little bit more character but no I don't like a lot of noise. If that's the case I will convert the image to B&W so that it looks like film.

[magkelly]

Noise and film grain to me are similar but not entirely the same. The first I rarely tolerate, but the second I will actually tolerate and/or simulate sometimes if it suits the atmosphere of the shot. Mostly I do that with B&W work but not always. I like grunge shots sometimes for portrait work. I like simulating really old photography too, making shots look antique. Noise or grain they can be good depending upon how they are used. I don't like seeing it a lot though in a shot that's modern, that's not really meant to be atmospheric, where someone has shot in too high an iso just to get any shot then not even attempted to make it look good.

[Mikesul]

I can accept a little shadow noise but normally I want smooth clear colors and details.

[normhead]

In a word, no.
In 7 words - Why would you like a technical artifact?

[Clavius]

Yes, noisy or grainy images can have character. Even unsharp or out of focus images as wel. The pictures in this thread are all fine examples of such character. Personally, I like noisy black&whites with high contrast and a bit of over exposure. But I don't like it if they come out of the camera that way! What's gone is gone. Noise, grain, blurryness, under/over saturation, can all be added in PP so easily.

[flaviopetrone]

In a word, no.
In 7 words - Why would you like a technical artifact?

Because sometimes a picture looks more natural and less "coming from photoshop". Lately I see a lot of perfect pictures, too much perfect. I think that this is graphics, not photography.

[Mr Bassie]

Because sometimes a picture looks more natural and less "coming from photoshop". Lately I see a lot of perfect pictures, too much perfect. I think that this is graphics, not photography.

I kind of feel that way too. I guess that is why I like to use my toy film cameras. Trying to do something a little bit different I guess.

[kadajawi]

Because sometimes a picture looks more natural and less "coming from photoshop". Lately I see a lot of perfect pictures, too much perfect. I think that this is graphics, not photography.

It's funny. Photographs become more like CGI, while CGI artists strive to insert imperfection (see the dirt on the lens in Star Trek...).

[vonBaloney]

In a word, no.
In 7 words - Why would you like a technical artifact?

Everything in a photographs is technical artifact. But if you want to pick on one thing, how about out of focus blur? Why should ANYTHING ever be out of focus?

Getting back to grain/noise: grain doesn't have to mean *heavy* grain, but maybe just enough so it doesn't have that clinical look. It is a choice, like whether to print on glossy or matte paper for a certain image as you feel appropriate. Like in most art forms, a certain artifice will appear more realistic to a human viewer than a more "pure" reproduction. Part of this is just habituation to seeing lots of other works in a similar style, but you still must take that into account. This is probably why grain (which looks random) and noise (which often doesn't) don't "read" the same. But to younger viewers, it may well be the opposite for all I know. (I know certain artifacts of video bug me because they look different on [movie] film, but to kids who have always used video it is normal.) Super-clean digital images look like advertisements to me. But I don't make advertisements.

So context is key also. Consider the analogy of dialogue in a fictional book or film. Real speech is full of ummms, uhhhs, stuttering, starting one thought and then backtracking/correcting it as you think of something better to say, constantly interrupting, etc. But put all of that in a fictional work and it will be maddeningly distracting -- in general you just have characters speak clearly, take their turns, etc, and when you break those rules it is to make a point that a character is flustered or aggressive or whatever even though in everyday speech it is all just normal. So the fake speech seems more real in a fictional work, whereas in a documentary if someone talked in such a polished way they would seem so rehearsed you'd think they were lying, right?

[LeRolls]

Generally I do not like the noise you get from shooting at high ISOs but I do occasionally add film grain to certain shots during PP. This shot is an example of one where I added both film grain and some scratches to certain parts of the image in an attempt to boost the atmosphere and mood. As some would say, a more vintage look and feel.

[6BQ5]

Sometimes I find the combination of soft focus / wide open color shots at high ISO with some sensor noise appealing. The lighting has to be right though. It has to be warm. The effect adds texture and can give the image a soft glow.

In cool lighting high ISO noise looks awful to me. That's when a "color monochrome" conversion works for me. When going to B&W I actually like to use "silver and white". Otherwise, go nuts with the colors.

Here's an example of noise resulting from severe post processing. The clouds have lots of noise in them. When not pixel peeping it gives them texture.


IMGP2823 by Never Off, on Flickr