[reverenddude]

Perhaps I'm the only one, but I actually enjoy the graininess at higher ISOs from the K-3. I mean, I understand most "customers" prefer noiseless photos, so I tend to acquiesce to their demands when shooting for a purpose. And yes I do understand that portrait shots probably shouldn't be noisy at all. But for stuff that I do for myself, I actually really like grainy pictures. It feels very ethereal to me. I really like the grain at 3200/6400 in the K-3.

I tried searching for a related thread, but I don't think my keywords helped me one iota -- my apologies if this has been discussed recently.

[savoche]

Like? No, not really, but for a lot of pictures I don't particularly mind it either. The noise for moderately high ISO values on the K-3 is quite fine grained and so I don't mind it much. What I don't like is the colour banding that shows up when you go past 12800. That's one problem the K-5 didn't have.

I do think people are too hung up on noise, though. Along with having sharpness as the be-all and end-all of "image quality".

[aurele]

Perhaps I'm the only one, but I actually enjoy the graininess at higher ISOs from the K-3. I mean, I understand most "customers" prefer noiseless photos, so I tend to acquiesce to their demands when shooting for a purpose. And yes I do understand that portrait shots probably shouldn't be noisy at all. But for stuff that I do for myself, I actually really like grainy pictures. It feels very ethereal to me. I really like the grain at 3200/6400 in the K-3.

Depend on the grain structure ! Some old sensor get a lot of color in the noise (you know the rainbow color in the shadows ) which is plain ugly. But without this, grain can produce nice rendering. To me Canon is ahead in this when it come to Jpeg engine.

The Ricoh GR III and IV have very nice grain structure, especially in B&W where it looks a lot like TriX film.

[Apapukas]

I have to say that in certain images, I find noise attractive.

For example

[IMG][/IMG]

But, in this pic, noise was added in PP.

Please post a picture. Words aren't the best way communicate when it comes to photography

[flaviopetrone]

As you said, noise is bad for portraits. But in landscapes or black and white, sometimes it makes the picture more interesting.
I see the film fx that are in more or less all the graphics softwares and I think that while there are some people doing everything is possible to minimise the noise /grain there are other that introduce it deliberately.
Tastes are different.

[AldaCZ]

I had hated it but I have learned to like it!

[vonBaloney]

Yeah, if it looks like real film grain it is ok. Digital color noise I can't stand, and artificial looking artifact patterns are ugly. For prints that we sell, the last step in processing is always to add a fake layer of "film grain" which gives them a more real, less clinical, and more consistent look. (Digital noise tends to show up in only parts of the image.) So we do our best to remove digital noise first, bring out the details we want, do all other processing etc etc, and then add our fake grain last as a pre-printing step. (We make this grain size absolute regardless of print size, so big print or small the grain is the same size on the paper. It also helps big prints look better when the viewer is too close.)

I think most people that started out shooting film appreciate grain. It was generally not considered a negative back then, for "arty" stuff anyway...

[JimC1101]

Yes, I usually add noise in my BW pics. It feels more nostalgic and dated in those instances.

[Winder]

I have a shot a lot of bands who want the 1960's/70's grainy B&W look. We refer to it as the 60's Rolling Stone look because people would bring in old issues of Rolling Stone magazine and say.... "We want something like this." The rise of the Hipster's has also brought more demand for the more organic grainy film look. I like the look of grain. I really hate the sterile razor sharp, clean digital look that has become popular. Don't get me wrong. I want super clean files and razor sharp lenses, but only because I want to control how much I soften then up and how much grain I add.

[Mikesul]

I find noise is almost always unattractive but I do understand a little about the charm some people see in evoking a kind film noire look in their BW photos.

[Rondec]

I usually try to get rid of noise, but as Mikesul says, if you want a "dark and stormy night" look to your photo, it can help.

[MadMathMind]

Film grain can look ok, but high ISO noise doesnt look like film grain. It's not as fine or uniform and tends to have variances in color; white specs are particularly distracting.

That said, plasticy images are worse, so while I apply strong noise reduction as ISO increases, I won't scrub it so far to remove all the noise when doing so transforms my image into one shot in a world covered in Saran wrap. Really depends on what the subject of the photo is; cars or airplanes have large regions of detail-less color, so strong NR works fine.

[Kerrowdown]

Does anyone LIKE noisy pictures?

For years a lot of us old film slr users had no choice, it came as standard.

[Mikesul]

I usually try to get rid of noise, but as Mikesul says, if you want a "dark and stormy night" look to your photo, it can help.

Perfect example, Rondec, of when it makes magic. Nice photo!

[crewl1]

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.