Noisy high iso images are useful

Alex00 · 03-06-2010, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Ira

If you tried to print the uncleaned image on a web or offset press, you would get mud because of the screen--and usually very coarse for newspaper.

BTW:

Is there anything about this photo that's supposed to be dramatic, or is it just here as an example of noise?

I applied more noise removal to the streets then the vehicles and chopper since details on the street is not the focus point. You can always control how much noise you want to remove. It's all up to you at the end, The point is noise can be removed. High iso images when needed is not necessary a bad thing.

As for the smudges when printing. This is not true. I tried it with both a laser and inject printer, both came out as you see it in the photos.

**yucatanPentax** · 04-06-2010, 11:45 AM

Yes, laser or inkjet will produce a reasonable copy of what you see on the computer screen.

But the comment was about specific printers used by newspapers (web or offset) that must apply a "screen" to the photo to reproduce it in dots of black and white. And that will come out like mud if the pic is high noise.

As a teen, I took HS sports action shots for small town newspapers. I quickly learned how 'clean' the shots needed to be for publication. Developed my own B&W film/prints and tried to control the grain for successful publication. At 50 cents or so per published shot, it kept me in film, darkroom chemicals, and sometimes even a little gas for the car.

RioRico · 04-07-2010, 08:28 AM

I want to add something to the content vs quality issue. We've seen photos that are stunning because of their IQ, immensely detailed, great DOF, beautiful tones. And we've seen photos that are stunning because of their content, because they capture a moment or essence despite (or because of?) not-so-good IQ.

But there's something else. When we look at things, we want to see detail, clarity. That's how and why we look at things, to see what's there. But looking at people (or anthropomorphic animals), detail is nice but not necessary. If detail is lacking, our visual system fills it in. There's a rather famous heavily-pixelated rendition of a famous portrait of Abraham Lincoln, just a few fat pixels; but look at this blur, and squint slightly, and you recognize exactly who it is.

A noisy, fuzzy, OOF, BAD photo of a face or hand or other body part, is as compelling to our bald-ape brains as a hyper-beautiful floral or landscape printed in Arizona Highways. Go into a typical home; which will be more cherished, a rogue's gallery of snapshots and wallet-size prints of family and friends, or big pictorial prints? We like what we recognize, and we recognize people.

So when you're shooting landscapes and plants and architecture and decoration and things, set ISO low and DOF deep. And when you're shooting people on the move, let the ISO float.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-7 iso 3200 images: No NR, yet the faces look plastic. (11 images)	pcarfan	Pentax DSLR Discussion	43	08-31-2010 08:13 AM
K-7 high ISO vs K20D high ISO	supa007	Pentax DSLR Discussion	72	05-10-2010 04:24 PM
k7 FW1.0 high iso images available	John Cafarella	Pentax News and Rumors	21	06-19-2009 02:31 PM
Night photography with K10D - High ISO short exposure VS Low ISO long exposure	pw-pix	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	02-03-2008 01:37 AM
High ISO concert images with Tam 28-300 (Images)	jsundin	Post Your Photos!	2	07-05-2007 08:19 AM

03-06-2010, 08:48 PM	#16
Alex00 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 294	Originally posted by Ira If you tried to print the uncleaned image on a web or offset press, you would get mud because of the screen--and usually very coarse for newspaper. BTW: Is there anything about this photo that's supposed to be dramatic, or is it just here as an example of noise? I applied more noise removal to the streets then the vehicles and chopper since details on the street is not the focus point. You can always control how much noise you want to remove. It's all up to you at the end, The point is noise can be removed. High iso images when needed is not necessary a bad thing. As for the smudges when printing. This is not true. I tried it with both a laser and inject printer, both came out as you see it in the photos.

04-06-2010, 11:45 AM	#17
yucatanPentax Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Dallas / Yucatan Posts: 1,841	Yes, laser or inkjet will produce a reasonable copy of what you see on the computer screen. But the comment was about specific printers used by newspapers (web or offset) that must apply a "screen" to the photo to reproduce it in dots of black and white. And that will come out like mud if the pic is high noise. As a teen, I took HS sports action shots for small town newspapers. I quickly learned how 'clean' the shots needed to be for publication. Developed my own B&W film/prints and tried to control the grain for successful publication. At 50 cents or so per published shot, it kept me in film, darkroom chemicals, and sometimes even a little gas for the car.

04-07-2010, 08:28 AM	#18
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I want to add something to the content vs quality issue. We've seen photos that are stunning because of their IQ, immensely detailed, great DOF, beautiful tones. And we've seen photos that are stunning because of their content, because they capture a moment or essence despite (or because of?) not-so-good IQ. But there's something else. When we look at things, we want to see detail, clarity. That's how and why we look at things, to see what's there. But looking at people (or anthropomorphic animals), detail is nice but not necessary. If detail is lacking, our visual system fills it in. There's a rather famous heavily-pixelated rendition of a famous portrait of Abraham Lincoln, just a few fat pixels; but look at this blur, and squint slightly, and you recognize exactly who it is. A noisy, fuzzy, OOF, BAD photo of a face or hand or other body part, is as compelling to our bald-ape brains as a hyper-beautiful floral or landscape printed in Arizona Highways. Go into a typical home; which will be more cherished, a rogue's gallery of snapshots and wallet-size prints of family and friends, or big pictorial prints? We like what we recognize, and we recognize people. So when you're shooting landscapes and plants and architecture and decoration and things, set ISO low and DOF deep. And when you're shooting people on the move, let the ISO float.