Noise quality

[dg1]

I recently did a few comparisons of ISO 800 noise between the 3

digital cameras I use. By and large it simply varified what I

already know.. smaller sensors have more noise at high ISOs. The

cameras in question are 2 digicams, a Ricoh GX and a KM-A2, and my

DSLR, a canon 10D. Actually I wasn't going to bother with the 10D, I

was just interested in which smaller camera would serve best for low

light in a pinch. It's the A2. Ok whatever.

 

What I noticed however, is besides the amount of apparent noise,

there are differences in granularity of the noise, as well as color.

The digicams both produce the blue speckle thing, and the A2's noise

is much finer grained than the somewhat blotchy Ricoh (and works well

for B&W). Meanwhile the CMOS in the 10D produces extremely fine

grained and subtle noise without the blue neon speckles, and it looks

incredibly like film grain. It actually looks good, even when some

exaggerated sharpening brought it out more.

 

I'm not sure, but it seems to me this quality of the 10D noise is

partly due to the CMOS sensor, but I don't have a large CCD sensor

dslr to compare it to. It's quite lovely though, sort of like a fine

grained film. That's at 800, at 1600 I've seen more evidence of the

blue specks, evne there it is fine grained and quite smooth, although

I'm much less inclined to leave it there as with 800 or lower.

 

To me an image that is clean doesn't always work as well as something

with a little grit to it. It seems that another image parameter for

digital cameras might be "noise quality". Something else to quibble

about, like "bokeh" quality. The ISO 800 on the 10D is something

I'll choose for it's texture as well as its speed, whereas the

digicams stay at low ISO except for emergencies, and then have as

much of their noise removed as possible in pp.

[marbing]

I find that some people are subject to, what I call, 'noise fever' where they concentrate so much on that one technical aspect of the shot that they lose all appreciation of the image as a whole. In film we called them 'grain sniffers'...they would be seen in gallerys moving in so close to photos that their nose prints were left on the glass and, once they had verified that film indeed had grain, they would turn away in distain..."Grainy!", they would remark.

 

In the digital world too, there are those who examine an image at 400-800% magnification and then ONLY in the shadows...searching for...'noise'. I suppose then they can turn away in distain too! "Noisy!"

 

Like brush strokes in a painting, grain (or so-called 'noise') can be a part of the final image and, as you say, the 'quality' of the 'texture' it provides can actually enhance the mood of the image.

 

I think we have all seen highly effective film shots that ALSO exhibited visible grain...but the grain became part of the image. It is those people who only look at an image from a superficial level who never see beyond the 'grain' (or the 'noise') to 'see' the whole image.

[jcuknz]

Merryl,

You put the case in an excellent way ... we had grain with film we have noise with digital ... so what? OK I appreciate that the commercial photographer requiring top quality for product advertising who used to work in MF or LF will be aghast at noise .. but for the average artistic [we hope] photog .. bothering about noise is a foolish indulgence.

[larrybc]

The quality of the image noise on my A1 can be drastically improved by shooting in RAW, and then applying "color noise reduction" when you convert the RAW file using Adobe Photoshop CS. Here's a 100% crop of a ISO400 shot:

 

http://bb.bc4x4.com/lars/tigers-colour.jpg

 

The left image has no correction, the right has colour noise reduction applied.

 

Larry

[daniel_taylor]

"but for the average artistic [we hope] photog .. bothering about noise is a foolish indulgence."

 

Meryl can preach all he wants, but I'm not satisfied with my images unless they fire on all cylinders. My first goal is to create an artistically pleasing piece. But generally I also want that piece to be the best it can technically be. (Sometimes I don't because I'm going for a certain "old" or "gritty" look.) And while neither grain nor noise ruin my enjoyment of an artistically pleasing work, you can bet that if I can reduce or eliminate either in my work, they will be eliminated.

 

I will grant that one can use grain, noise, and simulations of such to good effect in some images. But I want to choose when to produce a grainy image. I don't want it forced on me or my viewers in every image.

[daniel_taylor]

"Meanwhile the CMOS in the 10D produces extremely fine grained and subtle noise without the blue neon speckles, and it looks incredibly like film grain."

 

Better actually, because in my experience color doesn't break down as quickly with the 10D as with color film. Color noise and distortion in an image is never really a pretty thing, but luminance noise doesn't detract as much and in some images can add pleasing texture. That's why grain in B&W isn't hated like in color, but is accepted and more often actually used as another way to shape the image.

[GerrySiegel]

Meryl, Aloha my photofriend, and I just want to say to you " I get your point." There are 'inconveniences' and there are 'problems.' Digital is at a point technically where there are some 'inconveniences' at some consumer level price points. It is strange that I don't see this noise as an issue,but it is likely because I do not overreach in my ISO. And that makes me an ISO sissy. So we can't win 'em all. And I still have my film machines,Meryl. Amazing, I was able to get a panorama back for my medium format at a juicy price from KEH. And the results will have guess what no noise. That is good noise,right.

Aloha, GS., A.B., Flatus Institute of the Pacific

[dg1]

I'm in the Meryl camp by and large. While virtually noise free images can be nice, like sharpness, they don't guarantee a great photograph, anymore than some noise or soft focus determine a bad photo. Meryl simply states that obsessing over the issue is not what photography is about, at least for most art or personal photography.

 

The subject of my post here is that there are different qualities of "noise" like grain, and it brings to my mind discussions of the qualities of OOF areas (bokeh) that some of us get into with this or that lens. Both are potential deficits to an image that can be turned into qualities that can enhance the photo.

 

I think Meryl's brush analogy is fairly apt too. And while my A2 has superceded my 10D as the main camera for the photos I do, my comparison of the noise of each at 800 provides me with a better awareness of what each has to offer when the differences are embraced rather than grabbing for some gold ring of "image quality". Great image quality can be a lot of things and not necessarily noiseless.

 

True no noise might be good noise, but not always or for everyone.

[GerrySiegel]

A great Meryl funny image."they would be seen in gallerys(ies) moving in so close to photos that their nose prints were left on the glass and, once they had verified that film indeed had grain, they would turn away in distain.(disdain,yessiree).."Grainy!", they would remark." Yes,yes. I have seen them and I love them,Meryl.They can look like Salvador Dali,with curled mustaches,ascot,basque beret, and have a ripe Brigitte in tow. Stand closer and one hears about le grain and le bo-keh. It is how does one say it, fashionable for ze critique. And as Dean-o sez, to be good it's gotta have quote a little grit. I even grit up my work before printing,with a grit additive freeware program.

Viva le grit,<p> Gerry S. Be well. And shalomaloha.

[dg1]

I use grit additive also. It is good for what ails you.

[david_kieltyka1]

>> I'm not sure, but it seems to me this quality of the 10D noise is partly due to the CMOS sensor, but I don't have a large CCD sensor dslr to compare it to. It's quite lovely though, sort of like a fine grained film. That's at 800, at 1600 I've seen more evidence of the blue specks, evne there it is fine grained and quite smooth, although I'm much less inclined to leave it there as with 800 or lower. <<

 

The Epson R-D1, using a CCD (same size if not same sensor as in most 6mp D-SLRs), produces mostly monochrome noise at higher ISOs. I often like a bit of texture in my photos too, though I like the option of not having it when I don't want it.

 

A look I've been experimenting with recently involves over-processing a photo in noise reduction software like Noise Ninja, then adding "grain" via Photoshop. It's amazing how much detail I can clobber in Noise Ninja without it being noticeable in an 8x12" print viewed at normal distances. This is provided I add enough grain to fool the eye into thinking there's detail where there isn't. :-) This is one of my reactions to the super-sharp, super-clean look currently in vogue among digital shooters. Another reaction is to make use of real grain via fast film.

 

-Dave-