Noise ? - what's that ?

[anthony_brookes5]

Has anyone been to an exhibition, or a gallery, ever heard anyone whilst viewing a print mention noise ? I have been

to many such viewings and have never once heard noise mentioned. Is it only on this forum that such comments

arise ? Mostly the comments are artistic but occasionally there is a remark about sharpness or sparkle - but noise -

never.

[pankaj purohit]

Hey Anthony, yu picked-up nice point here.

 

Now the noise is also may be the part of the photograph quality, because today, digital cameras are used for the photography and today noone likes to se the noise in the photographs.

 

Earlier when films were only the medium, grains were not such big issues because many times film grain were adding more beauty to the photographs, but noticeable digital noise steals the beauty of photograph.

 

As we know, today every camera manufacturing company is working on the high ISO performaneces. So it is going to be soon that we will get noiseless photographs in every kind of lighting conditions..

[nee_sung]

Well, I've mentioned noise when I went to galleries. But what is more often the case is that people will mention noise after they leave the gallery/exhibition, to be polite to the exhibitors/artists who might personally be present.

[peterblaise]

I go to the National Geographic outdoor photography exhibit every month here in Washington, DC, US <a

href="http://www.nationalgeographic.com/museum/">http://www.nationalgeographic.com/museum/</a> as they put

up new stuff, and I marvel at the pointillist dots upon close inspection of the (probably, I haven't measured) 4

x 6 foot enlargements that are clearly visible from the roadway and sidewalk around the building. The images are

compelling, and the content is easy for me to connect with, up to usual National Graphic standards - their best

stuff. Agreed, no one enjoying it has mentioned "noise" as part of their experience of these "pictures with

impact" (as Photography Saint Andreas Feininger would say, see <a

href="http://books.google.com/books?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22andreas%20feininger%22%20pictures%20with%20impact&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp">

Google Book Search ["andreas feininger" pictures with impact]</a>). Perhaps we should start referring to noise as

"marvelous pointillism" rather then "unacceptable" (which is PopPhoto magazine's word for visible noise).><br/>

<br/>

<a href="http://tinypic.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i36.tinypic.com/mubztj.jpg" border="0" alt="Image

and video hosting by TinyPic" width="400"></a><br/>

<strong>"Noisy" National Geographic sidewalk pictures from Annie Griffiths Belt</strong><br/>

Bottom frame is closeup of central subject from top frame.<br>

(Note: these images are NOT uploaded to nor hosted on photo.net, portions © Annie Grifiths Belt, National

Geographic,

Peter Blaise Monahon)<br/>

[User_503771]

I only hear photographers talk about noise. I think most people don't know what it is, nor do they care.

 

Personally, I think some noise, sometimes, looks good, depending on how it's rendered. It can give a little boost to an impression of texture.

[memphis1]

yes, but all to often on other forums, I get comments about noise --- my big problem with that is... I shoot film and these othere "photographers" are so digitally conditioned -- they don't even know what grain is<div></div>

[andrewlamb]

Great picture, Blake.

[don_e]

Problem with digitizing film with a ccd scanner is it introduces noise, especially I've found chroma noise. One should consider what happens to "grain" when digitized and put through lossy compression.

 

A few years ago on a forum here, a member agonized over a photo he'd taken with, I think, a Canon 20D. He had an order for a print. The agony was caused by "banding noise" and he posted a 1:1 of it...maybe. Maybe because only some of the respondents could (or claimed to) see it. He didn't want to sell a "flawed" photo.

 

I asked whether it was visible in the print, since he was selling a print and not the file. If it wasn't, then what was the problem? He did not reply, but another respondent did, informing me that it was an ethical and artistic issue because the photographer knew the noise was there even if it wasn't visible.

 

Since then I tend to cross to the other side of the street when someone starts on about "invisible noise".

[michael_dimarzio]

How times change, it wasn't long ago that "noise" was usually associated with a Contax G2 AF thread.

[michaelchristensen]

I don't see noise in film, only digital .. I see grain in film. The two things look very different to me.

[terry_rory]

<p>Ilford HP5 'noise' aplenty in the sky...<p>

 

<a href=" title="Avebury by Trevor Hare, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3239/2676313167_98d242c770_o.jpg" width="550" height="824" alt="Avebury" /></a>

[terry_rory]

<p>More HP5 noise (look at the window frames). I am not bothered though. On a print it is grain. From a Nikon Coolscan I guess it is 'noise'......</p>

 

<a href=" title="Avebury by Trevor Hare, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3278/2676628495_04e08ca91a_o.jpg" width="950" height="631" alt="Avebury" /></a>

[wogears]

Nice shots. Love standing stones.

 

I do sometimes appreciate the ultra-low noise of digital, though. On some images, it really helps.