A little history about grain

[mauro_franic]

<p>This is 35mm TMAX 400 pushed one stop.</p>

<p>http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Nature-Ot/4811519_F9MBv#506169428_zjsRU-O-LB</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>"<em>The bigger problem with noise is that, when it is visible, it is not attractive. It is like a badly tuned TV." (Mauro Franic)</em><br>

Mauro, the point of this post is to challenge that idea. Noise in some <strong>higher iso</strong> digital images can be carefully processed such as in a raw conversion to be visible as "texture" in a print and not appear unattractive. It is obviously not the same thing as grain in film, but the print can have a pleasing texture, not unlike some types of film grain. Not all noise is equal! At 400 and lower iso even the D80 has negligible noise/texture at print sizes under 11x14. This post is about the rumors going around about all high iso digital images being ugly.</p>

<p> </p>

[igor_jarm]

<p>Dale, digital noise is not like hiss, it's actually photon noise. Only in the lowest tonal values it is due to signal gain and enhancement circuitry.<br>

D.B., you can't get around noise in high ISOs, today's sensors are actually good enough to actually count the photons collected at each sensor's pixel. At night there are just,... well not that many photons :) If you have 10 photons here and 15 there, what can you do about it?<br>

See http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.photons.and.qe/index.html</p>

[dan_stegal]

<p>Something tells me that Steve posted mother and daughter pictures.</p>

<p>Mother in her early teens and daughter that's what? 10?</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Dan, a very creative idea, but there is no relationship between the two girls in my examples. Sorry :>(</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p><em>Therein lies your problem. People have moved on. Expectations are relative to contemporary peers' work, not what was done in 1969. </em></p>

<p>Speak for yourself.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>Noise forms at a pixel level. Data also is contained at same the pixel level. They are bound together with no physical separation. It is also random at the pixel level and does not have an independent structure.</p>

<p>There is detail within grain though , same as there is when you carve a message in the sand. They are not fully dependent.</p>

<p>Practically, one can hide noise by adding a grain-like texture. But this is no different than applying a watercolor effect in photoshop. It has no relation with the original image. It sits on-top of the noise.</p>

<p>Can you please share an example of carefully processed noise that appears attractive like the ones I posted from grain (i.e. 21 megapixel sample of 35mm at 100%)?</p>

<p> </p>

[mjferron]

<p>In the first examples I prefer the Tri-x to the D80. I also second the motion on pixel peeping. Don't do it. A while back I compared a D200 file and a 35mm plus-x scan of the same scene at 100%. The plus-x looked bad in comparison but printed 8x10 the plus-x was every bit as sharp and related or not I liked films tone and texture better. For what it's worth.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Mauro, I don't have a 21 megapixel camera, so I can't duplicate your scan of a 35mm neg at 21 mp. Upsizing a D80's 10 mp image would not be the same thing. I did provide at the top of this post an example of a 10 mp color image shot at 3200 iso. My point of this post is to show that a <strong>high iso</strong> <strong>digital image</strong> printed at a native size (at 300 ppi) or 8.5 x 13 inches for 10 mp, can result in an attractive print with some texture and not an unattractive amount of "noise." At lower iso's such as 200 or 400 iso the D80 doesn't show much noise, so that is not the issue. I am sure you can make a nice print using t-max pushed to 3200 and printed at 9x13 as well. Will it look much different from my D80 print at that size?</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>In my earlier years, right after college, I worked in broadcast television for a number of years. At that time the vast majority of programs were still in black and white and television receivers were crude, at best. Edge enhancement or 'contouring' as it was commonly called in those days, was used by broadcasters much the same way and manner in which sharpening is used today to increase the apparent detail of digital files. Edge contrast added a sense of additional detail and along with that was a ever so slight injection of electronically generated granular noise. The belief being that a very slight sense of graininess, not to be confused with the noise of a weak or 'snowy' signal, added to the perception of sharpness. So grain, noise, whatever, is not always a bad thing.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Michael, I've shot and developed a lot of Plus-X over the years. I used to buy both Tri-X and Plus-X in 100 foot rolls. It's great stuff. Slightly finger grained than Tri-X. The tonality of both films is wonderful and a challenge for digital to match. <strong>Check out my 70's folder: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=405901.</strong> <br>

The point of this post, however, is about <strong>high iso digital images </strong> (1600 iso or above) being very printable in color and black and white with careful post processing and kept at native (not upsized) print sizes.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Charles, yes. The late Barry Thornton in is book about black and white (film) photography talks about acutance: "Acutance is the contrast of the edges between distinct tones in the print, and this becomes critical in the edges of fine detail. . . you can see that the sharper looking picture, picture 4, has visible grain, while the corner of picture 5 <em>(same image)</em> is grainless." (p 23-24, <em>The Edge of Darkness</em> , 2001 Amphoto Books, NY,) Thus "acutance" accentuated by "grain" gives the eye the impression of more sharpness. <br>

In digital images too often sharpening is done too aggressively, and the pixels become distorted, making the image unattractive and unnatural looking. Thus, a careful balance much be achieved to match the sharpening of the image to the print size so that pixels are not visibly distorted in the print. When this is done the image looks more "film like" as well, with the pixel noise more evenly distributed and providing a "texture" more like film grain.</p>

[david_klaffenbach]

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>I'm impressed with your record-keeping - that you know what lens you used for a shot taken 40 years ago!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm impressed with your record-keeping - that you know what lens you used for a shot taken 40 years ago!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Doesn't surprise me. Up until the 1990s I never had more than three lenses for any camera system. I tended to keep the same camera and lens(es) for 10 years or so.</p>

[zweeko]

<p>funny how the 1969 shot has depth in its rendering, and three-dimensionality - while the 2007 one looks flat, lifeless, amd wishy-washy. people have indeed 'moved on' - lol!</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Steve, If you look at the images you posted, they are a good example of how noise corrupts an image vs grain is just a feature of the canvas used to capture the image. </p>

<p>You Trix example is gorgeous. The D80, on the other hand is not - even the pupils no longer look black.</p>

<p>In my humble opinion, digital noise must be avoided on a print (which is not hard to do in most situations considering how good digital cameras are).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I am closing this disucssion. First of all, it has little to do with Nikon specifically. Initially the OP was comparing ISO 400 B&W film grain from 1969 vs. ISO 3200 color noise from a now slightly out-of-date D80. Not that it is the OP's fault, but that is a hard-to-quantify apples vs. oranges comparison to begin with. Whatever useful comparison and discussion should have already been covered in the last day and half.</p>

<p>And of course the thread drifts into the usual useless film vs. digital debate and other off-topic discussion about the subjects and technique.</p>