| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/15/2004 01:46:07 PM · #1 |
Here are a couple of experimental low light shots from the other night. I pushed the 10D to ISO 1600 hoping for output something like Kodak Recording film, but the noise was nothing like film grain. I was about to give up when I found a forum post on noise ninja. My goal was to clean up some digital noise and then reintroduce my version of grain. They are probably still too smooth, but I don't think low light digital is ever going to look or behave the same as low light film work.
 
|
|
|
|
10/15/2004 02:01:15 PM · #2 |
| You are right. The digital charecteristics are totally different. This is more like a new phenomena absent with film. |
|
|
|
10/15/2004 02:12:13 PM · #3 |
These look great, smooth, but great.
The thing is, grain was something present with film - it's not how the subject actually looked, but it's what film produced.
So, why do people insist on having grain? And why then, is digital noise so bad? If digital had come first, then film grain would be taboo.
See what I'm getting at? |
|
|
|
10/15/2004 02:15:57 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
These look great, smooth, but great.
The thing is, grain was something present with film - it's not how the subject actually looked, but it's what film produced.
So, why do people insist on having grain? And why then, is digital noise so bad? If digital had come first, then film grain would be taboo.
See what I'm getting at? |
I agree, I don't really understand the complete aversion to noise. I guess since it can be removed, most people think it must be removed.
I dunno... |
|
|
|
10/15/2004 02:21:50 PM · #5 |
I guess I don't really need the grain, it was just what I had visualized in my head based on my experinece with film.
The noise wasn't good, at least from my perspective. From my perspective, film grain had a smoothing or blending affect while color noise from digital sensors adds more of a cluttered affect.
I guess that's why I posted the experiment. Low light is different with digital, I'm just trying work my way through that transition and find a new low light aesthetic that suits my tastes.
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
These look great, smooth, but great.
The thing is, grain was something present with film - it's not how the subject actually looked, but it's what film produced.
So, why do people insist on having grain? And why then, is digital noise so bad? If digital had come first, then film grain would be taboo.
See what I'm getting at? |
Message edited by author 2004-10-15 14:22:56.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2004 02:25:27 PM · #6 |
I'm not adverse to noise... in fact, this is the first time I ever used noise reduction software. The initial result was not what I had visualized, so I was experimenting to see what the result could be.
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
These look great, smooth, but great.
The thing is, grain was something present with film - it's not how the subject actually looked, but it's what film produced.
So, why do people insist on having grain? And why then, is digital noise so bad? If digital had come first, then film grain would be taboo.
See what I'm getting at? |
I agree, I don't really understand the complete aversion to noise. I guess since it can be removed, most people think it must be removed.
I dunno... |
|
|
|
|
10/15/2004 02:38:33 PM · #7 |
I find them to be truly stunning. I envy your talent, and these are just superb IMHO. Very humble opinion! lol
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 05:26:13 PM EDT.
