View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
tikkathree
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 755 Location: Lovely Suffolk in Great Britain
Expire: 2012-12-28
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:40 am Post subject: Do YOU ever add noise to your images? |
|
|
tikkathree wrote:
Well I must confess that removing noise is part of my post processing.
I've just upgraded to Elements 9 from an earlier version (why? long story involving new laptop and elements disks missing, probably 200 miles away with my son!), and found this "add noise" facility.
Well I had this photo I was editing and decided to see. Here's the result. If I thought it really exciting I'd offer you a before and after comparison. My first thoughts are that it looks too even, quite artificial, but I'm going to see if it grows on me.
_________________ I used to think digital was fun but then I discovered film, then I found old lenses and then, eventually I found rangefinders.
EOS 5DII, loadsalenses
Canon G9 IR conv,
MF: TLR, 645 and folders
35mm: Oly OM Pro bodies 1, 2, 3 and 4; Soviet RF kit |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1888 Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
I have on occasion.
The thing about noise is that it is generally not considered a desirable characteristic, yet it greatly influences the perception of resolution. If you go too far with the noise reduction, then you smooth away those tiny details, and our eyes get bored. Likewise, if you keep the noise, there are enough small nuances that the eyes "think" that there is more to the image than they can see, and the image is more engaging.
For me, I have used this understanding with good success when printing images to larger sizes. If you have an image (or a crop of an image) with limited resolution, but you want to print it bigger than the conventions would say is recommended, then you can upscale the image (to several times its original size) and then add a fine layer of artificial pixel-level noise. When printed, this gives the same perception of increased capture resolution, even though the actual "detail" of the image hasn't changed.
It doesn't work miracles, and it has its limits... but it makes for a good experiment. _________________ Sigma DP1, Nikon D40 (hers ), Polaroid x530, Pentax P30t, Pentax P50, (P30t/P50 K-A to Nikon F body mount conversion)
Nikon: 18-55/3.5-5.6 "G ED II DX" (F) Soligor: 28/2.8 (FL->F converted), 135/3.5 (F), 3x TC (F, modified) Kalimar: 28-85/3.5 (F)
Vivitar: 70-210/2.8-4.0 Version 3 (F), Tele 500/6.3 Preset (F), 19/3.8 (F) Minolta: 300/5.6 (SR/MC/MD pending F conversion)
Tamron: 28/2.8 (Adaptall) Panagor: 28/2.5 (FD) Aetna: 300/5.6 (F) Osawa: MC 28/2.8 (F)
Vintage Lenses: Dallmeyer: 1940s A.M. 14in 356mm f4 (ULF->M42) 1930s Adon Telephoto Taylor, Taylor & Hobson: 1880s Rapid Rectilinear 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 11.31in f/8 (LF->?)
Parts Lenses: Nikon 35-135/3.5-4.5 (F), Sigma 70-210/4.5 (F), Nikon 50/1.8 Series E (F) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
I sometimes do with SilverEfex Pro or some other film simulation software. _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hexi
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 Posts: 1631 Location: France
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hexi wrote:
I use Silver efex and i leave noise as is : ) i mean the D700 shows a "slight" amount of noise @ 6400 NR being off.
I think that new developments in dslr system will go in unexpected and unseen iso levels with time. When comparing the 6400 of the Nikon, it's like 1600 iso on the 5D. _________________ Happy owner and user of :
SLR's > Contax Aria - RX
DSLR > Canon 5D
Lenses : C/Y Planar 1.4/50 - Distagon 2.8/35 - Planar 1.4/85
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sonnar85 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I just try to remove noise _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Geoff C. Bassett
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 Posts: 157 Location: Chatham, MA
Expire: 2012-06-18
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Geoff C. Bassett wrote:
I use to truly hate noise in my images. But now I think it adds texture and personality. Black & Whites especially I almost never turn on noise reduction, as I think on Nikon systems I use it is close to the look of film grain. Canon noise however is ugly as sin, especially on the 5D. _________________ Opticlust.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008 Posts: 6950 Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
Canon v Nikon again. _________________ Casual attendance these days |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Never, m4/3 4/3 were enough noisy _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kram
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1344 Location: Portland, OR
|
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kram wrote:
I used to push 3M 1000 ISO transparency film two ore three stops. Beautiful noise, I mean grain.
I think adding noise has it's place although I rarely do it. When I do, it's usually to evoke that film look of yore.
Deborah Turbeville, Rebecca Blake, Sarah Moon and David Hamilton made careers out of it. It can be quite beautiful. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Grain and noise are two completely different shoes!
I like to add grain, especially in B/W conversions but NOISE? *wurks* _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Quote: |
Do YOU ever add noise to your images? |
If by noise you mean "digital grain" and by images you mean "photos": never. Why should I inflict that punishment on my photos?
But I used artificial noise in graphic work, when I needed it. For instance I used it for texture maps for 3D models. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arkku
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 1416 Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Arkku wrote:
Before the days of automatic retouch tools, one classic way to remove blemishes and such was to blur the area strongly to obscure the detail. However, blurring also had the effect of “removing” the noise and any real texture in that area (e.g., skin), so the fix was to add noise to that area in order to make it match the noisy and/or textured surroundings. Works pretty well, actually, although these days so many better ways are available that there is little point in doing it.
Other than that, I don't think I've ever added noise with a specific “add noise” command, but I have done B&W conversions in ways that do have the effect of making the existing noise more prominent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|