About six years ago I took two pictures of my grandson who was three at the time. It was after dark and lit by a campfire. When I got the pictures off the card and viewed them on the computer I was dissapointed with the mess I had to work with. Ì had boosted the iso way beyond what that camera could cope with so there was not only noise but banding and mushed out contrast. Yet there was something about both pictures that captured the happiness and excitement of a three year old along with the mood and atmosphere of the moment . So I squeezed something out of the shots and printed them. Of all the thousands of pictures I have taken of that boy they are amoung the few his Mom has requested a print of noise and all.
Totally agree. I get so caught up with having an image with lower ISO that I have missed great shots. I’ve slowed down my shutter and gotten blurred images. Or I leave my aperture wide open and risked getting out of focus group shots. Watching this video has literally liberated me and eased my mind about it. Thanks
The cats are happier unplugged, but they do not mind jazz settings. For the first time this morning I pumped up iso. Kripes, pushing Tri X in the day to even 800 resulted in course grain and less dynamic range. Developers like Accufine, made big promises. We all lived in these limitations, which where cutting edge. I will play more with iso s above 400. Nothing to complain about! Chris
I felt like this, when i wen't to photography school. I totally understand clean images needed from studio shoot if your client asked for high resolution high quality retouched magnificent piece of fake plastic skin. And I too was afraid of noise for quite some while. Then i got lazy and stopped carrying anything but a camera and a lens. Man these shots I've taken without any hassle of other equipment really made me shoot more and improve my eye. And ISO is not an issue at all, just is what it is. You live with it, embrace it and love it. Atleast I do love some grain or noise in my images.
Don´t necessarily mind noise. I do mind color noise. Makes the photos look cheaper, and like something taken by someone who just got their first camera.
Yeah that's the one. Photoshop has useful sliders to play around and find desired result. Often black and white noise is in most pictures after removing color noise
Yes and that's the thing, you don't normally get color noise unless the exposure is wrong or the sensor is hot from a long exposure without using a black frame equivalent noise reduction feature. Noise reduction being a different form as opposed to the noise filter.
@@ChocoLater1 Same in lightroom, just process the images and you can select luminance noise, color noise, and add contrast and other factors when needed
@@kango13766 Yes, for sharper images, no lowpass filtering (which noise reduction is) is a good option. But I was talking about the colours. Say you have a gradient in your picture (a face, a sunset, shades in the fur of the cat), and you pump up your ISO, then the gradient vanishes. This is a normal effect, if you increase sensitivity in your sensor, you loose specificity.
@@kango13766 Depends on the brand of camera. In the case of Olympus Auto Noise Reduction is a setting that only engages for long exposures after several seconds of open shutter, you want that to be left on Auto as it is the black frame compensation which removes color noise. Noise filtering is then a completely different setting and I agree can for the most part be turned off.
Great video, James. I am new to photography and have found it interesting how many people say that the goal should always be to shoot at 100 ISO. I have a full frame Sony A7III and can't tell you how many shots I have screwed up, trying to live by this rule. Once I started allowing myself to use ISO, my photography game has improved dramatically. Like you, I sometimes think a little noise is a welcome addition. I have also found that performing local noise reduction when editing in those times when I pushed it too far provides a better result than global noise reduction. Thanks for all of the content you produce. Cheers!
I think this notion emerged in the early days of digital photography. My first DSLR was the Canon EOS D30 which I bought in 2001. A whopping 3 Mpixels in an APC sensor format. It was the first “prosumer” level DSLR, even though that term hadn’t been invented yet. It was also hideously expensive, around the equivalent of $3,000-$4,000 for the body I believe. Anyway, it produced okay images (amazing for the time) at up to ISO 400. ISO 800 was usable in a pinch, pressing it up to 1600 or 3200 (can’t even remember if it went that high) was really mostly pointless unless you just *had* to get that low light shot. So in that scenario, noise was definitely an issue and could easily be a showstopper. With modern sensors and image processors which really does an absolutely remarkable job of reducing noise, it is rarely to never a problem at all, in my opinion. I just think people learned early on that noise ruined their images, and have stuck to that idea ever since, and also taught later generations of photographers that same now flawed notion. Which is kind of pathetic, really.
Absolutely agree. Art (photography included) should evoke a reaction from the viewer. All of the sharpness in the world will not create a piece of art out of an uninteresting image.
I love how you always focus on the fact that photography is an art and that it's ok to value different styles/practices whether it's the trendy thing to do or not. Keep up the inspiration and teaching man. We really appreciate it!
Finally!!!! Someone says it. I feel exactly the same. Micro 4/3 works wonderfully for me because of my climbing and mountaineering since weight and size make about 90% of my requirements. I couldn't care less about the noise.
For me it is how the noise looks. I really hated the noise on my D7000 even at low levels. Pictures turned out a bit stripey and with 'colourful' noise even in well exposed photos. On other hand I really don't mind the noise on D750. The grain/noise looks pleasant and not too harsh on darker spots. So I'd say it really depends on the camera because noise can look very different!
Janis Ukass Yes, different cameras show noise... differently. It affects some camera more than others, as the iso value is not used consistently across brands and makes.
Janis Ukass I totally agree. In general I don't mind noise, but my D3000 gets so incredibly bad starting with ISO400 that it more seems to be a daguerreotype than a photograph and so I don't shoot in low light, unless I have a steady ground to put my camera on.
Yes, I agree! I think people have been taught to obsess about noise and as a result miss shots because they are simply afraid of noise. I teach workshops and I tell people, STOP worrying about noise. Push the ISO to whatever level you feel is needed to make sure you get the shot if shutter speed is an issue. If shutter speed isn't an issue, then decide what you want in your image in terms of noise. Great video topic.
I shoot wildlife and the one thing I don't want is a blurred shot (unless it's intentional...). Because the lighting conditions are rarely perfect I've had to accept using higher ISO and the noise that comes along with a higher ISO. A noisy photo with strong subject and good composition is better than a blurred photo with an exceptional subject and good composition.
Better option is to use manual mode with auto ISO. The camera meter keeps minimizing ISO as per lighting conditions. Adjust the other two parameters as per requirement.
@@PaulBawby we can't do anything about high iso. If you decrease shutter speed, you get motion blur, again you can't open up the lens aperture much. So it's better to get the noise rather than bad blurred photo. Then remove the noise using dxo optics pro. It's best in its class.
@@strixxx896 huh, where in my comment does it say that composition and meaning are not important and that high ISO and blurriness are the only things that matter? 🤔
_Don't ever change your sense of humor_ 😂!! & thank you for this, sometimes I get caught up in the "noise = bad quality" trap. I encourage landscape photogs to start shooting wildlife &/or shooting from a helicopter, that's what made me loosen up abt it bc it's UNAVOIDABLE. You have to bump the ISO to get the shots. It is what it is.
Im so glad that you agree that noise isn't alway bad. One of my most favorite photos that ive ever taken is quite noisy, and has as a touch of chromatic abberation and to me that just highlights the "realism" of the moment I was trying to capture.
I shoot on vintage glass a lot - I found that just using the color noise reduction (not luminance noise) on the image in Lightroom gives me my favorite outcome, almost reminiscent of film grain.
I used to worry so much about noise that I was always struggling to keep the ISO low and underexposing to get a somewhat usable shutter speed. I ended up with blurry photos with increased noise from the lifted shadow. Now I just go up to ISO6400 on my MFT and I am absolutely pleased with the result.
I also think cameras have different qualities of noise. But you are bang on with the book analogy. If the composition and story is good it won’t matter if there is some noise. The finer the noise the more it feels like grain.
James, James: you are turning into quite the RUclips photography iconoclast! I mean that in the best possible way. I asked my wife if she noticed noise in my photographs (I have a G9...), and she asked, “What’s that?” Pointing out a small amount of noise will illicit a, “So, what?” from my friends. You are absolutely spot-on with your point of, “if you still like it at ISO 6400.” Keep it up: these are points someone needs to make, but they will fall of deaf ears for those who are compelled to pre-order the next generation camera because it has more pixels and less noise...
I'm totally happy with the noise performance of my Lumix G6, G81 and GX80 cameras up to 3200 ISO for most subjects and even up to 6400 for some others. The grain on film stocks at 800 and 1600ISO were far more disturbing imho, but nobody ever complained in the same way as they do about digital, and M43 in particular. My wife and I have just returned from a three week road trip around Europe, and I spent yesterday editing my RAW files, which left me wondering whether the majority of people who malign M43 as a format have ever actually taken any pictures using it, or ever processed any RAW images from it. Very enjoyable video as always.
Great analogy about the book and the pic. I think it's all about how you feel about yourself when you captured the moment. I feel all photography is great no matter how you compose it but there's a few people out there that feel photography is only for a select few. Keep up your very refreshing commentaries so that people like myself can keep experimenting with new compositions. Thanks greatly appreciated.
I think many of the current obsessions photographers have are far overrated to be honest. Noise is certainly one of them, especially in landscape photography. Anything above ISO 100 is a blasphemy. Another on is the obsession with front to back, corner to corner sharpness. It all seems to “clinical” to me, focusing too much on the technical aspect and quite frequently forgeting about the artistic and emotional impact of the image. Just my opinion, might be wrong...
No, I agree completely. These people are why the term “pixel peeper” was invented. If you regularly look at your photos at the level of individual pixels then there is surely something wrong with you... 😊
Also, Bokeh. We only spent about the last 100 years or so trying everything to get rid of it with view camera movements and stopping down, only for it to come roaring back as a backlash fad in reaction to smartphone cameras and consumer compacts. For most of the history of photography, having a blurry background in your photo meant you were a bad/sloppy photographer, not a good one! (As a large format film landscape photographer I am reminded constantly of this fact.)
I really don't mind noise. We done a poll only yesterday on this subject on my Photography group, and most people just didn't like it for no real reason other than they think it looks horrible. I think noise and grain adds character!
Totally agree. Have my fuji xt1 on auto Iso 200 to 6400 all the time bcs i simply dont care about the noise. Some shots i took it actually complemented my picture.
Most people don’t think for themselves but just regurgitate what they read or hear. E.g. Sony cameras have awful ergonomics and menu systems. Do they, have you lived with one. Fuji cameras have terrible battery life, Do they? Smaller sensors have awful dynamic range Do they? It goes on and on, parroting the same old crud. Just use what you have got and learn to take great compositions. Everybody seems to be semi-pro. Doubtful! I could go on like this for ages. Love your channel James , you just talk sense and back it up with great results. Keep it up.
im kind of agree, at least for me, as a wedding photographer, when i print books or spare photos, most of them are small size, so, noise is not a big deal, cause most people won´t see it cause the print size like 20x30, 10x15 or book 30x30 with several photos per page, so, the noise grain is so small that you cannot see it, makes no sense to worry about, but, is you print big you will see it, and in some cases i doesn´t matter at all
Thank you James. I would point out that this is an old argument. In the 1970's nobody said grain was good. The serious photographers said 35mm film cameras were too small to print larger than 4x5 inches because there was too much grain. We had gear heads back then as well.
Trying and get noise with Fuji X-Trans sensors is almost impossible! My old X100s pictures at 6400 ISO look crisp and blacks are dark and delicious. I think they got some magic alongside superb engineering onto those sensors...
@@DavidSdeLis they do sometimes have noise, but it actually looks amazing anyway! I've had some with high iso in purple sunsets settings but almost none for candles in the dark type of image with a lot of contrast :) Even when there is, it's quite a lovely noise anyway
@@DavidSdeLis The fujifilms are aps-c sensor cameras, and thus will preform different to MFT, the idea is to learn to work with what you have, and find what's acceptable to you. As it's been stated before, content is king.
I used to hate noise on my first digital camera (Nikon D70S) stopped caring on the second (D700) and now induce it on purpouse with the Fujifilm X-T1 sometimes haha
I didn't get past ISO200 for years because of that "noisophobia" you described. At one point I thought to myself "what's really gonna happen?" and went to the 800+ range with my Sony A6000 and honestly it's not nearly as bad as I thought plus noise removers like Dfine2 do a great job at delivering very crisp images for those who need that. Most pics end up on 1080x1080 Instagram anyways.
I have noticed that noise is considerably more apparent on a computer screen compared to a quality print on paper or metal. This leads me to care less about noise than I might otherwise. For me, the most important end product of my pictures is a physical print. Also, as a wildlife photographer, subject blur ruins a shot much easier than increased noise from using a faster shutter speed.
Hmmm, it's so good you bring out this now as the dark season is coming. Think I'll rise my iso this autumn. So happy to skip the tripod while walking in the snow and cold!
Definition of a James Popsys video...Take the "G" from Grain and you get Rain..add Noise and you get the noise of rain...Always enjoy your videos and the answer is just personal preference... regarding noise in photography. Thank you for the upload as usual.
I'm always very keen to make up my own mind about stuff, e.g. Noise in photos and to that end i have tried to ignore the overwhelming quantity of content that says "avoid noise". I work with an incredibly tight budget...,well almost no budget in fact and so my kit is 80% pre-loved and /or low spec therefore noise can be present in a lot of my shots and I have been reluctant to up my iso; However I recently took pictures at a family party, indoors, with a Sigma 70-300 lens at 70- about 130mm, no flash, Apsc sensor Canon dslr and even the 1600 iso shots are acceptable with some sharpening and noise reduction. I think its important to keep an open mind and remember that most photgraphs, viewed from a couple of feet away and taken as a whole, the noise present will not be distracting, might not be visible or might even improve the image especially in black and white. Thanks James Del.
I'm definitely of the group that believes noise is bad because I've been told it is. By RUclips by the way ;) never really thought about it but just assumed. So thanks for this video man. They're always entertaining and useful. Love it. Thanks again.
Coming from a film background I am quite used to grain. I now use a digital camera (Lumix G80) and I am now quite used to seeing some noise in my photos. It doesn't bother me in the slightest so I am in agreement with you James. Great video as usual, thank you for sharing.
Your analogy about the story and photography have completely changed my prospective. I have honestly gotten hung up on this subject to the point I haven’t touch my camera in 3 mounts. I use a g85 and to make matters worse I’m a constant cropper. I’ll take a picture of something and get home and decide I like it better if I crop down to this or somebody walked into frame so I need to adjust etc. As you imagine this makes the noise issue worse. Thank you for this though I think I just need to get better at the art and mechanics of photography and the noise issue will sort itself out. I also enjoy the jokes, they are great!
Agreed... I find the younger landscape photographers who have only been shooting for 4-5 years are completely obsessed with noise, but those who’s been shooting for a while... maybe started out in film, are completely ok with noise. Image quality have nothing to do with noise... there are amazing photographs out there noise AF! shoot something meaningful... that makes a great photo....
Great video! Your ‘ask yourself if you still would like your photo if it would have been taken at ISO 6400’ is similar to ‘you should recognise a good photo in the Instagram timeline view’. The later holds even true for pictures meant to been seen at gallery size (Ansel Adams’ landscape photographs) or Bruce Gilden’s Leica S colour work meant to be printed out human life size or larger. Shooting film (again) and digital stills as well as digital video too - 180 degree shutter rule/meant to be not a clinical sharp single frame to look good in a video - helped me a lot to better understand sharpens, grain, noise etc. Except for technical, reproduction and some very high end to be professionally retouched advertising work (still the domain of PhaseOne and Hasselblad) noise doesn’t matter most of the times at all. It is basically, like the boring overemphasis of sharpness, resolution and bokeh (🤢) more a trick of the usual social influencers and gear marketers here on RUclips to make you click their affiliate links and buy stuff you do not need. Thank you again for the video!
Great opinion. Modern camers can go to really high ISOs without (m)any visible noise. Even if there is some noise, it doesn’t have to ruin the image. I’ve seen good photos being rejected from stock website because some fool thought it had too much noise (which I disagreed).
In general I try to avoid or minimize noise, but I can see it serving some artistic purposes. Just like so many things, personal preference plays a part. Composition is in my view the most important aspect a great photo. If the story is there, all the rest takes a back seat.
You're fast becoming the king of the analogy. Another great one about the story and the book. I would say only photographers worry about noise, and only because it has been drummed into them.
I heard someone describe the pathological avoidance of noise as an obsession with 'perfect pixel hygiene'. I won't actually add noise or grain to an image, as there is no point IMO. But if noise is a natural consequence of the exposure, then it's fine. Here's a tip for those who use RAW converters: it helps to get rid of the chrominance noise, or most of it, while leaving the luminance noise alone. Chrominance noise is not pretty! I use DxO but I'm pretty sure most converters separate the two types of noise as well. As to why people like grain but don't like noise, I think you're right as to why. Another reason is that the expectation for digital cameras is different. There is some kind of assumption that 'digital' means 'pure'. That's nonsense, but you can't blame the average person for thinking like that.
funny how this topic is so hot and sensitive in photography while in music industry we spend millions developping software that emulate every single electronic componement and failure and imperfection of rudymentary and sometimes broken devices that are old as heck just so we can get some of that goodie ole timy dirty sound, because clean and perfect music just sounds sterile ! I have the same philosophy with photography. Not that i'm a lofi junkie/hipster, i just don't find absolute perfection appeiling. Good grain makes pictures often look more natural, only if you don't shoot canon at night, maybe if you like your noise all red and purple ...
I recently saw a photo in crested butte, CO art gallery, dark roadside shot of a bend in a river in the mountains on a foggy night with a dim street lights and a lot of noise (not grain) and the noise enhanced the look of the fog, and masked details leading to an amazing, creepy, suspense filled photo.
Oh man! This is the 2nd time you put in better words my thoughts! I'll use yours next time I try to explain this concept to someone (the story and the book). I think we are too focused on the "tech quality" of an image and we forget the importance of telling something with it... Good video as always
Well said, James. I personally think that noise can be an artistic flair that can be used to help further the story that the photographer is trying to convey. However I think in certain situations (such as scenes that demand a ton of clarity) noise can be highly annoying.
Agree whole heartly about cameras, it's a personal choice. I have my 1st camera 80d which i tend to use for wildlife with 150-600mm, whilst I'm shooting landscapes or long exposures with the a7r3. Comfort wise 80d feels better in the hand, but when out walking and just snapping i prefer the sony. Have been looking at micro 4 3rds cameras for travelling abroad mainly because of size, though e mount lenses are starting to be produced nice and light weight. As for noise.....i think it depends on the type of picture. A crisp clear wintery day with ice, snow, a lake reflecting the sky imo needs to have little to no noise. In a woodland or dusk setting sometimes it adds to the picture much like grain in a black white picture. I was asked to shoot my cousins evening wedding party with band and disco. I was asked by a guest why i wasn't using the flash. My answer was to show them. With flash just looked like people stood in a well lit room. The next whilst quite dark had all the various lights shown, whilst quite noisey as i was shooting at 3200 iso, it just looked more atmospheric. Ps just bought the camera clip you recommended. Brilliant device especially when out walking and not wanting to draw attention to camera by having it on my sling harness.
Good topic, in general I agree with you. This idea pushed by some (I'm thinking of one famous YT channel) that image quality is defined by noise is silly, sure it can contribute, but often it's just a product of the difference in sensor performance which gives pundits something to talk about. One area where I don't like noise is in blue skies where blotchy patches of ugly noise can be distracting. I find dynamic subjects are far more tolerant of noise than static ones. One thing that gets mixed in the topic is how the image turns out as a print. You may be able to see the noise at 100% on your monitor but is it there on paper? Probably not. Sensors are so good these days in comparison to 35 mm film that the image quality is way ahead of what used to be accepted as the norm. I think we can lose our way in the relative comparison of ever improving technology. Y
At the start of your video I thought "OMG he 'likes' noise, I abhor noise! " But at the end of your video I realized you're spot on! In some of my (few) good / beautiful photos the noise is clearly present, but the photo is too good to throw away or to do nothing with. So yes, you are right, noise does not necessarily have to be a disturbing factor of a photo! Thank you for this eye-opener, I suspect that I will now look at my photos in a different way, and perhaps I now see more beautiful things than before ;-)
I totally agree. I very rarely remove noise. I remove color noise, and leave the grain. And my customers seem to love it. I never find trading in details for less noise is the way to go. And I much rather have the noise. At least up to ISO12800 or so.
Brilliant as always. Noise? I don’t like it that much in digital, butI love the noise when I shoot film. And I also love the sharpness of some films, such as the adox cms20.
I like this video, I was actually looking for video why I had noise in some photos and how I could do better while shooting wildlife and nature in low light situations but I love what you said and I'll take this into consideration so Thank you
Totally agree, the shot is what counts. That said with any new camera take test shots when you first get it, use its entire iso range and find what’s acceptable to you. Know that for example iso6400 is your upper limit, if your hitting that and not getting the shot change your aperture or shutter speed. Master that exposure triangle. End of the day if you’re happy with your pictures then who cares what pixel peepers and noise snobs say.
Great talk and I mostly agree that noise problem is overrated, but it'd help to have some examples of large photos where noise doesn't matter. At a relatively small youtube resolution, the noise just isn't visible, but in large prints or large full-screen displays it might become a significant factor. You're saying it's ok to have noise in large prints but it'd be great to see the examples. Also with the digital noise, it's looks ok in general *if* it's the luminosity noise. Digital colour noise is awful and should be reduced (also digitally).
good topic for people to consider... used to be more pronounced than in current cameras, so it's effect has receded to a degree. I grew up shooting 4x5 and 35 at the same time...zone system etc... there, the grain in 35 could just kill your image in many cases... digitally, not so much. We played a lot of games to keep grain effect down with temps/developers. I'd say the big electronic negatives are actual blown pixels, uncorrected dust bunnies on sensor and noise only if it degraded edges that ought to be tight, but not generally if it doesn't overpower the image in general. If people practiced shooting to the right, they'd lift their shadows enough in the process that by the time they toned them down in post via curves/levels - they'd reduce it anyway. Generally don't like the added grain from LR, doesn't feel quite right to me. TL;DR - mostly non-issue except in the most egregious cases or hard requirement to have none for image quality reasons... skip that sandwich, if you're not dead yet.
If, to get the picture you want, you have to raise the iso, then so be it. I’ve been into the vulcano (Iceland, near Rijkjavik) where you get into the cone. And without an iso of 6400 I couldn’t get a decent picture. I’m sooo glad I raised that iso, and therefore that noise.
As an old wood camper and new amateur wildlife photographer, I would suggest a mouse pad for your outdoor sitting problems. You might already have one or two mouse pads you got for free as advertisment lying around, as I did. These basic mouse pads are made of around 5mm thick polyurethane(?) foam with an harder plastic for the upper surface. I place the plastic surface (mouse side), waterproof, tougher and easier to wash (and more slippery) on the thing I sit on. It's not only much more confortable but it's also a much welcome insulation in cold weather (good also under the feet). It's also useful, among other things, for kneeling or as a kind of makeshift matt / table (things tend to roll easily on the hard surface, not on the bare foam). It's very easy to carry in any bag or just in your clothes, just don't forget it when you get up :)
Absolutely abit of noise isn't worth not taking the image if its a moment that matters, especially if it's kept under 30x30cm noise often turns to detail if its processed right & good videos man, not sure i learn anything from you but i relate to the topics alot & your uncoordinatedness is a good laugh, keep up the good work dude
As a few other commenters have said, I don't mind luminance noise, but color noise is bad to me. Not that I won't shoot at higher ISOs, just that I'll do noise reduction. I've delivered tons of wedding reception/dance photos at ISO6400 and never once has a bride or groom complained about it. I'd rather keep the intimate feel of a candle-lit reception than to overpower it with flash, even if that means a bit of noise.
I think the problem may stem from the fact that a lot of noise is defiantly bad. This leads to people wanting to reduce noise which is carried to extremes. A small amount of noise makes little or no difference to the quality of a photo, but once people get in their head that noise is bad they carry it beyond the point it is significant. This can lead to fear of small increase in ISO and to over emphasis on sensor size.
Like all of this sort of topic you like to talk about it depends on the situation and photographic intentions. If I’m shooting a concert I want as little noise as possible on the main subjects. I want the subject to be sharp and clear. In some images noise in the shadows doesn’t matter at all. But if the main subject is noisy forget that image. I’m probably not making sense to any one else but I know what I mean and what I need in an image I’m gonna sell...
Noise as it relates to photography from DSLR, its acceptable, however in video its bad. In video its too much of a moving distraction. Good Morning and what a awesome background you are in! RockOn!
I've just started playing about with black & white photography and honestly I think the pictures look better with a bit of noise. Cranking the ISO up to 25600 is surprisingly usable but does make the noise obviously digital. Around 3200-6400 it looks a lot like grain and adds to the aesthetic. Colour images don't hold up as well under these extreme ISOs (on a 4 year old micro four thirds camera at least) but I've found myself pushing the camera a lot higher than conventional wisdom around noise levels. I definitely agree with the sentiment that if the story is good enough you won't care it was shot at a 6400 ISO as I have several images like that myself. If I could magically get rid of the noise in those photos I would though as I do think lower ISOs look objectively better, but it's only ever going to make a great image perfect and never make a terrible image great.
Honestly I like noise. It simulates that grain naturally in for me. I own a Fuji X-T2 and I challenge myself alot by shooting in JPEG only with the inbuilt Film simulations just so I can recreate the old days. Like this at least I try to capture that moment as best as I can. Some shots with high ISO's of even 12800 are simply unbelievable. Just go for what you like or try to emulate.
Back in the day photographers on film hated grain apart from the greats who used it in their art. Noise for me should be embraced as the digital art in ones images
I've always heard that by having low ISO you avoid the most 'noise' which generally makes the image as good as it can be, but I'm also not averse to having auto iso just to get the shot to avoid the bluriness you mentioned in the video, but you made a good point, I haven't yet had the awareness that to get the shot I choose noise or higher iso, it's usually been because of some settings that are automatic that I've gotten to that stage, so still learning I guess, and when I'm learning I'll generally go with the flow on the general point of discussion as I don't yet know what's right for me or the shot at the time unfortunately.
Interesting discussion. I like your book analogy, but here's the thing...given a CHOICE, I think most people would choose to pick up the clean book to read rather than the grungy book. And that's the thing about noise...not sure if people think it's "bad" necessarily, but I do think that given a CHOICE, most people would try to avoid it. I've never experienced a situation, or heard of someone else who's been in a situation where they have a composition they are photographing, and then say to themselves, Hey, I think I'll jack up the ISO...it should really improve this image... As you said, ISO is what drives noise, and to me a higher ISO is driven by the decision one makes about the shutter speed and aperture...it's a consequence. As you alluded to in your video, a sharp image with noise is (or should be) universally preferred over a blurry image (unless having blur was an intentional creative decision of course).
its better to take a noisy picture instead of not taking one at all. one of my best photos ever is quite the noisy mess but i so much liked the composition of a split clouded sky with really dark clouds on top, light from middle all the way down and a single pigeon sitting on an antenna in the corner which makes the sky feel huge and vast even though it was just shot outside my bedroom in a big city with lots of rooftops i avoided somehow. its my desktop background and i just love it.
Noise is over criticized in todays market.I think its a stigma carried over from early digital camera days. Todays cameras all produced amazing image quality and as you stated, if your critique of a photo is based on the noise, it isn’t a very good photograph. In film days many great photos were pushed hard producing very grainy photos that were still stunning. I’ve learned to embrace the grain and concentrate on getting the photo, not worrying about using high ISO and noise.
I recently upgraded from aps-c to full frame purely for the low light performance but shooting at night is my favourite thing to do. I'm happy, the A7iii looks great at iso 6400.
I think you're spot on, photos are subject to the artists descretion and I think we need to bring back the creativeness and stop trying to "meet standards"
To twist the words of the great Henri Cartier-Bresson, noise is a bourgeois concept. If like me, you go back to using film, then you'd recall revering the noise/grain of Tri-X (still do...) and even the clamour for the final rolls of GAF slide film, the grainy colour equivalent of Tri-X. So I have absolutely no problem with using my Lumix G9 or GX9 at 6400iso, or even 12800iso, if the noise suits or maybe enhances, the subject. Other times I'd be actively choosing a lower iso setting for a smoother image, exactly as I would back in film days, or with any digital camera, regardless of sensor size.
I do love the signal and less so the noise, which seems to me to be a natural sentiment. When the signal is weak the noise becomes noticeable, this is a fact of life and hence noise is a fact of life. Doesn’t make noise my dear buddy though. I do agree, however, with the observation that one can easily be overly obsessed with noise and it is well to be reminded to focus on the signal as long as it sticks out at all of the noise.
In sports, its about capturing the action above noise. I've talked to quite a few people, and taken a few pics myself, and to capture action in fields and stadiums, you HAVE to get the shutter speed up.
I’ve been shooting on Micro Four Thirds since 2009, while at the beginning I too was scared of noise, with time, I overcome the habit of shying away from high ISO usage and just use what I need when I need. What bothers me more is having to pull up shadows as it gives worse results then shooting at higher ISO.
I think this depends on what sensor you use. On my fujis it seems pulling up shadows gets me better results than bumping iso 🤷♂️. On a foveon sensor this is 10x truer.
I used to be afraid to raise the ISO, until another photographer said to me "don't be afraid of the ISO". I often shoot at 6400, especially when it comes to indoor sports. I shoot on a Nikon D700 (yes, I know, ancient), but I get better results than many photographers with newer gear. :)
I decided a while back that since I enjoy taking photos at night (alongside all the other times of the day), that I didn't quite care as much about noise, and instead focused on getting what I could, doubly so since I do not own a tripod, mostly because I've never purchased one. I found this is where swapping from the G85's stock lens to a 25mm f1.7 helped immensely, especially with the camera's focusing. Other areas though, I can see where noise is an issue, like deep sky astrophotography. Even there though, there are several techniques you can use to minimize noise such as drizzle and stacking, and you're dealing with really REALLY faint amounts of light, so you're fighting an uphill battle to get as much signal as you can in the first place. Terrestrial photography typically isn't like that.
I feel your pain re the food situation. All I had available for lunch was yoghurt. No dodgy sandwiches found as a back-up. *stares mournfully at clock*
I don't mind noise. I loved the grain in my B/W images from Tri-X film, it showed the nature of the material I worked with - just like the grainy noise now from digital. Great books analogy!
Color noise is quite unpleasant but other than that digital noise is not as bad as we are made to believe. Totally agree with you on that one (and many other topics as well to be honest).
About six years ago I took two pictures of my grandson who was three at the time. It was after dark and lit by a campfire. When I got the pictures off the card and viewed them on the computer I was dissapointed with the mess I had to work with. Ì had boosted the iso way beyond what that camera could cope with so there was not only noise but banding and mushed out contrast. Yet there was something about both pictures that captured the happiness and excitement of a three year old along with the mood and atmosphere of the moment . So I squeezed something out of the shots and printed them. Of all the thousands of pictures I have taken of that boy they are amoung the few his Mom has requested a print of noise and all.
Chuck Moser The photos that receive the best comments for me are the ones for content. Content is #1
"If You see image imperfections like noise, chromatic aberration etc. instead of seeing the story I failed as a photographer" - James Popsys
Wojtek W he makes a point lol
I agree, but tell that to the Alamy, lol :)
I do not mind image noise, if my eyes see the reason why noise is there, such as low light. Chromatic aberration I do mind.
Totally agree. I get so caught up with having an image with lower ISO that I have missed great shots. I’ve slowed down my shutter and gotten blurred images. Or I leave my aperture wide open and risked getting out of focus group shots. Watching this video has literally liberated me and eased my mind about it. Thanks
At first I was so confused because the ect. Then the point after the ect it just... wow. Anyway I get it now
So, my conclusion is: add grain, to mask noise
Midi Play Box preach! 😂🙌🏽
Gaussian blur FTW!
Dunno what all this fuss over noise is....I've put my ear right up against my camera and I can't hear a thing 😋😉
old autofocus motored lenses have a lot of noise ;)
dunnymonster 🤣🤪
@@toddysurcharge771 Modern one is still noisy. Canon's niffyfifty is.
Noise is when my Telecaster falls over, the amp feeds back and the cats climb the curtains.
I guess it is out of rhythm grain. Chris
The cats are happier unplugged, but they do not mind jazz settings.
For the first time this morning I pumped up iso.
Kripes, pushing Tri X in the day to even 800 resulted in course grain and less dynamic range.
Developers like Accufine, made big promises. We all lived in these limitations, which where cutting edge.
I will play more with iso s above 400.
Nothing to complain about! Chris
I agree. If it's a choice between noise and getting the shot, getting the shot wins every time.
Totally agree here, after shooting birds I've come to that realization.
Agree with that. I really get tired of the pixel peepers 😂
Agree.
I concur
Yeah, if you press the button then maybe you can do some magic later.
I felt like this, when i wen't to photography school. I totally understand clean images needed from studio shoot if your client asked for high resolution high quality retouched magnificent piece of fake plastic skin.
And I too was afraid of noise for quite some while. Then i got lazy and stopped carrying anything but a camera and a lens. Man these shots I've taken without any hassle of other equipment really made me shoot more and improve my eye. And ISO is not an issue at all, just is what it is. You live with it, embrace it and love it. Atleast I do love some grain or noise in my images.
Don´t necessarily mind noise. I do mind color noise. Makes the photos look cheaper, and like something taken by someone who just got their first camera.
Yeah that's the one. Photoshop has useful sliders to play around and find desired result. Often black and white noise is in most pictures after removing color noise
Hans jørgen Hjemdal color noise is such a pain in the ass too lol
Yes and that's the thing, you don't normally get color noise unless the exposure is wrong or the sensor is hot from a long exposure without using a black frame equivalent noise reduction feature. Noise reduction being a different form as opposed to the noise filter.
I can definitely agree with this, also really annoying when color grading
@@ChocoLater1 Same in lightroom, just process the images and you can select luminance noise, color noise, and add contrast and other factors when needed
I think the noise is less of an issue with higher ISO than the loss of contrast.
Totally agree.
Keeping auto noise reduction off is the greatest suggestion I had, in order for a sharper image.
This is very true!
@@kango13766 Yes, for sharper images, no lowpass filtering (which noise reduction is) is a good option. But I was talking about the colours. Say you have a gradient in your picture (a face, a sunset, shades in the fur of the cat), and you pump up your ISO, then the gradient vanishes. This is a normal effect, if you increase sensitivity in your sensor, you loose specificity.
@@kango13766 Depends on the brand of camera. In the case of Olympus Auto Noise Reduction is a setting that only engages for long exposures after several seconds of open shutter, you want that to be left on Auto as it is the black frame compensation which removes color noise. Noise filtering is then a completely different setting and I agree can for the most part be turned off.
Great video, James. I am new to photography and have found it interesting how many people say that the goal should always be to shoot at 100 ISO. I have a full frame Sony A7III and can't tell you how many shots I have screwed up, trying to live by this rule. Once I started allowing myself to use ISO, my photography game has improved dramatically. Like you, I sometimes think a little noise is a welcome addition. I have also found that performing local noise reduction when editing in those times when I pushed it too far provides a better result than global noise reduction. Thanks for all of the content you produce. Cheers!
I think this notion emerged in the early days of digital photography. My first DSLR was the Canon EOS D30 which I bought in 2001. A whopping 3 Mpixels in an APC sensor format. It was the first “prosumer” level DSLR, even though that term hadn’t been invented yet. It was also hideously expensive, around the equivalent of $3,000-$4,000 for the body I believe. Anyway, it produced okay images (amazing for the time) at up to ISO 400. ISO 800 was usable in a pinch, pressing it up to 1600 or 3200 (can’t even remember if it went that high) was really mostly pointless unless you just *had* to get that low light shot.
So in that scenario, noise was definitely an issue and could easily be a showstopper. With modern sensors and image processors which really does an absolutely remarkable job of reducing noise, it is rarely to never a problem at all, in my opinion.
I just think people learned early on that noise ruined their images, and have stuck to that idea ever since, and also taught later generations of photographers that same now flawed notion. Which is kind of pathetic, really.
Absolutely agree. Art (photography included) should evoke a reaction from the viewer. All of the sharpness in the world will not create a piece of art out of an uninteresting image.
Preach bill!
I love how you always focus on the fact that photography is an art and that it's ok to value different styles/practices whether it's the trendy thing to do or not. Keep up the inspiration and teaching man. We really appreciate it!
That sandwich looks okay. Just unwrap it before eating.
Touché lol
😂
I do not mind noise, I mind the loss of quality and dynamic range that comes as a result of high ISO photos.
Love your no-nonsense fresh takes on photography concepts.
Finally!!!! Someone says it. I feel exactly the same. Micro 4/3 works wonderfully for me because of my climbing and mountaineering since weight and size make about 90% of my requirements. I couldn't care less about the noise.
For me it is how the noise looks.
I really hated the noise on my D7000 even at low levels. Pictures turned out a bit stripey and with 'colourful' noise even in well exposed photos.
On other hand I really don't mind the noise on D750. The grain/noise looks pleasant and not too harsh on darker spots.
So I'd say it really depends on the camera because noise can look very different!
Janis Ukass Yes, different cameras show noise... differently. It affects some camera more than others, as the iso value is not used consistently across brands and makes.
There is always color noise from every single camera ever made.
Janis Ukass I totally agree. In general I don't mind noise, but my D3000 gets so incredibly bad starting with ISO400 that it more seems to be a daguerreotype than a photograph and so I don't shoot in low light, unless I have a steady ground to put my camera on.
I actually like noise. Although, truth be told, i can't afford a decent enough camera that can handle it well!
Yes, I agree! I think people have been taught to obsess about noise and as a result miss shots because they are simply afraid of noise. I teach workshops and I tell people, STOP worrying about noise. Push the ISO to whatever level you feel is needed to make sure you get the shot if shutter speed is an issue. If shutter speed isn't an issue, then decide what you want in your image in terms of noise. Great video topic.
I shoot wildlife and the one thing I don't want is a blurred shot (unless it's intentional...).
Because the lighting conditions are rarely perfect I've had to accept using higher ISO and the noise that comes along with a higher ISO.
A noisy photo with strong subject and good composition is better than a blurred photo with an exceptional subject and good composition.
Better option is to use manual mode with auto ISO. The camera meter keeps minimizing ISO as per lighting conditions. Adjust the other two parameters as per requirement.
@@Dave_en I agree, that's how I proceed, but this means that the ISO can be high at times 👍
@@PaulBawby we can't do anything about high iso. If you decrease shutter speed, you get motion blur, again you can't open up the lens aperture much. So it's better to get the noise rather than bad blurred photo.
Then remove the noise using dxo optics pro. It's best in its class.
So u are comparing noise and blurines... It would be better to compare the composition and the meaning..
@@strixxx896 huh, where in my comment does it say that composition and meaning are not important and that high ISO and blurriness are the only things that matter? 🤔
_Don't ever change your sense of humor_ 😂!!
& thank you for this, sometimes I get caught up in the "noise = bad quality" trap. I encourage landscape photogs to start shooting wildlife &/or shooting from a helicopter, that's what made me loosen up abt it bc it's UNAVOIDABLE. You have to bump the ISO to get the shots. It is what it is.
Im so glad that you agree that noise isn't alway bad. One of my most favorite photos that ive ever taken is quite noisy, and has as a touch of chromatic abberation and to me that just highlights the "realism" of the moment I was trying to capture.
I shoot on vintage glass a lot - I found that just using the color noise reduction (not luminance noise) on the image in Lightroom gives me my favorite outcome, almost reminiscent of film grain.
I used to worry so much about noise that I was always struggling to keep the ISO low and underexposing to get a somewhat usable shutter speed. I ended up with blurry photos with increased noise from the lifted shadow. Now I just go up to ISO6400 on my MFT and I am absolutely pleased with the result.
I also think cameras have different qualities of noise. But you are bang on with the book analogy. If the composition and story is good it won’t matter if there is some noise.
The finer the noise the more it feels like grain.
Jesse I think they do too!
James, James: you are turning into quite the RUclips photography iconoclast! I mean that in the best possible way. I asked my wife if she noticed noise in my photographs (I have a G9...), and she asked, “What’s that?” Pointing out a small amount of noise will illicit a, “So, what?” from my friends. You are absolutely spot-on with your point of, “if you still like it at ISO 6400.” Keep it up: these are points someone needs to make, but they will fall of deaf ears for those who are compelled to pre-order the next generation camera because it has more pixels and less noise...
😂Thank you sir!
I'm totally happy with the noise performance of my Lumix G6, G81 and GX80 cameras up to 3200 ISO for most subjects and even up to 6400 for some others. The grain on film stocks at 800 and 1600ISO were far more disturbing imho, but nobody ever complained in the same way as they do about digital, and M43 in particular. My wife and I have just returned from a three week road trip around Europe, and I spent yesterday editing my RAW files, which left me wondering whether the majority of people who malign M43 as a format have ever actually taken any pictures using it, or ever processed any RAW images from it. Very enjoyable video as always.
Your book analogy is absolutely spot on James (thats some Sean Tucker stuff right there!) . Its all about the story . Very well said .
Great analogy about the book and the pic. I think it's all about how you feel about yourself when you captured the moment. I feel all photography is great no matter how you compose it but there's a few people out there that feel photography is only for a select few. Keep up your very refreshing commentaries so that people like myself can keep experimenting with new compositions. Thanks greatly appreciated.
I think many of the current obsessions photographers have are far overrated to be honest. Noise is certainly one of them, especially in landscape photography. Anything above ISO 100 is a blasphemy. Another on is the obsession with front to back, corner to corner sharpness. It all seems to “clinical” to me, focusing too much on the technical aspect and quite frequently forgeting about the artistic and emotional impact of the image. Just my opinion, might be wrong...
No, I agree completely. These people are why the term “pixel peeper” was invented. If you regularly look at your photos at the level of individual pixels then there is surely something wrong with you... 😊
I would agree with that for sure.
Lol
Thank you and well said!
Also, Bokeh. We only spent about the last 100 years or so trying everything to get rid of it with view camera movements and stopping down, only for it to come roaring back as a backlash fad in reaction to smartphone cameras and consumer compacts. For most of the history of photography, having a blurry background in your photo meant you were a bad/sloppy photographer, not a good one! (As a large format film landscape photographer I am reminded constantly of this fact.)
I really don't mind noise. We done a poll only yesterday on this subject on my Photography group, and most people just didn't like it for no real reason other than they think it looks horrible. I think noise and grain adds character!
It's not so much the noise at high ISO's with a smaller sensor camera....it's the loss of color fidelity and contrast.
Totally agree. Have my fuji xt1 on auto Iso 200 to 6400 all the time bcs i simply dont care about the noise. Some shots i took it actually complemented my picture.
Most people don’t think for themselves but just regurgitate what they read or hear. E.g. Sony cameras have awful ergonomics and menu systems. Do they, have you lived with one. Fuji cameras have terrible battery life, Do they? Smaller sensors have awful dynamic range Do they? It goes on and on, parroting the same old crud. Just use what you have got and learn to take great compositions. Everybody seems to be semi-pro. Doubtful! I could go on like this for ages. Love your channel James , you just talk sense and back it up with great results. Keep it up.
im kind of agree, at least for me, as a wedding photographer, when i print books or spare photos, most of them are small size, so, noise is not a big deal, cause most people won´t see it cause the print size like 20x30, 10x15 or book 30x30 with several photos per page, so, the noise grain is so small that you cannot see it, makes no sense to worry about, but, is you print big you will see it, and in some cases i doesn´t matter at all
Thank you James. I would point out that this is an old argument. In the 1970's nobody said grain was good. The serious photographers said 35mm film cameras were too small to print larger than 4x5 inches because there was too much grain. We had gear heads back then as well.
You should try Fujifilm "noise" then, some of my favorite pics I've taken with an XPro2 are ISO 12.800 and it looks more like grain and I love it
Trying and get noise with Fuji X-Trans sensors is almost impossible! My old X100s pictures at 6400 ISO look crisp and blacks are dark and delicious. I think they got some magic alongside superb engineering onto those sensors...
@@DavidSdeLis they do sometimes have noise, but it actually looks amazing anyway! I've had some with high iso in purple sunsets settings but almost none for candles in the dark type of image with a lot of contrast :)
Even when there is, it's quite a lovely noise anyway
@@DavidSdeLis The fujifilms are aps-c sensor cameras, and thus will preform different to MFT, the idea is to learn to work with what you have, and find what's acceptable to you. As it's been stated before, content is king.
I used to hate noise on my first digital camera (Nikon D70S) stopped caring on the second (D700) and now induce it on purpouse with the Fujifilm X-T1 sometimes haha
I didn't get past ISO200 for years because of that "noisophobia" you described. At one point I thought to myself "what's really gonna happen?" and went to the 800+ range with my Sony A6000 and honestly it's not nearly as bad as I thought plus noise removers like Dfine2 do a great job at delivering very crisp images for those who need that. Most pics end up on 1080x1080 Instagram anyways.
I have noticed that noise is considerably more apparent on a computer screen compared to a quality print on paper or metal. This leads me to care less about noise than I might otherwise. For me, the most important end product of my pictures is a physical print. Also, as a wildlife photographer, subject blur ruins a shot much easier than increased noise from using a faster shutter speed.
Hmmm, it's so good you bring out this now as the dark season is coming. Think I'll rise my iso this autumn. So happy to skip the tripod while walking in the snow and cold!
Definition of a James Popsys video...Take the "G" from Grain and you get Rain..add Noise and you get the noise of rain...Always enjoy your videos and the answer is just personal preference... regarding noise in photography. Thank you for the upload as usual.
I'm always very keen to make up my own mind about stuff, e.g. Noise in photos and to that end i have tried to ignore the overwhelming quantity of content that says "avoid noise". I work with an incredibly tight budget...,well almost no budget in fact and so my kit is 80% pre-loved and /or low spec therefore noise can be present in a lot of my shots and I have been reluctant to up my iso; However I recently took pictures at a family party, indoors, with a Sigma 70-300 lens at 70- about 130mm, no flash, Apsc sensor Canon dslr and even the 1600 iso shots are acceptable with some sharpening and noise reduction. I think its important to keep an open mind and remember that most photgraphs, viewed from a couple of feet away and taken as a whole, the noise present will not be distracting, might not be visible or might even improve the image especially in black and white. Thanks James Del.
I'm definitely of the group that believes noise is bad because I've been told it is. By RUclips by the way ;) never really thought about it but just assumed. So thanks for this video man. They're always entertaining and useful. Love it. Thanks again.
Watched this photo and I’m hooked. Love your delivery and your work. Cheers from Kentucky!
Thanks so much :)
Coming from a film background I am quite used to grain. I now use a digital camera (Lumix G80) and I am now quite used to seeing some noise in my photos. It doesn't bother me in the slightest so I am in agreement with you James. Great video as usual, thank you for sharing.
James. You are a gift to us all. Thank you.
Your analogy about the story and photography have completely changed my prospective. I have honestly gotten hung up on this subject to the point I haven’t touch my camera in 3 mounts. I use a g85 and to make matters worse I’m a constant cropper. I’ll take a picture of something and get home and decide I like it better if I crop down to this or somebody walked into frame so I need to adjust etc. As you imagine this makes the noise issue worse. Thank you for this though I think I just need to get better at the art and mechanics of photography and the noise issue will sort itself out. I also enjoy the jokes, they are great!
Agreed... I find the younger landscape photographers who have only been shooting for 4-5 years are completely obsessed with noise, but those who’s been shooting for a while... maybe started out in film, are completely ok with noise. Image quality have nothing to do with noise... there are amazing photographs out there noise AF!
shoot something meaningful... that makes a great photo....
Great video! Your ‘ask yourself if you still would like your photo if it would have been taken at ISO 6400’ is similar to ‘you should recognise a good photo in the Instagram timeline view’. The later holds even true for pictures meant to been seen at gallery size (Ansel Adams’ landscape photographs) or Bruce Gilden’s Leica S colour work meant to be printed out human life size or larger. Shooting film (again) and digital stills as well as digital video too - 180 degree shutter rule/meant to be not a clinical sharp single frame to look good in a video - helped me a lot to better understand sharpens, grain, noise etc. Except for technical, reproduction and some very high end to be professionally retouched advertising work (still the domain of PhaseOne and Hasselblad) noise doesn’t matter most of the times at all. It is basically, like the boring overemphasis of sharpness, resolution and bokeh (🤢) more a trick of the usual social influencers and gear marketers here on RUclips to make you click their affiliate links and buy stuff you do not need. Thank you again for the video!
Great opinion. Modern camers can go to really high ISOs without (m)any visible noise. Even if there is some noise, it doesn’t have to ruin the image. I’ve seen good photos being rejected from stock website because some fool thought it had too much noise (which I disagreed).
In general I try to avoid or minimize noise, but I can see it serving some artistic purposes. Just like so many things, personal preference plays a part. Composition is in my view the most important aspect a great photo. If the story is there, all the rest takes a back seat.
You're fast becoming the king of the analogy. Another great one about the story and the book. I would say only photographers worry about noise, and only because it has been drummed into them.
I heard someone describe the pathological avoidance of noise as an obsession with 'perfect pixel hygiene'. I won't actually add noise or grain to an image, as there is no point IMO. But if noise is a natural consequence of the exposure, then it's fine.
Here's a tip for those who use RAW converters: it helps to get rid of the chrominance noise, or most of it, while leaving the luminance noise alone. Chrominance noise is not pretty! I use DxO but I'm pretty sure most converters separate the two types of noise as well.
As to why people like grain but don't like noise, I think you're right as to why. Another reason is that the expectation for digital cameras is different. There is some kind of assumption that 'digital' means 'pure'. That's nonsense, but you can't blame the average person for thinking like that.
funny how this topic is so hot and sensitive in photography while in music industry we spend millions developping software that emulate every single electronic componement and failure and imperfection of rudymentary and sometimes broken devices that are old as heck just so we can get some of that goodie ole timy dirty sound, because clean and perfect music just sounds sterile !
I have the same philosophy with photography.
Not that i'm a lofi junkie/hipster, i just don't find absolute perfection appeiling. Good grain makes pictures often look more natural, only if you don't shoot canon at night, maybe if you like your noise all red and purple ...
I recently saw a photo in crested butte, CO art gallery, dark roadside shot of a bend in a river in the mountains on a foggy night with a dim street lights and a lot of noise (not grain) and the noise enhanced the look of the fog, and masked details leading to an amazing, creepy, suspense filled photo.
Oh man! This is the 2nd time you put in better words my thoughts! I'll use yours next time I try to explain this concept to someone (the story and the book). I think we are too focused on the "tech quality" of an image and we forget the importance of telling something with it... Good video as always
Well said, James. I personally think that noise can be an artistic flair that can be used to help further the story that the photographer is trying to convey. However I think in certain situations (such as scenes that demand a ton of clarity) noise can be highly annoying.
Agree whole heartly about cameras, it's a personal choice. I have my 1st camera 80d which i tend to use for wildlife with 150-600mm, whilst I'm shooting landscapes or long exposures with the a7r3. Comfort wise 80d feels better in the hand, but when out walking and just snapping i prefer the sony. Have been looking at micro 4 3rds cameras for travelling abroad mainly because of size, though e mount lenses are starting to be produced nice and light weight.
As for noise.....i think it depends on the type of picture. A crisp clear wintery day with ice, snow, a lake reflecting the sky imo needs to have little to no noise. In a woodland or dusk setting sometimes it adds to the picture much like grain in a black white picture. I was asked to shoot my cousins evening wedding party with band and disco. I was asked by a guest why i wasn't using the flash. My answer was to show them. With flash just looked like people stood in a well lit room. The next whilst quite dark had all the various lights shown, whilst quite noisey as i was shooting at 3200 iso, it just looked more atmospheric.
Ps just bought the camera clip you recommended. Brilliant device especially when out walking and not wanting to draw attention to camera by having it on my sling harness.
Good topic, in general I agree with you. This idea pushed by some (I'm thinking of one famous YT channel) that image quality is defined by noise is silly, sure it can contribute, but often it's just a product of the difference in sensor performance which gives pundits something to talk about. One area where I don't like noise is in blue skies where blotchy patches of ugly noise can be distracting. I find dynamic subjects are far more tolerant of noise than static ones. One thing that gets mixed in the topic is how the image turns out as a print. You may be able to see the noise at 100% on your monitor but is it there on paper? Probably not. Sensors are so good these days in comparison to 35 mm film that the image quality is way ahead of what used to be accepted as the norm. I think we can lose our way in the relative comparison of ever improving technology. Y
Why is it that after viewing your weekly videos I have a big smile!!
That makes me smile too Roger :)
At the start of your video I thought "OMG he 'likes' noise, I abhor noise! " But at the end of your video I realized you're spot on!
In some of my (few) good / beautiful photos the noise is clearly present, but the photo is too good to throw away or to do nothing with. So yes, you are right, noise does not necessarily have to be a disturbing factor of a photo!
Thank you for this eye-opener, I suspect that I will now look at my photos in a different way, and perhaps I now see more beautiful things than before ;-)
I totally agree. I very rarely remove noise. I remove color noise, and leave the grain. And my customers seem to love it. I never find trading in details for less noise is the way to go. And I much rather have the noise. At least up to ISO12800 or so.
Brilliant as always. Noise? I don’t like it that much in digital, butI love the noise when I shoot film. And I also love the sharpness of some films, such as the adox cms20.
I like this video, I was actually looking for video why I had noise in some photos and how I could do better while shooting wildlife and nature in low light situations but I love what you said and I'll take this into consideration so Thank you
Totally agree, the shot is what counts. That said with any new camera take test shots when you first get it, use its entire iso range and find what’s acceptable to you. Know that for example iso6400 is your upper limit, if your hitting that and not getting the shot change your aperture or shutter speed. Master that exposure triangle. End of the day if you’re happy with your pictures then who cares what pixel peepers and noise snobs say.
I feel very much like a lot of people get too caught up in the technical aspects of images over the emotional aspects.
Great talk and I mostly agree that noise problem is overrated, but it'd help to have some examples of large photos where noise doesn't matter. At a relatively small youtube resolution, the noise just isn't visible, but in large prints or large full-screen displays it might become a significant factor. You're saying it's ok to have noise in large prints but it'd be great to see the examples.
Also with the digital noise, it's looks ok in general *if* it's the luminosity noise. Digital colour noise is awful and should be reduced (also digitally).
Noise, wtf. Look at the masterpieces of Richard Prince (Cowboy), by the way one of the most expensive photographs ever.
Such a reassuring chap. And that’s before I watch the video.
good topic for people to consider... used to be more pronounced than in current cameras, so it's effect has receded to a degree. I grew up shooting 4x5 and 35 at the same time...zone system etc... there, the grain in 35 could just kill your image in many cases... digitally, not so much. We played a lot of games to keep grain effect down with temps/developers. I'd say the big electronic negatives are actual blown pixels, uncorrected dust bunnies on sensor and noise only if it degraded edges that ought to be tight, but not generally if it doesn't overpower the image in general. If people practiced shooting to the right, they'd lift their shadows enough in the process that by the time they toned them down in post via curves/levels - they'd reduce it anyway. Generally don't like the added grain from LR, doesn't feel quite right to me. TL;DR - mostly non-issue except in the most egregious cases or hard requirement to have none for image quality reasons... skip that sandwich, if you're not dead yet.
If, to get the picture you want, you have to raise the iso, then so be it. I’ve been into the vulcano (Iceland, near Rijkjavik) where you get into the cone. And without an iso of 6400 I couldn’t get a decent picture. I’m sooo glad I raised that iso, and therefore that noise.
As an old wood camper and new amateur wildlife photographer, I would suggest a mouse pad for your outdoor sitting problems.
You might already have one or two mouse pads you got for free as advertisment lying around, as I did.
These basic mouse pads are made of around 5mm thick polyurethane(?) foam with an harder plastic for the upper surface.
I place the plastic surface (mouse side), waterproof, tougher and easier to wash (and more slippery) on the thing I sit on.
It's not only much more confortable but it's also a much welcome insulation in cold weather (good also under the feet).
It's also useful, among other things, for kneeling or as a kind of makeshift matt / table (things tend to roll easily on the hard surface, not on the bare foam).
It's very easy to carry in any bag or just in your clothes, just don't forget it when you get up :)
Absolutely abit of noise isn't worth not taking the image if its a moment that matters, especially if it's kept under 30x30cm noise often turns to detail if its processed right & good videos man, not sure i learn anything from you but i relate to the topics alot & your uncoordinatedness is a good laugh, keep up the good work dude
As a few other commenters have said, I don't mind luminance noise, but color noise is bad to me.
Not that I won't shoot at higher ISOs, just that I'll do noise reduction. I've delivered tons of wedding reception/dance photos at ISO6400 and never once has a bride or groom complained about it. I'd rather keep the intimate feel of a candle-lit reception than to overpower it with flash, even if that means a bit of noise.
I think the problem may stem from the fact that a lot of noise is defiantly bad. This leads to people wanting to reduce noise which is carried to extremes. A small amount of noise makes little or no difference to the quality of a photo, but once people get in their head that noise is bad they carry it beyond the point it is significant. This can lead to fear of small increase in ISO and to over emphasis on sensor size.
Like all of this sort of topic you like to talk about it depends on the situation and photographic intentions. If I’m shooting a concert I want as little noise as possible on the main subjects. I want the subject to be sharp and clear. In some images noise in the shadows doesn’t matter at all. But if the main subject is noisy forget that image. I’m probably not making sense to any one else but I know what I mean and what I need in an image I’m gonna sell...
Noise as it relates to photography from DSLR, its acceptable, however in video its bad. In video its too much of a moving distraction. Good Morning and what a awesome background you are in! RockOn!
I've just started playing about with black & white photography and honestly I think the pictures look better with a bit of noise. Cranking the ISO up to 25600 is surprisingly usable but does make the noise obviously digital. Around 3200-6400 it looks a lot like grain and adds to the aesthetic. Colour images don't hold up as well under these extreme ISOs (on a 4 year old micro four thirds camera at least) but I've found myself pushing the camera a lot higher than conventional wisdom around noise levels. I definitely agree with the sentiment that if the story is good enough you won't care it was shot at a 6400 ISO as I have several images like that myself. If I could magically get rid of the noise in those photos I would though as I do think lower ISOs look objectively better, but it's only ever going to make a great image perfect and never make a terrible image great.
Honestly I like noise. It simulates that grain naturally in for me. I own a Fuji X-T2 and I challenge myself alot by shooting in JPEG only with the inbuilt Film simulations just so I can recreate the old days. Like this at least I try to capture that moment as best as I can. Some shots with high ISO's of even 12800 are simply unbelievable. Just go for what you like or try to emulate.
Back in the day photographers on film hated grain apart from the greats who used it in their art. Noise for me should be embraced as the digital art in ones images
Noise (and grain) are simply artifacts of pushing the limits of the medium. Embrace and love :)
I've always heard that by having low ISO you avoid the most 'noise' which generally makes the image as good as it can be, but I'm also not averse to having auto iso just to get the shot to avoid the bluriness you mentioned in the video, but you made a good point, I haven't yet had the awareness that to get the shot I choose noise or higher iso, it's usually been because of some settings that are automatic that I've gotten to that stage, so still learning I guess, and when I'm learning I'll generally go with the flow on the general point of discussion as I don't yet know what's right for me or the shot at the time unfortunately.
Interesting discussion. I like your book analogy, but here's the thing...given a CHOICE, I think most people would choose to pick up the clean book to read rather than the grungy book. And that's the thing about noise...not sure if people think it's "bad" necessarily, but I do think that given a CHOICE, most people would try to avoid it. I've never experienced a situation, or heard of someone else who's been in a situation where they have a composition they are photographing, and then say to themselves, Hey, I think I'll jack up the ISO...it should really improve this image... As you said, ISO is what drives noise, and to me a higher ISO is driven by the decision one makes about the shutter speed and aperture...it's a consequence. As you alluded to in your video, a sharp image with noise is (or should be) universally preferred over a blurry image (unless having blur was an intentional creative decision of course).
I think your totally right, just when it comes to prints, I still prefers when there’s no noise
its better to take a noisy picture instead of not taking one at all. one of my best photos ever is quite the noisy mess but i so much liked the composition of a split clouded sky with really dark clouds on top, light from middle all the way down and a single pigeon sitting on an antenna in the corner which makes the sky feel huge and vast even though it was just shot outside my bedroom in a big city with lots of rooftops i avoided somehow. its my desktop background and i just love it.
Noise is over criticized in todays market.I think its a stigma carried over from early digital camera days. Todays cameras all produced amazing image quality and as you stated, if your critique of a photo is based on the noise, it isn’t a very good photograph. In film days many great photos were pushed hard producing very grainy photos that were still stunning. I’ve learned to embrace the grain and concentrate on getting the photo, not worrying about using high ISO and noise.
I recently upgraded from aps-c to full frame purely for the low light performance but shooting at night is my favourite thing to do. I'm happy, the A7iii looks great at iso 6400.
I think you're spot on, photos are subject to the artists descretion and I think we need to bring back the creativeness and stop trying to "meet standards"
To twist the words of the great Henri Cartier-Bresson, noise is a bourgeois concept.
If like me, you go back to using film, then you'd recall revering the noise/grain of Tri-X (still do...) and even the clamour for the final rolls of GAF slide film, the grainy colour equivalent of Tri-X. So I have absolutely no problem with using my Lumix G9 or GX9 at 6400iso, or even 12800iso, if the noise suits or maybe enhances, the subject. Other times I'd be actively choosing a lower iso setting for a smoother image, exactly as I would back in film days, or with any digital camera, regardless of sensor size.
Hahah great video I love your reactions 😂
And excuse me but I like your jokes too
Olivia haha he always cracks me up 😂🙌🏽
I do love the signal and less so the noise, which seems to me to be a natural sentiment. When the signal is weak the noise becomes noticeable, this is a fact of life and hence noise is a fact of life. Doesn’t make noise my dear buddy though. I do agree, however, with the observation that one can easily be overly obsessed with noise and it is well to be reminded to focus on the signal as long as it sticks out at all of the noise.
Great episode, outstanding! More!!!!!!
In sports, its about capturing the action above noise. I've talked to quite a few people, and taken a few pics myself, and to capture action in fields and stadiums, you HAVE to get the shutter speed up.
I’ve been shooting on Micro Four Thirds since 2009, while at the beginning I too was scared of noise, with time, I overcome the habit of shying away from high ISO usage and just use what I need when I need. What bothers me more is having to pull up shadows as it gives worse results then shooting at higher ISO.
I think this depends on what sensor you use. On my fujis it seems pulling up shadows gets me better results than bumping iso 🤷♂️. On a foveon sensor this is 10x truer.
I used to be afraid to raise the ISO, until another photographer said to me "don't be afraid of the ISO". I often shoot at 6400, especially when it comes to indoor sports. I shoot on a Nikon D700 (yes, I know, ancient), but I get better results than many photographers with newer gear. :)
love the analogy of a story is still fantastic even on nasty paper, I agree a good capture/story is better than a perfect image of a bad capture.
I decided a while back that since I enjoy taking photos at night (alongside all the other times of the day), that I didn't quite care as much about noise, and instead focused on getting what I could, doubly so since I do not own a tripod, mostly because I've never purchased one. I found this is where swapping from the G85's stock lens to a 25mm f1.7 helped immensely, especially with the camera's focusing.
Other areas though, I can see where noise is an issue, like deep sky astrophotography. Even there though, there are several techniques you can use to minimize noise such as drizzle and stacking, and you're dealing with really REALLY faint amounts of light, so you're fighting an uphill battle to get as much signal as you can in the first place. Terrestrial photography typically isn't like that.
I feel your pain re the food situation. All I had available for lunch was yoghurt. No dodgy sandwiches found as a back-up. *stares mournfully at clock*
I don't mind noise. I loved the grain in my B/W images from Tri-X film, it showed the nature of the material I worked with - just like the grainy noise now from digital. Great books analogy!
Color noise is quite unpleasant but other than that digital noise is not as bad as we are made to believe. Totally agree with you on that one (and many other topics as well to be honest).