Opinions on noise in photography?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiCommentScreenshotImage Width912Image Height746

I need it in my photos, I dont like sharp things.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON Z fCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 26.3 (Windows)Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern970Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width4032Image Height6048Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2025:02:06 11:02:08Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/1.4Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1092Image Height1092RenderingCustomExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypePortraitGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown

>>4404017 (OP)
Noise as an inherent flaw in a camera that forces the photographer be creative, work around the flaw and still take great pic regardless? Cool

Noise that is artificially added as an effect in an otherwise sharp image to add "character" or "charm" to mask one's lack of creativity? Not cool

>>4404038
So when like 90% of todays movies shot on digital have grain and other effects added in the color grading stage, thats not cool in your books?

>>4404040
Nope. You know they're using those effects like a cook using excessive condiments to mask their shit cooking

>>4404041
Okay then.

>>4404017 (OP)
looks like shit 90% of the time

>>4404042
Dat nigga is tarded brehbreh

Grain effects are cool
Film grain is cool because the image is literally made of it

Digital sensor noise is undesirable because digital sensors are monochrome devices that guess each pixels color based on whole groups of 4 (most) or 6 (fuji) squares, and noise fucks up the colors. The only people going for it are going for the noise of specific super shitty sensors to make their shitty photography appeal to a few other losers with fake nostalgia for old digitals they didn't actually grow up with, but wish they did.
>Zoomers be like: a nintendo 64 and a sony mavica, wow, retro, I totally feel longing for the good old days when my family would have had this if we were cooler. I mean think we would have. When did these come out agai-NEW TIKTOK NOTIFICATION POGGERS

>>4404038
Brush strokes as an inherent flaw in painting that forces the painter be creative, work around the flaw and still make a great painting regardless? Cool

Brush strokes that are purposefully added as an effect in an otherwise realistic painting to add "character" or "charm" to mask one's lack of creativity? Not cool

>>4404017 (OP)
>this phenotype literally drives white boys INSANE.

>>4404231
literally

it even made me a cuckold who films his asian fwb for onlyfans while she bangs other guys

>>4404017 (OP)
I like to add it in post. Dehancer does it quite tastefully.

>>4404017 (OP)
how do I get a gf like this? do I need to buy a Leica because I will

>>4404017 (OP)
i've come to terms with it. So what if there's noise. and if there's too much, you can definitely lessen it with software anyways

>>4404072
Boomers dislike film grain as well. They see it as flaw.

>>4404234
gayest shit I've ever read

>>4404109
>>4404038
brush strokes are always what makes a painting. fake grain is kind of gay and noise is always gay

>>4404017 (OP)
Noise in photo is like hair in pussy.
Its ok. But its takes time and experience to realize it.

>>4406586
noise is part of literally every image, why is it bad to add more?

>>4407090
its ugly and degrades the colors

>>4407260
>le ugly
useless term
>degrades color
meaningless concept, reducing saturation also is "degrading color"? lmao

>>4407279
the way digital sensors capture information noise degrades the tones. adding fake noise or fake grain or fake brush strokes is gay because its fake

>>4407304
Fake noise doeasnt degrade the tones like per-pixel noise because it is added AFTER the computer guestimates the pixels

>>4407414
and it looks gay and like shit because its fake

>>4404017 (OP)
It’s a tool. Its relevance depends on its use in a given context, but I have nothing against it and add it regularly in my work.

>>4407474
You speak like a teenager.

>>4404017 (OP)

it is good if you are requested to upscale then add some poisson with decent attenuation and random seed, if you look ufraw color smoothing will help you to reduce file size

>>4407474
>captures only a portion of light
>quantizes it
>applies algorithms to it
>applies debayering
digital images are fake, welcome to reality

>>4407604
Ironically that is way closer to how your eyeballs work than film is
eyeball:
red, green, blue, and white pixels
denoise, demosaicing, 24/7 pixel shift, and panorama stitching applied in the brain
front side illuminated so noisier than your camera

Some people actually have a neurological quirk where their brains don't denoise. They see flickering rainbow shit 24/7. Sometimes if you think really hard, you can see your sensors FSI hardware (blood vessels in front of the retina).

Meanwhile film
>captures only a portion of light
>each layer robs the next of something
>only see whatever colors fall within the range of the stacked dyes (have to use portra for white people and ektar for black people and furniture)
>every detail is made of clumps of salt
>you get to cope about hilarious "megapixel" figures by scanning the film so closely you can see the clumps of salt, even though in real life a 20x16 made with a 45mp digital camera looks less like grainy mush and has better tonality than a 20x16 made with 6x7 film

>>4407604

if you want you can dcraw digital imaging without any interpolations, then you notice is checkboard shit better interpolate it down like 2.2 and then there is grayscale image

>>4407590
you reddit space like a homo
>>4407604
and? adding fake noise or grain is gay and fake. same as shooting black and white on digtal

>>4407606
>ektar for black people and furniture
no wonder ektar is shit

>>4407606
>>4407666
wow, so edgy.

>>4407680
do you know where you are?

>>4404017 (OP)
It's the best photography. Noise is detail and texture. Without it, everything's unnaturally smooth and waxy. The grain is realistic, everyone sees a degree of it through their own eyes IRL.

>>4407680
Kodak unironically had to make film just for black people. It’s a limitation of film. Each formula can only see its own very narrow range of color, way narrower than the range digital cameras can see as long as there’s enough exposure. You can never accurately represent in range and out of range colors in the same shot. The black people werent just underexposed, the film didnt register dark browns well at all, even for product photographers working with furniture.
https://time.com/5871502/film-race-history/

With a digital camera I can shoot a photo of a basement dweller and the blackest nigga and both will display their natural skin tones with just a little less light on the pale one. Film could never do this without fucking up other colors in the process.

>>4404234
link?

>>4407793
Thank you for the explanation, anon.

>>4404017 (OP)
Just use the Quiet shooting mode

>>4404017 (OP)
1. don't do it on purpose unless you're retarded
2. don't worry about doing it unless you're a pussy

>>4408571
kek.

>>4404017 (OP)
The only time I've ever added noise is when upscaling low-res photos using Topaz. You need a little bit of grain in there to hide the artificial sharpness.

>>4404041
I agree. Artificial noise looks horrible. I can always tell its been added on and its distracting and annoying. Some natural noise is acceptable, but not too much.

>>4404347
Be white. Be presentable and socially above an awkward asian nerd.

>>4404231
Literally stiff as a board right now.

>>4409910
okay, what now?

i produce it

>>4404017 (OP)
https://youtu.be/zOTaz4S6QXo

>>4407680
You stupid fuck.

it's just a trend that started with photoshop

>>4404234
>it even made me a cuckold who films his asian fwb for onlyfans while she bangs other guys
seek God

I keep taking noise out until the background goes creamy, then back it off until I see the details in the subject, then I take the noise out until the background goes creamy again.

I find myself in this loop quite often.

>>4423588
cooming was a mistake.

>>4423603
Just embrace the noise and be done with it.

>>4423603
the newer snoy sensors have crop sensor tier noise because snoy is cutting costs and pulling profit out of R&D earlier

start with default NR and back it off to the point where detail gets unblurred. live with the grain. nothing can actually get rid of it other than a better camera or better light. if it looks too harsh, capture one has more film grain like noise rendering.

>>4423603
>+13 magenta tint to white balance properly in sunlight
>iso 1000 looks that bad
snoy

>>4404038
litteraly all my pictures until a few month ago, I fucking hate myself for that, don't even know why I did that in the first place

>>4423643
>Just embrace the noise and be done with it.
It really is that easy.

>>4423729
>Cream chrominance noise
>Leave luminance noise alone
>Stop oversharpening
>Noise is preferable to smeary shit
And finally the most important piece of advice ever released on this board:
>If you don't want noise, take the photo again in better lighting

>>4423668
It's from the sharp slider exaggerating it. >>4423733
Kek, sure, I'll ask the brid to come back and pose for me.

>>4423736
You're being a smartass, but in a roundabout way that's right.
If the noise is too much for you, you go back and try again another day to get a cleaner shot. But that's kind of the double edged part of the point; you gotta be prepared to live with some noise.

>>4423736
>It's from the sharpening slider
doubt it lol
this is a z7ii shot in aps-c mode at iso 1600, and then cropped a little more
90% jpeg even
it's less grainy and just as sharp
here it is not compressed for 4chan
https://files.catbox.moe/6b6mbh.jpg
ur camera broken lulz

>>4423788
>24-120
>-0.5ev
>mft crop
>looks the same as $4500 snoy kit
So this is the power of nikon

>>4423743
>>4423788
>doubt it lol
It's obvious you've never used photoshop. It's exactly the way I told you.

>>4423811
>Snoy + adobe
>le associated press choice! industry standard!
>looks worse than a micro four thirds sized crop of a z7ii with its kit lens at ISO 1600
The dude shoved a 24-120 in a sparrows face and somehow did better

wtf is going on? is snoy this bad?

It is a nice shot of a sparrow, but my noise looks better.

Where's your bird photo? huh? I don't seem to see one.

>>4423817
where is the fine detail

starting to think those g master lenses aren't all that masterful bros

>>4423820
You do realize GM has an M in it, right? Where are your photos? Do you even take them?

>>4423828
m for mediocre? according to the exif on this jpeg i downloaded it's going head to head with the zoom amazon bundles with that camera, wide open, at a higher ISO

wow i am so not getting a sony

"Noise and grain aren't the same thing" has to be one of the biggest midwit takes.

>>4424719
thing is that the grain from digital is nasty wereas the film one is pleasing if you break them down to a microscopical level

>>4404017 (OP)
I have a deep desire to shoot ropes all over her face and her hair

>>4407664
what's wrong with shooting b&w on digital?

>>4424935
>b&w on digital?
Pretentious imitation of 1950s photography

>>4425012
i'm not sure about that
digital, at least to me, seems just a cost effective alternative
and shooting black and white doesn't necessarily mean you're imitating 1950s photography does it?
and i mean daido moriyama shoots in b&w on his digital camera

>>4425012
>being obsessed with "authenticity"
an entire generation (or three) has been psyopped by late stage capitalism turning fucking everything into a luxury brand

>but is that an AUTHENTIC black and white photograph?
>shoot authentic
>i just found out this photo I like wasn't shot on an authentic brand name antique camera so it's bad now
>#authentic
>you need the real one or everyone will know you're fucking poor #youarewhatyousignal #buythedrops
>if you shoot black and white but don't have an M monochrom, life didn't go as planned #shootauthentic
The worst part is this extends beyond hipsterisms and into digislugging
>photographer huh? but you don't know canon is the best now?
>where's your mirrorless #gamechanger #4k120uncropped #opengate
>etc etc etc
Hundreds of thousands of people are engaged with an online subculture where it is normal and expected to spend about $2000-3000 on a fucking digital camera. Because that's just what you do. Mind boggling.

>>4425012
my digital camera only takes black and white

>>4425381
I've heard of these, which model is it? It doesn't have a filter over the sensor, right?

>>4425840
its a leica monochrom. and the "filter" thing - even fujis dont have it.

>>4425840
M10-M

>>4425840
>4425840
aside from the leicas mentioned already, pentax also decided to get wacky and make a monochrome dslr for whatever salaryman hallucination induced reason.

>>4426197
Unironically if I could buy something like this, but you know, for a non-retarded amount of money, I would. A B&W only camera with a sensor designed around it to eliminate bayer bullshit? An APS-C version would make me happy, but the target audience doesn't exist even for the K-3III-M.

noise in photography is good.

>>4404017 (OP)
Isn't it somehow linguistically contradictory that there is noise in photographs?

100% crops
the "grain" options from some of the presets I've gathered
none really look like film grain at all

>>4426314
That second to the left on the top row looks pretty actually.

it never looks right. film is made of grain. digital grain overlays are just overlays. the way detail is rendered is completely different and digital will always look digital.

in the name of honesty, forget this film sim silliness and take the boomer hdr pill

>>4404017 (OP)
Accept it, try to take the best photo you can, and embrace its flaws. That's what we did in the analog era.

GOOD, IF NATURAL TECHNICAL INHERENCE; BAD, IF ADDED ARTIFICIALLY.

>>4427360
If you cannot guess the process, how does it matter?

>>4427441
We judge you with extreme prejudice

>>4427441


IF YOU NEED TO URINATE, BUT YOU URINATE IN YOUR DREAM, WHAT DOES IT MATTER?

>>4404017 (OP)
https://postimg.cc/gallery/HcLSqyL

>>4426330
this is a 1:1 crop from a photo shot on a modern mirrorless camera. the grain is fake - not an overlay though. the colors are fake. the dust is also fake. what is your argument now?

>>4430907
what is this AI generated shit?

>>4430971
compression is gonna kill this one but...

>>4431034
not to devalue your photo but just a question in general

are roads the ez mode of leading line photos?

>>4431036
definitely. get some motion blur in, catch the sunset/sunrise colors and youre golden.