Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Nothing about Noise - Mike Johnston's article in Luminous Landscape

  1. #1
    Moderator nightwolf75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    really MORE diaper changes
    Posts
    17,839
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Nothing about Noise - Mike Johnston's article in Luminous Landscape

    some food for thot abt noise... i smell flames coming. but, pls folks, read it for ur knowledge?

    http://luminous-landscape.com/column...uly31-05.shtml
    If Life worked on auto mode then manual mode for photography would have never existed. ― Deeksha Mittal

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    東京 Tokyo
    Posts
    10,193

    Default

    there's nothing wrong about having noise in pictures, but everything's wrong when the noise doesn't contribute anything except acting as a distraction.

    examples of how noise can contributed to the picture positively are as the following works by zaren

    http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...highlight=matt

    know what you want, and know how your equipment perform.

  3. #3
    Moderator nightwolf75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    really MORE diaper changes
    Posts
    17,839
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eikin
    there's nothing wrong about having noise in pictures, but everything's wrong when the noise doesn't contribute anything except acting as a distraction.

    examples of how noise can contributed to the picture positively are as the following works by zaren

    http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...highlight=matt

    know what you want, and know how your equipment perform.
    which was the point of his article. u nailed it on the head.
    If Life worked on auto mode then manual mode for photography would have never existed. ― Deeksha Mittal

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    東京 Tokyo
    Posts
    10,193

    Default

    actually i thought this passage was the most important quote in the wrtiting

    taken from the above mentioned website:
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________

    Consider this. It's something that art historian Meyer Shapiro said about Seurat's pointillism.

    "Admirers of Seurat often regret his method, the little dots. Imagine, Renoir said, Veronese's Marriage at Cana done in petit point. I cannot imagine it, but neither can I imagine Seurat's pictures painted in broad or blended strokes. Like his choice of tones, Seurat's technique is intensely personal. But the dots are not simply a technique; they are a tangible surface and the ground of important qualities, including his finesse. Too much has been written, and often incorrectly, about the scientific nature of the dots. The question whether they make a picture more or less luminous hardly matters. A painting can be luminous and artistically dull, or low-keyed in color and radiant to the mind. Besides, how to paint brightly is no secret requiring a special knowledge of science. Like Van Gogh, Seurat could have used strong colors in big areas for a brighter effect. But without his peculiar means we would not have the marvelous delicacy of tone, the uncountable variations within a narrow range, the vibrancy and soft luster, which make his canvases, and especially his landscapes, a joy to contemplate."
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________

    a technically competent (or 'correct' or 'perfect') photograph doesn't make the mark if it lacks the soul to move its audience.

  5. #5

    Default

    There's no issue about noise on digitals.
    Those who complain obviously never see the grains of films before.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    東京 Tokyo
    Posts
    10,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AReality
    There's no issue about noise on digitals.
    Those who complain obviously never see the grains of films before.
    hmmm ... i'm not sure about this, noise and grains are different things for me.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eikin
    there's nothing wrong about having noise in pictures, but everything's wrong when the noise doesn't contribute anything except acting as a distraction.

    examples of how noise can contributed to the picture positively are as the following works by zaren

    http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...highlight=matt

    know what you want, and know how your equipment perform.
    imho, with no bad intention of sorts, the noise in the pictures you gave as examples was a distraction to me. i feel that it doesn't 'contribute positively'; i'll look at the pictures and think it's a limitation of the tool instead of something that the photographer wants to portray.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    東京 Tokyo
    Posts
    10,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by melv
    imho, with no bad intention of sorts, the noise in the pictures you gave as examples was a distraction to me. i feel that it doesn't 'contribute positively'; i'll look at the pictures and think it's a limitation of the tool instead of something that the photographer wants to portray.
    well there's always the subjective factor involved of course. well, those pictures do work for me in achieving the effect of obscuration of the floating child. but you do bring up a valid point. i think this can be discussed further in that thread as critique for those pictures.

    to further this, there're limitations to every equipment, very often it's up to the photographer's creative initiative to work around such limitations and turn them into part of the artwork.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightwolf75
    some food for thot abt noise... i smell flames coming. but, pls folks, read it for ur knowledge?

    http://luminous-landscape.com/column...uly31-05.shtml
    I have to disagree with that article. Adding noise to an image is trivial; removing non-systematic noise without compromising image information is generally impossible (although heuristics frequently result in visually pleasing guesses what the missing information could be).

    While noise is usually not the limiting factor for an image, it is a technical artefact. Declaring it a desirable feature is nonsense and strongly reminds me of the marketing/PR tactics of a certain US software company.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleWolf
    I have to disagree with that article. Adding noise to an image is trivial; removing non-systematic noise without compromising image information is generally impossible (although heuristics frequently result in visually pleasing guesses what the missing information could be).

    While noise is usually not the limiting factor for an image, it is a technical artefact. Declaring it a desirable feature is nonsense and strongly reminds me of the marketing/PR tactics of a certain US software company.
    fixation mind set cannot go far no boundaries and rules in art, to each his own

  11. #11

    Default

    I love the look of noise at ISO800 or 1600 on the nikon and canon slrs

  12. #12

    Default

    The author is being optimistic by labeling a technical flaw as a non-editable design feature.

  13. #13

    Default

    I wouldn't call it a flaw, more a limitation.
    Anyway the whole question about noise and the desire for a lack of it brings up another issue: what do most people think is the optimal technical standard for a photographic image to reach?
    With painting you start out with colours and build an image, with a photograph you start with a collection of data and then you fiddle with it.

  14. #14

    Default

    ok, "limitation" will be a better word.
    But I know my blue sky don't look nice with even a small amount of noise. at 8R.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •