some food for thot abt noise... i smell flames coming. but, pls folks, read it for ur knowledge? 
http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-july31-05.shtml
http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-july31-05.shtml
Nothing about Noise - Mike Johnston's article in Luminous Landscape
- Thread starter nightwolf75
- Start date
- Status
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/showthread.php?t=142623&highlight=matt
know what you want, and know how your equipment perform.
examples of how noise can contributed to the picture positively are as the following works by zaren
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=142623&highlight=matt
know what you want, and know how your equipment perform.
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.
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.
There's no issue about noise on digitals.
Those who complain obviously never see the grains of films before.
Those who complain obviously never see the grains of films before.
eikin said:
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.
melv said:
:bsmilie: 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.
nightwolf75 said:some food for thot abt noise... i smell flames coming. but, pls folks, read it for ur knowledge?
http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-july31-05.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.
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.
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.
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.
But I know my blue sky don't look nice with even a small amount of noise. at 8R.
- Status
Similar threads
