Grain vs Noise?
I took some photos earlier with my 808 was thinking about grain vs noise. 25 years ago if I took a high ISO 1600 photo, grain might be acceptable depending on the image.
And film. ISO1600 B&W film looked quite nice, IMO, but Superia 1600 deserves to burn.
Superia 1600 was bad.
These days it is generally unacceptable to have a noisy image at almost whatever ISO that was used.
Why would it be so?
That's the feeling that I get. Digital photography gives us the ability to pixel peep which can make the photos look worse than they actually do IMO.
ISO 1600 digital has noise which is unwanted but It's OK to have grain.
Again, why would it be so?
Might be my cameras like the D2H or Canon G10. It generally looks bad at ISO 800 (for the G10) and sometimes at ISO 400. I've also used the G7 and G9. They looks bad at higher ISOs
Do some people think that a noiseless image looks fake without grain?
I only do 4R (4" x 6") and nobody complains.... Probably can't see the grain/noise.
Thus proving that a noiseless image doesn't necessarily look fake sans grain.
Never buy version 1.0 of anything.
|Chicago Alley by tko|
from Down the alleyway
|Callan-5680 by vbuhay|
from What Child's Dream May Come
|Widget by Wilfried HKG|
|Oxbow Bend by stickpointed|
from Landscape - Colour #2