-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Evidence of NR in GR2 RAW file.
- Thread starter Tungsten Nordstein
- Start date
Tungsten Nordstein
Senior Member
Thank-you.
Hmm. I used photoshop and lightroom. pre-subscription copies. Without those I have no idea what I'd do. probably start with Raw Therapee to convert but I need all sorts of other functions to make my photos. I'm not sure what has those.
There's nothing like a good Lightroom preset as a starting point and then tweak the NR and channel balance. Otherwise I go into PS and work on channels.
Can't you get a copy of LR 3 or 4 and/or CS6?
Anyone else?
Tungsten Nordstein
Senior Member
Yes, I would suggest RAW Therapee, as it give a lot of options for processing.
If you then need to do more processing I'd try GraphicConverter, which is not free but can be used permanently in demo mode but is also quite cheap. It has layers and effects/filters like Photoshop. It also allows you to work on the RGB channels. Not sure whether it supports LAB colour mode.
You have Darktable which is quite powerfull.
An interesting raw viewer with a lot of possibilities for analysis is fastrawviewer: https://www.fastrawviewer.com
Then for just raw channels analysis you have RawDigger: https://www.rawdigger.com
cheers
An interesting raw viewer with a lot of possibilities for analysis is fastrawviewer: https://www.fastrawviewer.com
Then for just raw channels analysis you have RawDigger: https://www.rawdigger.com
cheers
Last edited:
Thanks LaMeuleHere are 4 photos, no NR applied though, but the gritty look is there! (from Bangkok streets with a GR, not the GRII):
No "film grain" added, just some post treatment via Silver Efex Pro
Rgds,
PM
Your pictures coresponds well to my idea of "gritty". Contrasty with nice noise.
I really like the third one. There is a lot of (pleasing) noise, more than shoud be from ISO 800, is that a result of enhancing noise with Silver Efex Pro?
By the way, are you born lucky or did you wait for the pavement to clear... I rarely see such big clean areas in Bangkok
Thanks Tungsten
Okay, I just looked up the word Gritty. Didn't know we had a danish word for it, very straight forward. Originally I thought of it also as contrasty, but that may not always be true.
So yes, the Arla pictures is what I think of as "nice & gritty". The first reminds me of the weather today
I checked the preset used in Silver Efex Pro for all 4 photos, in fact, there is added grain for all of them (up to 380 grain/pixel out of a possible max of 500 grain/pixel).Thanks LaMeuleHere are 4 photos, no NR applied though, but the gritty look is there! (from Bangkok streets with a GR, not the GRII):
No "film grain" added, just some post treatment via Silver Efex Pro
Rgds,
PM
Your pictures coresponds well to my idea of "gritty". Contrasty with nice noise.
I really like the third one. There is a lot of (pleasing) noise, more than shoud be from ISO 800, is that a result of enhancing noise with Silver Efex Pro?
By the way, are you born lucky or did you wait for the pavement to clear... I rarely see such big clean areas in Bangkok
to see the difference, here are the original "rather dull" color photo, followed by the "rather dull, too" SOOC Silver Efex B&W, the "punchy" last one is after the preset was applied with just some tweaks to increase the contrast a little bit more:
Of course, for the other 3 pictures, less grain was added as the iso is around 2000.
The 3 first photos were taken with me sitting on the step in front of Pantip Plaza, the last one (the youg woman) was from the other side of the road, with me standing a couple of steps on the stairs that bring to the pedestrian bridge to cross the road).
I was kind of lucky for that photo of the guy trying to find a customer for his tuk-tuk, the pavement is almost empty as I waited for the guard to pull his rope to stop the people crossing and letting cars to get in Pantip parking (That guard can be seen in the 1st picture (the one with a helmet).
One thing important for me as a "farang" is to keep a souvenir for all those electric cables as soon they will be moved underground (as it has already been done in Sukumwit road).
To summarize:
I guy waiting a customer with picture of a nice looking women looking at him (could it be at me?) above his shoulder, empty pavement but buzy electric lines.
So happy and lucky to get all those at the same time, I also find that the gritty look is more punchy.
Cheers
Last edited:
Tungsten Nordstein
Senior Member
Silver Effex is very flexible and perfect for that look you are after. I've seen it applied in different ways for a variety of 'feels', from the 'gritty' to the poetic.I checked the preset used in Silver Efex Pro for all 4 photos, in fact, there is added grain for all of them (up to 380 grain/pixel out of a possible max of 500 grain/pixel).Thanks LaMeule
Your pictures coresponds well to my idea of "gritty". Contrasty with nice noise.
I really like the third one. There is a lot of (pleasing) noise, more than shoud be from ISO 800, is that a result of enhancing noise with Silver Efex Pro?
By the way, are you born lucky or did you wait for the pavement to clear... I rarely see such big clean areas in Bangkok
to see the difference, here are the original "rather dull" color photo, followed by the "rather dull, too" SOOC Silver Efex B&W, the "punchy" last one is after the preset was applied with just some tweaks to increase the contrast a little bit more:
So happy and lucky to get all those at the same time, I also find that the gritty look is more punchy.
Cheers
I just wanted to add that no (silver effex) grain was added in my photographs. It's all down to finding it in the original raster image and using simple in-app tools to bring it out and reveal its nature. I also think my process allows for non-deterministic variations (from image to image) slightly outside of my control – something I enjoy.
--
'I don't take photographs, I delete them.'
Tungsten Nordstein, 1999
Last edited:
Huh? Noise adds it's own element...(that's not part of the original).
But how does it make the 'surface of the photo visible' ???
Without the noise...does the image become invisible ??
Noise most always takes away from detail of original image.
Maybe Better to say you like a specific noise pattern of a certain camera/sensor.
Something like this...or not enough noise?
Next two were used with a setting called ' film grain' . (different camera)
ANAYV
Tungsten Nordstein
Senior Member
Not the image, the photograph. The medium is already stacked towards being invisible and gets more invisible as sensor technology improves. The noise starts to pull it back towards visibility and for me (enjoyably) disturbs the photograph's purity. It's like part of the figure-ground discussion. The noise is another element that reminds us what we are looking at - a photograph - and it's another element in the image for the eye to move across. Our eye slows down and looks the noise and then speeds up again as it moves to another area. The noise helps to vary the speed of (looking at) the photograph.Huh? Noise adds it's own element...(that's not part of the original).
But how does it make the 'surface of the photo visible' ???
Without the noise...does the image become invisible ??
Noise takes away detail from the *photograph* but it adds its own kind of detail. Photographic details are often a distraction from the image. So, adding noise also helps move the photograph closer towards becoming an image.
As I said somewhere else, I do like the noise inherent to the signal. I don't find adding it as an SFX afterwards satisfying.
Not sure what you are showing me hereSomething like this...or not enough noise?
Next two were used with a setting called ' film grain' . (different camera)
ANAYV
Your photographs are photographs of noise (or pattern). If there is any noise in the photograph then it is over-shadowed by the image of noise.--
'I don't take photographs, I delete them.'
Tungsten Nordstein, 1999
I do only color photography, but I mostly prefer keeping the luma noise as is. since I don't like what NR tends to do to images, and I often like the texture. I don't like chroma noise, but the GRii removes chroma noise in OOC joegs even when NR is set to off, which is my usual setting. I never add grain in PP.
Tungsten Nordstein
Senior Member
It's interesting. I've looked at processing high ISO GRD4 raws. The obvious thing to me was to reduce the chroma noise and retain the luma noise same as you describe. It works, but I didn't really like the result in the long term. Because I found that it looked like a b&w image with grain overlaid onto a colour image. I wanted the pure colour textures of the chroma-noise but it's hard getting it to look the way I'd like it. Previously, I think I had found a happy balance with the GRD1. I must try it again.
Meaning the noise being visible...or what our naked eye sees. To me what the eye sees is the original, pure image.
How the medium captures that ( and processes it) well that's the end result. ..unless we further process to our taste.
I see.
Mmmm...never thought about it this way...but I agree.
Yes....and there's a cult following of folks who like it...I'd guess most of them are used to shooting film, and had no options but to accept it. (at least before photoshop...i think
Depends. For landscapes ans many scenic shots...detail is wanted/needed.
Well...a different image. What one determines is an ' image' varies among us all.
Do you mean an Image as so many were used to ...from the film days?..then yes.
Remember noise is and never was part of the true image..the eye doesn't really see it in nature....just like wow and flutter or noise/hiss (low S/N ratio) in the Audioworld was never part of the original sound.
It was part of the equipment...flaws.
Yes we became used to this..and when digital came around...it sounded harsh...brittle...yet in some ways closer to the original sounds of the instruments/vocals, etc.
As do many...maybe I'm just younger..and never came to appreciate the medium and results at the time.
Not sure what you are showing me here
your correct.
I think this one is more what you might like. Was taken at ISO 1600 with another camera, but with a scene mode called 'film grain' ...but I think I processed out the noise in previous examples
Click ' original size' to see the noise
ANAYV
sphexx
Leading Member
It is a nice look. It reminds me almost more of print grain than film grain (the early 20th century encyclopedias that were around the house when I was a kid).Meaning the noise being visible...or what our naked eye sees. To me what the eye sees is the original, pure image.
How the medium captures that ( and processes it) well that's the end result. ..unless we further process to our taste.
I see.
Mmmm...never thought about it this way...but I agree.
Yes....and there's a cult following of folks who like it...I'd guess most of them are used to shooting film, and had no options but to accept it. (at least before photoshop...i think
Depends. For landscapes ans many scenic shots...detail is wanted/needed.
Well...a different image. What one determines is an ' image' varies among us all.
Do you mean an Image as so many were used to ...from the film days?..then yes.
Remember noise is and never was part of the true image..the eye doesn't really see it in nature....just like wow and flutter or noise/hiss (low S/N ratio) in the Audioworld was never part of the original sound.
It was part of the equipment...flaws.
Yes we became used to this..and when digital came around...it sounded harsh...brittle...yet in some ways closer to the original sounds of the instruments/vocals, etc.
As do many...maybe I'm just younger..and never came to appreciate the medium and results at the time.
your correct.Not sure what you are showing me here
I think this one is more what you might like. Was taken at ISO 1600 with another camera, but with a scene mode called 'film grain' ...but I think I processed out the noise in previous examples
Click ' original size' to see the noise
ANAYV
I can get a better look from the OOC jpeg engine. It removes most chroma noise but leaves a little bit and it leaves red detail intact. I can't do it in raw in the post processors I have available. The Ricoh firmware has some secret sauce.
Tungsten Nordstein
Senior Member
Tungsten Nordstein
Senior Member
Yes and personally I like to disturb that process of seeing, making the photographic medium as visible as the thing shown in it.
Well, there were ultra slow films and you could shoot on larger format films. Some of the arial films are super smooth. Many people disliked grain and were glad to find a new technology that reduced and eventually eradicated it. This is always the search for the the information in the photographic image.
Yes, and in that case then noise in the photo does not much help. (See below)
Some people have said that a photograph is the least image-like construct we have. Because it has such a causal one-to-one relationship with the reality it reproduces. The theory of signs categorises a photograph as an index not a symbol. This aspect is why the Surrealists originally thought that the photo had no useful way of showing anything deeper than the material surface of appearance of reality and so were initially dismissive of it's potential to be used as a tool to access the workings of the subconscious. Walter Benjamin talked about this too.
I'm not sure. As there is nothing natural about an image, I'm not sure there is anything we can call a true image. The image is an artificial construct that needs a medium. With a photograph, a signal carries the information and the noise is a function of the medium, not the thing itself. There is a theory that a certain amount of noise in a carrier signal actually helps the brain to discern the information more clearly.
To bring it back down to the practical, I find that modern digital photography, those made with CMOS sensors, for example have a kind of plasticity to them. I especially see it in b&w photographs made that way. I find it hard to like it but as of yet, I have not had the opportunity to work with CMOS myself, and discover a way to makes images for satisfy me. I do think that I'd work more with colour if I used a high resolution CMOS sensor camera. I have seen good B&W photographs from CMOS and the GR, but they seem to take some skill or a secret magic touch to make.
ANAYV, I like your photograph but I do think it would be better without the noise. I think it falls into the category of photograph like the landscape as you talked about earlier. It's all in the details. Now, because it is so detailed, I think the applied grain kind of distracts functionally here.your correct.
I think this one is more what you might like. Was taken at ISO 1600 with another camera, but with a scene mode called 'film grain' ...but I think I processed out the noise in previous examples
Click ' original size' to see the noise
ANAYV
Secondly, I think that this is where the difference between inherent noise (from the sensor) and applied noise (SFX) makes itself clear. The noise/grain in this photo is uniform across the whole image. It's due to the way that artificial grain is created and applied. If you look at grain that arises due to the medium (film or a CCD at high ISO) , than you will see something else. The grain 'follows' the image and hence varies across the surface of the image. You will notice that in the photos I posted. I believe that the mind-eye finds (an amount of) variation in a signal (noise) more pleasing and interesting than uniformity. It's back to information theory.
Sorry to say so much in one post.
All the best, TN.
--
'I don't take photographs, I delete them.'
Tungsten Nordstein, 1999
Last edited:
Tungsten Nordstein
Senior Member
I made this today. It's a GX100 shot. A similar shot with a GRD4 proved much harder to make work. All chroma-noise from an ISO 1600 shot. RAW converted in Lightroom. Channel-processed in photoshop.Olifaunt said:
--
'I don't take photographs, I delete them.'
Tungsten Nordstein, 1999
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum