X-T5 at 12,800 ISO

PeterLeyssens wrote:

JNR wrote:

a_c_skinner wrote:

Either is an objectionable artefact and people are kidding themselves that they like it.

I think "objectionable artefact" is in the mind of the beholder, and for the rest I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't want someone else's preferred aesthetic enforced onto you.

Exactly. The post you replied to sounds a bit like - this is “objectively” better so there is no alternate way of looking at it. Photography being an art form, I vehemently disagree.

As for analog vs digital noise, for me analog is more organic, whereas digital is more like fine sand being sprinkled over the photo. I'm talking about sensor noise, not grain added in post (in-camera or on a pc). I like both and they both have their place. And there is also a place for grainless photos. For character photography, I really like analog grain. But digital sensor noise I really like for adding a touch of dreaminess to landscape.

There are so many photographical techniques. It would be a shame to reduce yourself to in-focus grainless shots.

Admittedly, I am slightly changing the topic because my purpose in adding grain at the time of conversion is to mitigate the unpleasant aspects of digital grain and allow the viewer to concentrate on the image rather than the artefacts. I'm not an advocate for grain to add an aesthetic, but still can appreciate on it the rare occasion when it seems to work well. I'm especially not a fan of smeared details for the sake of attempted grainlessness. That never works for me.

I'm thinking of this because I've had to use added grain much more often on the processed high-ISO X-T5 images because the noise pattern is inconsistent. This does appear to be a slight failing of C1 processing (as opposed to the sensor itself) because the OOC JPEGs (which are comparatively noisy and not quite as sharp) have a far-more consistent pattern. Not that it is a huge difference, but it does trigger the need to add a bit of processed grain for overall consistency.