Effectively maximizing noise/grain with Q2M in camera, not post

[trickness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

But you did. Be easy on Jaap – he's not crapping on your party, he's trying to nicely tell you forcing ISO 50K on the Q2M to get grain just makes your photos look like crap, which it does (IMO of course).

Anyway, trying to get grain out of the Q2M is not easy – it's most grainless sensor I've ever used, and by the time it does show grain, it's not at all like old film stock – it's pure digital and IMO unappealing. But I wish you the best in your pursuit of it.

It's too bad Leica doesn't give us an in-camera grain option for the JPEGs like Fujifilm does.

I don’t need Jaap to nicely tell me something that is completely obvious to anyone who is more than a casual photographer. Which is why I put caveats in my original post stating specifically that I wanted to discussion to be about maximizing noise “in body” - i’m really not looking for a discussion about the merit of this pursuit, or suggestions about the well-known options for adding noise in post. He keeps trying to have a different conversation.

Lots of art that looks like “crap” to some people can actually be quite appealing to others. Using tools in ways other than the manufacturer intended often produces unpredictable/desirable results. The results might be harsh, extreme, and not appeal to some photographers. There are many other threads on this forum where people chatter endlessly about MTF charts. I find that less appealing then just producing photographs, and it’s interesting to me (and hopefully to some others) to think about exploring tools in an almost deconstructive manner. 
 

I do think some of those JPEG emulations are interesting, but I really prefer the pliability of a RAW file. I’ve actually gotten some interesting noise at 25,000 ISO with underexposed/short exposures, but I thought I run into the problem of seeing the sensor pattern if I go much under 2 stops.

[hdmesa]

7 minutes ago, trickness said:

I don’t need Jaap to nicely tell me something that is completely obvious to anyone who is more than a casual photographer. Which is why I put caveats in my original post stating specifically that I wanted to discussion to be about maximizing noise “in body” - i’m really not looking for a discussion about the merit of this pursuit, or suggestions about the well-known options for adding noise in post. He keeps trying to have a different conversation.

Lots of art that looks like “crap” to some people can actually be quite appealing to others. Using tools in ways other than the manufacturer intended often produces unpredictable/desirable results. The results might be harsh, extreme, and not appeal to some photographers. There are many other threads on this forum where people chatter endlessly about MTF charts. I find that less appealing then just producing photographs, and it’s interesting to me (and hopefully to some others) to think about exploring tools in an almost deconstructive manner. 
 

I do think some of those JPEG emulations are interesting, but I really prefer the pliability of a RAW file. I’ve actually gotten some interesting noise at 25,000 ISO with underexposed/short exposures, but I thought I run into the problem of seeing the sensor pattern if I go much under 2 stops.

Well, what we often want from a forum thread isn't always what we get. They have a life of their own

You might try using a dark red filter to see if the increased contrast has a pleasing effect on the quality of the noise.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

Suddenly this popped into my mind. I don't know why...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N94bb0GD30&ab_channel=Wonderfulchannel

 

[trickness]

13 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Suddenly this popped into my mind. I don't know why...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N94bb0GD30&ab_channel=Wonderfulchannel

 

And this just popped into mine, and I know exactly why 

 

[jaapv]

Shouting down is not discussing...🙄 If you want to produce technically inferior  images, you are perfectly free to do so, but you will have to accept that somebody gives as his opinion that it is a bad idea. If you disagree with that opinion, you produce examples that show that he is wrong, or provide a reasonable argument. 

[trickness]

21 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Shouting down is not discussing...🙄 If you want to produce technically inferior  images, you are perfectly free to do so, but you will have to accept that somebody gives as his opinion that it is a bad idea. If you disagree with that opinion, you produce examples that show that he is wrong, or provide a reasonable argument. 

I’ve asked several times if you would kindly disengage, but you somehow feel entitled or owed some explanation - no surprise as I’ve seen this from you in other threads. I get that you think something is a bad idea - you’ve repeatedly said that in this thread, like a broken record. In reality, it’s just a bad idea FOR YOU. 

There is no ultimate answer, just the ultimate answer for you. Or me. Feel free to go take some perfect pictures as I will not be replying to any more of your dribblings.

Edited August 3, 2021 by trickness

[trickness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, Leica28 said:

I used contrast filters which worked very well for interesting effects.   I have a whole set of them ranging from 0.5 to 7.   These filters do the opposite of what you want though.  They reduce contrast (you indicated you want to maximize it).   For me, they worked wonders in creating special b/w effects and reducing the "digital" look.  The filters were made by Harrison and Harrison, in California.  Perhaps one could spend time on a computer with LR to achieve similar effects but I enjoyed doing as much as I could in camera.   And waiting til I got home to see the results.  I never review photos in camera after capture.  I love the anticipation of wondering what I got.  

Yeah, that feeling of shooting film I guess, not knowing what is on the roll until you get the contact sheet. I guess that’s part of what I’m chasing here. And also, I’ve been looking at my old Digilux pictures from 20 years ago and the early digital noise is kind of interesting.

[frame-it]

20 minutes ago, trickness said:

Yeah, that feeling of shooting film I guess

ive got a similar result with the SL601, at f2, 1/250th ,at night, but ISO 1600,  a kind of organic looking noise, that looked very nice.

[SrMi]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

In my experience an underexposed and pulled-up image will show more noise than a properly exposed high-ISO one. That may well be because modern sensors are not completely ISO-invariant and often show a step, in the case of the Q Mono between 400 and 800 ISO. One of the things that makes the proposed technique unpredictable.

PhotonstoPhotos:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I did not intend to propose a technique, but to explain why increasing ISO does not increase noise. 

Nonetheless, your comments are correct and match my experience. Yes, there are special rules around dual-conversion gain. I would not suggest "underexposing" (applying negative EC in auto-metering)  for many stops. It would be impractical as the viewfinder would be too dark, and increasing ISO can decrease noise! But one or two stops lower ISO setting should not hurt, and would help preserve highlights.