lct Posted September 19, 2009 Share #41 Posted September 19, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) For those interested, here's a 1600 iso pic by Guy Mancuso: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=22291&d=1253291939 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Hi lct, Take a look here Noise. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lars_bergquist Posted September 19, 2009 Share #42 Posted September 19, 2009 Yes daguerreotypes were noisy as well but it is a shame to do comparisons like that, reason why i'm asking this gentleman his dng file so that i san show how to develop it properly. Daguerreotypes had NO noise. Noise is electronic only. Like all silver processes it had grain, but the actual silver grain on the metal plate (which was the unique camera original, printing was not possible, let alone enlarging) was detectable with a microscope only. Go look at an original one. The old man from the Age of Glass Plate Negs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 19, 2009 Share #43 Posted September 19, 2009 Film-grain noise is just analogue noise. Film grain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Not sure if Noise Ninja works on daguerreotypes though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 19, 2009 Share #44 Posted September 19, 2009 I think the M9 does it quite well: upressed nikon d700 + sigmalux 50 1.4 @ 2.8, iso3200 100% crop: http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/photos/654074997_pv2pU-O.jpg native res M9 + summarit 50 2.5 @ 2.8 iso2500 pushed to 2500, 100% crop: http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/photos/654075426_5DyRK-O.jpg I'll just have to find a place to upload rawfiles, and then you guys can have at them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 19, 2009 Share #45 Posted September 19, 2009 Same file from leica, m9 pushed to 3200, with capture one: http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/photos/654103233_QArBd-O.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted September 19, 2009 Share #46 Posted September 19, 2009 Film-grain noise is just analogue noise. Film grain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Not sure if Noise Ninja works on daguerreotypes though. We are talking photography, not information theory. People wail about digital noise not looking like film grain -- which many of them complained about when film was all we had. Doesn't seem that they think it's the same thing. And Noise Ninja doesn't work on sterling silver. The old man from the Age of Glass Plate Negs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 19, 2009 Share #47 Posted September 19, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think the M9 does it quite well... Yes indeed, much better than your horrid pic above. What happened in the meantime? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 19, 2009 Share #48 Posted September 19, 2009 ...People wail about digital noise not looking like film grain -- which many of them complained about when film was all we had... So did i, reason why i preferred K25 personally. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 19, 2009 Share #49 Posted September 19, 2009 ...People wail about digital noise not looking like film grain -- which many of them complained about when film was all we had. Doesn't seem that they think it's the same thing... Not sure what people you refer to may think exactly but digital noise can be used the same way as film grain in photography. AFAIC i mainly use a noisy raw converter for B&W because i like the grain/noise it makes. Again YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epimetheus Posted September 20, 2009 Share #50 Posted September 20, 2009 It seems the new $429 pocket cam Canon S90 seems to beat M9 in high iso or is equal at least. Why is that? ISO 1600 from S90 ISO 1600 from S90 Samples from: Canon PowerShot S90 Preview Samples Gallery: Digital Photography Review Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted September 20, 2009 Share #51 Posted September 20, 2009 Not sure what people you refer to may think exactly but digital noise can be used the same way as film grain in photography. AFAIC i mainly use a noisy raw converter for B&W because i like the grain/noise it makes. Again YMMV. Right. My guess -- based on what happend with grain in 35mm pictures -- is that just as then, we will have a 'noise esthetic' and some people will roll in it. We had a bad outbreak of grain esthetic in around 1960. I remember how some people dunked Tri-X in Rodinal and produced prints like made on macadam. One of them was the noted portraitist Rolf Winquist, who printed beautiful girls that way (during the 1940's he had softed them!) He died from smoking in the darkroom; lung cancer, not fire. But it will take longer to get used to crominance noise than to luminance noise, which can indeeed look remotely like film grain. Personally I don't like noise (I have gunfire-induced tinnitus) and have in the past done some arcane darkroom things to get rid of grain. The old man from the Age of Film Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrice Posted September 20, 2009 Share #52 Posted September 20, 2009 It seems the new $429 pocket cam Canon S90 seems to beat M9 in high iso or is equal at least. Why is that? Perhaps you're comparing resized images against 100% crops. An S90 might be more your cup of tea if not. I see aggressive NR in those S90 shots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 20, 2009 Share #53 Posted September 20, 2009 ....Personally I don't like noise... Neither do i in color but cleanliness is not my cup of tea in B&W generally. De gustibus... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 20, 2009 Share #54 Posted September 20, 2009 It seems the new $429 pocket cam Canon S90 seems to beat M9 in high iso or is equal at least. Why is that?... Because you don't print them both in A2. If what you need is clean pictures on a PC screen the Canon is certainly a great little camera. BTW i'd like to get pics like yours with a small sensor camera. Do you know if the G11 has the same sensor? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fnuernberger Posted September 20, 2009 Share #55 Posted September 20, 2009 M9: D700 upressed: HERE's the same M9 image that I have run through Topaz denoize trial version (I'm not an expert, just 3 minutes trying). I believe it already looks quite good: Obviously, you can dial in all kinds of settings - I just tried to be a bit cautious, to let so detail in there and just got rid of some of the color noise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted September 20, 2009 Share #56 Posted September 20, 2009 Still ugly. No need to 'denoize'. Where is your DNG file? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Thompson Posted September 20, 2009 Share #57 Posted September 20, 2009 Interesting that although the M9 has more noise (and I seem to remember that the D700 is revered for being a bit of a high iso champ?) the shot is more focussed and sharp on the M9 than the Nikon... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 20, 2009 Share #58 Posted September 20, 2009 I printed my last batch of test images at A3+. The d700 at 3200 native, and the M9 pushed to 3200. The M9 retains more detail, but is slightly more noisy, the d700 has less detail and noise. The M9 takes noise reduction far, far better. I think this is actually great, it means that you can shoot iso2500, push it up to 3200, or even 6400, without that being a big crisis. That is a leap from the old m8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 20, 2009 Share #59 Posted September 20, 2009 And for higher isos, this is the M9 pushed to iso5000, these are just quick and ugly edits with no particular noise software, just standard sliders in lightroom. I still think the M9 does very, very well compared to what many of the nay-sayers are preaching. Here is the same film with some (not much, not even close to what I do to d700 6400-files ) NR: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrice Posted September 20, 2009 Share #60 Posted September 20, 2009 Thanks Ulrik, these files do respond very well to noise reduction especially when profiled and fine tuned in NeatImage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.