SNATH From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 3250 posts, RR: 22 Posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4181 times:
I recently got a shot rejected for grain. It was accepted in the second attempt after I got more aggressive on it with Noise Ninja. Here's the shot in question (included this way here so that I'm not accused of plugging my own shots).
Maybe I'm weird, but I personally (strongly!) prefer the first version. Sure, it has a bit of grain. But it also has much more detail and texture on the buildings and on the ground (and note that, on low light / backlit shots like this, it's hard not to get noise in the shadows). On the second version the noise has been reduced but, along with it, a lot of detail has been nuked too. To my eye, the second one looks flatter and lifeless, as if everything has been wrapped up in plastic film.
So, what I'm wondering is: is a.net's obssession with no-grain shots really for the better? I would claim that, at least in this particular case, aggressive grain reduction can make a shot look worse, not better (this is my own personal opinion, of course).
So, what do you all think? Do you really prefer the "plastic" look?
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3069 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4111 times:
I hope things are well with you.
You post a nice example of this grain issue here. Or are we actually talking about 'digital noise'? I agree with you that the 'plasticky' feel to a photo is not one to which we should aspire. Also, particularly in lower lighting conditions/dark/shadow areas, grain/noise is an inevitable by-product of photography. For me it is simply one of those situations where we have to decide the degree to which we are prepared to 'doctor' an image so that it meets the requirements set down by A.net acceptance criteria. Another good example for me would be 'ensuring' whites look white even when the hue of, say, a low angle sun, might make it look orange or reddish. That one has been debated a lot in the past.
I must admit I don't really like to see grain in the sky, but in your example it doesn't seem that this was a significant issue.
I recall having a photo rejected for grain where - to this day - I still cannot see it. So grain on one person's monitor may not be apparent to another. It's a fine line, and I agree with you that it should not become so fine a line that we end up having to see the 'plastic' lifeless look just to avoid the risk of any slight grain being apparent. Of course, too plasticky a result following addressing grain will (and should) attract the eye of a good screener who then may consider rejecting for editing. Again, A.net's 'lines' can often be very fine, and subjective. That's life.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4907 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4111 times:
I often prefer a little grain when editing for personal use. Images often have much more pop with the added texture. I'm talking about small amounts of noise/grain though.
This place is getting carried away with this obsession for a perfectly clean image. Some of the grain rejections I see in the feedback forum are sickening. And I mean it's the fact that they are rejected that is sickening.
My motto when shooting is make sure I get a fast enough shutter speed to guarantee a tack sharp image. To do so I will gladly boost ISO. A sharp but grainy photo is a winner in my eyes. A clean but slightly blurry image is not. So it's frustrating that some really great photos get rejected because they are not perfectly clean.
I have recently become interested in printing my photos. It's amazing to me how clean a print can be, when on the computer it shows some grain. So that further proves to myself that my images don't have to be sqeaky clean.
I often see amazing photos in magazines, poster-size prints etc and they are not 100% clean. It doesn't take away from the overall impression of them. So why does it here??
Noise reduction software can help, but the most common side effect is loss of detail and a washed out, water-color appearance. I try not to use it. Give me a little noise/grain instead.
[Edited 2010-03-06 00:38:10]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4887 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3901 times:
My thoughts are that your rejected image does have visibly better detail, while not having very bad noise. Yes, I can see some, but it doesn't detract from the image.
I've been doing a bit of high ISO photos recently as well, couple of ISO1600 images and the ISO2500 image. I don't really see that it is easy to use much more than that due to the noise generated. It's difficult to use noise reduction software on ISO6400 without wiping out detail as well.
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2094 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3833 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
suffering from some recent grain rejections as well, I can clearly see where you're coming from.
I don't want to argue here whether or not the set standards are justified but did you try to just use selective noise reduction? It did help me with some of my shots to reduce the noise on some parts but also keeping the necessary details.