The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Noise Galore

sizifo

New member
I was wondering what people may think of this experiment with GRDII noise. This is from a very underexposed photo which I almost discarded, not a lot of pp. I liked it, chroma noise and all.
 
Last edited:

helenhill

Senior Member
Looks like Tatoo Art / Fun!!
WILD Sizifo.... You're A Noise Junkie
What are you under the Influence of ?:ROTFL::ROTFL:

I think it would be COOL for the beginning shot of a Film
Best- h ;)
 
N

ntrolls

Guest
Definitely interesting. I know it is somewhat contradictory, but I'd love to see a bit brighter version of this technique.
 

sizifo

New member
Looks like Tatoo Art / Fun!!
WILD Sizifo.... You're A Noise Junkie
What are you under the Influence of ?:ROTFL::ROTFL:
Thanks. I think it's the detergent from doing my washing.

ntrolls.

It's not a technique, just what was captured by the sensor, dodged to make it a bit brighter. The ghosts of electricity in the underexposed grd. The only thing I can do is make the face and legs even brighter, but there isn't much more in the photo. Well, there's a bit more in the surroundings, Ill have to think about it.

I'll post the photo which this comes from later; it was shot in blazing sunlight.

Here is a brighter version.
 
V

VladimirV

Guest
I quite like it, looks surreal and like a painting.
Have you tried it in b&w?
 
N

ntrolls

Guest
What I meant was that it would be really interesting if you can obtain the same noise effect without underexposing the whole dark areas - which is of course contradictory by definition. Interesting nonetheless - I think I will try to reproduce the same thing :)
 

Will

New member
Thanks. I think it's the detergent from doing my washing.

ntrolls.

It's not a technique, just what was captured by the sensor, dodged to make it a bit brighter. The ghosts of electricity in the underexposed grd. The only thing I can do is make the face and legs even brighter, but there isn't much more in the photo. Well, there's a bit more in the surroundings, Ill have to think about it.

I'll post the photo which this comes from later; it was shot in blazing sunlight.

Here is a brighter version.


Wasn't sure what I thought of it till this version but this one I really like. It reminds me of a painting by one of the old masters, Rembrandt perhaps, before the restorers got involved and spoiled it!
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
Well, ok. To be honest, I'm not crazy about this. BUT, what comes through for me is the way even this badly exposed image reveals how powerful simple gesture can be in telling a story. The angle of her foot and the position of her hands and arms. His face and eyes. There's a tension there. Unfortunately, because of the lack of detail, it's impossible to know if she's propositioning him or asking him to bring the car around.

As always, I bring my own preconceptions and prejudices to every party. Unfortunately.
 

sizifo

New member
Thanks a lot for the replies. I will reveal the identities of the actors bit by bit...

TRSmith, I wouldn't say I'm crazy about this effect, but I like it. It's like you can see the electrons dancing on the sensor, giving you the bare minimum. And it's amazing how few pixels we need to discern a facial expression. Although the initial impression is: "turn on the light".

The person on the right is a man, but with a rather peculiar boyish face.

Also, TRsmith, here is something else that came to mind. I was wondering what your philosophy is, given that you very often talk about a photograph as if it should tell a story. This is something I don't really believe. Recently I've found this video on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek, about Winogrand, and he expresses an interesting view around 1:32, which I can't help but agree with.

So, let me first reveal nothing at all. This is the original photo - not exactly a keeper. I only took a second look at it because I knew there were very interesting looking people in the darkness, even though i completely f...d up the exposure.

Vid
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
You may have helped me discover something about myself since you seem to have picked up a theme in my comments about photographs telling a story. I'll have to think about that. Maybe I do (?!)

I have seen that video, and I agree with his assessment of what a picture can and can't do. However, it is at least a part of my own nature (as I said in the last line of my post about bringing my own preconceptions.... etc.) to look at a picture and fill in my own story. Especially when people are involved. I wonder how interesting the shot would have been if the glowing pixels in the gloom revealed the outline of a bicycle instead of a woman's leg?

Certainly there are images of people that are simply shapes and color or light and dark. But most people-pictures inspire a little story in my head. I can't help it. It's destined to be different than anyone else's story. And that's different than saying "every picture must tell a story".

It's possible the shape and form in this example is butting up against my own understanding of what a "good exposure" is and then tangling with my own penchant for making up a story. Like I said, that's on me.

So there's no need for you to justify that you like it or prove to me that it's worthy. You took it, you own it. But I see it and, in the sort of reverse of that process, own my own reactions to it.

In any case, it's all good. I didn't mean to come off sounding preachy or critical.


Thanks a lot for the replies. I will reveal the identities of the actors bit by bit...


Also, TRsmith, here is something else that came to mind. I was wondering what your philosophy is, given that you very often talk about a photograph as if it should tell a story. This is something I don't really believe. Recently I've found this video on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek, about Winogrand, and he expresses an interesting view around 1:32, which I can't help but agree with.
 

sizifo

New member
TRSmith, you've always had some of the most interesting and insightful things to say about what I've posted, so please keep doing it, whether I sound defensive or not.

It seems an almost impossible task to produce a single original photograph, and completely impossible to come up with an original style. For now I'm just trying to experiment and do things my own way, without listening to others too much. Initially! Then when somebody tells you otherwise it's much easier to appreciate their opinion. And there's nothing wrong with keeping the original impulse in mind, if it was worth anything.

That's my five minutes of philosophy.

Here's a photo that reveals some identities. The guy with the hat and the lady on the right are in the grainy photo.

Incidentally, I've had some serious problems in reducing the flare. This is by far the best version I've managed so far. Any tips?

If this looks a bit different than my other B&W conversions, it's because I've tried to use some of the ideas in Wouter's tutorial. Plus, some dodge&burn, & local contrast, which is all completely new to me.
 

sizifo

New member
I wonder how interesting the shot would have been if the glowing pixels in the gloom revealed the outline of a bicycle instead of a woman's leg?
I imagine it would be a lot less likely to work, since the human forms are so much more imprinted in our brains. I mean, we are able to recognize different expressions from so little, or, in case of guys, imagine parts of the female anatomy :).
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
It seems an almost impossible task to produce a single original photograph, and
completely impossible to come up with an original style.
Roger that. Wonogrand said something to the effect of trying to avoid taking the same photographs over and over. That's what makes it fun, eh?

Incidentally, I've had some serious problems in reducing the flare. This is by far the best version I've managed so far. Any tips?
If you're working in photoshop, you might try making a copy of the layer, do a curve adjustment on it that takes the flare way down to where you want it. That will have the unwanted effect of making the rest of the shot too dark, so use a gradation on the adjustment layer mask from top right to lower left (or some angle that works) to leave the non-flare portion correct. (it's always easier to do than it is to describe, sorry).
 
Top