Noise in colour photographs that you don't think looks absolutely

>>2753150
>>2753148
>>2753147
It does look horrendous, and these almost certainly have had fake and gay photoshop grain applied.
This is a fucking awful thread, by the way, and I swear you've posted the OP pic before, faggot.

>>2753152
Jesus fuck. Please use a trip the next time you decide to post so I can filter you. Stop being such a goddamn schmuck.

>>2753152
holy fuck

OP, the noise in these shots looks fairly good. Maybe not the one of the chingchang in the apple store but that one is a snapshit anyway

>>2753152
kek.

Hi gearfag. These aren't so bad. Probably because the subjects are well lit. Photoshop grain/noise isn't so bad and can be used to cover up awful sensor noise at times quite well.
Unless you blow the images past 8x10 it's not terribly noticable anyway. Certainly not things that the average /p/rotog does anyway.

>>2753167

Yeah, it's a snapshit but that's not really relevant. I was just searching flickr for sample photos as I'm looking for a new camera and was curious about real world high-iso noise from it (it's not a recent camera).

Contrary to the fucktard above this is just high-iso noise. I've been told that CCD noise is more random than CMOS noise which makes it look a bit more film like. I generally dislike digital noise, particular in colour, but there was something in this pics that reminded me of what I used to get from films like Superia 1600.

>>2753150
without zooming in theirs no noise these is a gay and fake thread

>>2753189
Are you blind or something?

>>2753147
Only retarded pixel peepers and gearfags complain about noise like it's a binary.

>>2753194

I'd say it's a pretty universal dislike of high-iso noise. I was quite surprised when I came across these pics as most people either do post/use images with noise or feel compelled to de-noise as much as possible.

Just thought it'd be good to see some more examples of noise adding to an image rather than taking away...

The Leica CCD cameras have a pleasant grain for a digital camera imo. It looks more like it's been added in post on top of a sharp picture unlike with CMOS where the picture gets mushy.

>>2753217

I've certainly found that while searching through websites and flickr. I was looking for an M9/M-E and was worrying a bit about usable ISO. That camera undoubtedly does have quite a bit of noise at 2500 (really 3200) but I was surprised at how pleasant it looked.

I'm sure it can't be the only camera that has a quite pleasant noise at higher ISOs.

>>2753147

this looks fake and homo as fuck.

there are color smears that aren even part of the shape of objects or their texture. they are fucking arbitrary fuckups of the sensor or the computer or whatever gay ass part that does this.

its low depth color noise too, one can count the colors, its that bad.

File: ayy.jpg (371KB, 1040x716px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1040x716px

we art now

>>2753234
MUch better.

I like grain in most my pics

>>2753234

You actually made it worse.

>>2753230

That is hands down the most stupid comment I have read on this entire site.

>>2753298

explain why, shithead.

>>2753303
who gives a dick is a photo is fake

>>2753342

but its not fake. it looks fake. learn the difference, retard.

>>2753351
honestly don't get what looks fake about it, don't get what you mean by colour smears. Genuinely interested.

>>2753351
>>2753351
>the sole purpose of photography is for the photos to look as realistic as possible. any photographer aiming at something else produces bad photography. there is no room for experimentation or alternative interpretations of motives in photography

>>2753147
Noise and grain are different things, nigger.
Colour noise is obviously horrendous cause it is made of tiny coloured dots randomly displayed in the frame.
Grain on the other hand is a different matter. It can be used to pursue a certain aesthetic and also to hide the real digital noise that fucking blows. I, for one, don't like the clean images digital gets so I always apply a little grain and reduce sharpness, but I ALWAYS eliminate some of the noise before. If you are subtle when adding it it will be pleasing and barely noticeable unless you go zoom to 100%. Your pic looks like it was shot with a 12800 film, and it doesn't look very good. Turn it a bit down, and visualize the result at full zoom.

I'm not a fan of the saturation or artificial noise at all, OP. But that's just my opinion.

>>2753510
I disagree
>what is B/W
>what is vsco
>what are film artifacts

>>2753500
digital tends to invent colors and gradations. or to simplify depth, so some parts of the image look high end, and some other look gameboy color tier. look to what happens if one lowers the cyan luminance just a bit. you get to watch hard patches of some ugly shit thats in the original file, but more prominent here.

>>2753510
2/10 for low effort. be funnier next time.

File: shite.jpg (695KB, 2048x1363px) Image search: [Google]

695KB, 2048x1363px

>>2753565

this is pic related.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:26 10:02:46
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1363

>>2753565
>>2753566
Ah yeah, I see. Thanks for the explanation.

>>2753565
wow .. you are .. so stupid .. just wow.

>digital tends to invent colors

.. just .. my god ..

>simplify depth

.. oookaayy ..

dude .. I am quite used to people on this board having absolutely no clue what they are talking about. and even with that annoying confidence which is typical for dillitants. but for some reason your post extraordinarily goes on my nerves.

I would appreciate if you'd take some of your color patches and smear them furiously on your anus.

aye?

>>2753812
>dillitants

work on your illiteracy first. deal?

also can you refute, or are you just a meme spouting kid?

>>2753565
dugutul now invents colors. get the new sony color synthesizing pixel generator. it will make pictures which are somewhat similar to the environment the sensor is at the moment. newest feature: now with even simpler depths which produces some outstanding color patches.

buy now the new Sony Smear(tm)

>>2753817
I did not write "dilletant" wrong. there was just a color patch over the word which let you think the e was an i. .. but I appologize for smearing it there.

>>2753817
>meme spouting kid
dude, memes tend to invent colors. so I won't spout memes unless they are gamboy color tier.