minimising noise in digital cameras

[Loris Medici]

Bob, those who comply with that - hightly subjective - criteria know themselves. If the cap fits... ???

Ann, I feel the same (I mean the "getting lost" part) and that's why I ask "for a proper statement/comment" instead of fiddling over (false) details...

 

[Loris Medici]

BTW, unless we hear "something elaborated / with substance", I'm done with this...

 

[pellicle]

Loris, for the record (and its there in history to review) you started tossing around accusations at without so much as asking me any details. Well into this you then decry my lack of details but never once had the courtesy to ask for them. I posted a sample and answered questions where asked.

You went for the rude superior and arrogant stance from the start, while you can't even grasp the errors in your own data, nor do you once answer my questions to you.

To the others in this thread I continue to be interested in this topic and would regard discussing this further with interest, but not with Loris.

PS, I will not be following this thread further, if anyone wishes to discuss this concept please PM me or start another thread.

thanks for your understanding

 

[Loris Medici]

I'm sorry, but all that you have posted was BS samples perfectly fitting - in terms of quality and truthfulness - your BS article...

I have said that you were underexposing, and demonstrated (with perfectly open / truthful samples and explanations) that if you expose properly there isn't any need for a CC filter, and in case you use one, it will cost you quality (noticed the fact that the image shot w/ CC filter was poorer in definition?) and ease of operation (two stops less light makes things harder obviously / by definition).

Unfortunately you weren't able to provide us even the tiniest proof that your samples were indeed exposed correctly. Whereas, your description about the metering and the bad results you've shown was implying the opposite; bad exposure / lack of knowledge of giving proper exposure with digital cameras.

I think anyone following this thread can / will make up their mind regarding the original issue... I recommend to others, to take no one's word and to test it for themselves instead.

pellicle, I highly recommend that you at least go over the (elementary) concept of exposure, plus, to test / learn how to make good use of your equipment, before blundering out another brilliant example of your intellect again in the future...

Whatever... :rolleyes: <- This for your next post(s)

 

[Colin Graham]

Pellicle, thanks for sharing your insights. I look forward to trying it.

With the broken features, spam and the open hostility, I'm happy that folks still want to contribute here.

 

[Loris Medici]

New visuals for your evaluation...

FWIW, I added two visuals to the flickr gallery; it's the comparative histograms of the two RAW files I've provided before, using a program called Dead Link Removed. Histograms show the mapped RAW data using the CIE L* mapping function. See them below:


(1.) no-CC histogram over CC histogram:

(2). CC histogram over no-CC histogram:

I won't make any comment, nor I expect any from you; it's just there as a helper and inspiration for your own personal evaluation and tests...

 

[SilverGlow]

A side issue: Actually I don't get what's so objectionable with "noise". I mean, yes, noise is no good, but let's be reasonable; the advanced amateur digital SLR I have, when used at ISO 1600 gives me much much less noise than what I get (in form of graininess) from 35mm ISO 400 B&W film! Therefore, to me the subject actually borders in the zone of nitpicking/pixel-peeping; pretty much a non-productive activity...

Regards,
Loris.

You make the mistake of equating digital noise with film grain. There is no tie here. Grain can add to the beauty of a composition. You often hear people talk about "the wonderful grain". You never hear anyone talk about the "wonderful digital noise".

Noise is ugly, and should be minimized. Noise can be a terrible distraction when one views a nice composition....this is not often the case with film grain.

Apples and oranges. Grain is more uniform, and expected. Noise is random, clumps here in there, mostly in the shadows but in the highlights too.

Anyone that knows anything about DSLR's would be foolish to not consider noise abatement performance when picking and choosing a new DSLR to buy.