[Leica] Basic question about digital noise in the shadows

[grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey@mchsi.com)]

They are also $25,000 or more.  For that kind of money they had better be 
better than film.  ;-)

Gene

-------------- Original message from "animal" <s.jessurun95@chello.nl>: 
-------------- 


> What I do know is that the latest LF digital backs outclass film in 
> dynamic 
> range. 
> A Sinar brochure mentiones 14 stops with the cooled back. 
> best 
> simon jessurun 
> 
> 
> 
> > Ok, I got lucky. Googled and got this on the 1st or 2nd hit. (Apologies 
> > if 
> > the formattng gets screwy below.) 
> > 
> > Here's a longish quote I want to examine: "The best way to remove noise 
> > is 
> > not to create them in the first place. To me, it means ISO100 as much as 
> > possible 
> > and don't underexpose by too much (I do want to remind everybody about 
> > erring 
> > on the underexposure side still holds, just don't overdo it). When 
> > contrast is high, 
> > use fill flash or reflector if possible.... I group noise into 2 
> > catagories, shadow noise 
> > and long exposure noise. Shadow noise is a general low level noise that 
> > spreads out 
> > in dark areas. [snip] Note that shadow noise could happen in brightly 
> > lit 
> > photos, it 
> > could lurk in dark shadows, or one of the other color channels (for 
> > example, blue 
> > channel on a red subject)." 
> > 
> > Ok, this does correspond to my own digi experiences over the past two 
> > years 
> > (including the blue channel noise thing, interesting). 
> > 
> > Does anyone else think that this is *completely* retarded? 
> > 
> > He says clearly that very well exposed pictures can have oodles of noise 
> > "in the 
> > shadows." So if there are shadows, use fill flash if possible. 
> > 
> > Huh!?!?!? 
> > 
> > So, think of Wynn Bullock's photographs with those beautiful and 
> > seemingly 
> > infinite shades of black and gray, and then something in the composition 
> > that 
> > soars from the shadows toward paper white (not necessarily getting 
> > there). 
> > 
> > http://www.laurencemillergallery.com/images/bullock_real38.jpg 
> > 
> > This looks crappy compared to the LensWork reproduction. But it's just 
> > an 
> > example, and I hope it will sufficiently illustrate the point. I'm sure 
> > most 
> > of us can think of other beautifully toned, "nearly all shadows" kinds 
> > of 
> > fine 
> > art photographs. 
> > 
> > One more very important detail. I've done noise reduction for shadow 
> > noise. 
> > It *softens* things up quite a bit. Often doesn't matter. But I'm 
> > talking now 
> > about photos where there is lots of *very sharp*, important detail on 
> > the 
> > "shadow side" of the histogram. 
> > 
> > In fact, sometimes nearly all the important detail can be in the 
> > shadows. 
> > 
> > http://www.laurencemillergallery.com/images/bullock_real15.jpg 
> > 
> > This doesn't *quite* illustrate this point, but it's pretty close, and 
> > we 
> > can 
> > all recall the myriad fine art pictures of black-to-dark rocks. 
> > Sharp, sharp, sharp. We're talking LF 4x5 or 8x10 sharp. So throwing 
> > alot of blur or any other technique that will compromise the sharpness 
> > and detail of the shadowy objects would most often be completely 
> > unacceptable. 
> > 
> > 
> > So gosh, were he a digi shooter, I guess we'd have to advise Mr. Bullock 
> > to use fill flash. 
> > 
> > This is a joke, right? Come on, I'm LMAO, have a chuckle along me. 
> > 
> > If the quote above is true, a digital camera would be nearly unsuitable 
> > for any 
> > serious art photography where the shadow side of the histogram is where 
> > all 
> > the action is. It would only be good for vaction pics of the Taj Mahal, 
> > some 
> > happy snaps using fill flash and other brightly lit scenes - or PJ work 
> > where 
> > no one cares. 
> > 
> > Yeah, I'm exagerating again :-) 
> > 
> > So this is my question. 
> > 
> > With a DSLR, can one take "oodles of shades of gray" style pictures, or 
> > even 
> > pictures where sharp objects in shadows dominate or significantly 
> > complement 
> > a well lit subject???? Like a nude on lovely black wet rocks, just for 
> > example. 
> > 
> > If you made it this far, many thanks. 
> > 
> > I'd love to be told that I've got some blind spot, that I'm missing 
> > something 
> > very basic and fundamental. 
> > 
> > Or, I'd love to be told that the above quote is hogwash. (Not likely) 
> > 
> > Better yet, I'd love to be clued into some by now well known and well 
> > worn 
> > technique for making beautiful, sharp "shadowy" pictures with a DSLR. 
> > 
> > I appreciate any insight or advice anyone has to offer. 
> > 
> > Scott 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Pics @ http://www.adrenaline.com/snaps 
> > Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35 
> > (Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act) 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > Leica Users Group. 
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Leica Users Group. 
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information