|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Noise, blur, OOF, or under?
This is from the Post ask your questions here. https://www.modelmayhem.com/p.php?thread_id=252362 This is an open thread for all to voice answers in the locked thread is listed here ok question: you rather have a shot be: 1. Underexposed 2. Noisy 3. Blurry 4. Out of focus What do you find is the lesser of the evils, when you're put in a situation where you need a little bit more light, but you don't want to open the aperture any wider, you don't want to bump up the iso, and you don't want to leave the shutter open any longer? None! but given that, that is not possible, I go for noise. Blurry gives people a headache and unless you have a style like EVU and can pretend you meant to do it and even if you do pretend to do it many viewers will just see a blurry shot, and in there minds that just bad, if it makes the pages of vogue than many viewers will think it bad and the fashion elite will think it was on purpose and its cool and be so happy with themselves because they feel they just GET IT when others don't  Same goes for out of focus, who looks at a out of focus shot (and I don't mean a shot with selective focus even if that selective focus is on a foreground object with the main behind and out but the idea is expressed that the in focus object was the subject of attention even in face of what should have been obviously the focus) that's different that has purpose, but just out of focus all over looks bad and only those who know its suppose to be art are fooled into thinking that is so cool! Underexposed, can be brightened and perhaps fixed so this is an option depending on how much it has to be, if it will be so bad that the whole image will lose all detail that cannot be regained and will overall suffer its just bad, I do underexpose sometimes when shooting for B&W to give it a bit more meat to the raw file. Noise would be the way to go, people have long been accepting of grain and noise can be cleaned a lot and even more reduced in its off color apparentness to a monochromatic noise that is not that objectionable and most people even consumers tend to be forgiving of noise and dot grain and pattern noise as its become a very normal part of the process so this is in my opinion the least objectionable when there are no other options available. Stephen Eastwood http://www.StephenEastwood.com Feb 22 08 02:04 pm Link Shoot RAW, underexpose if necessary to keep your ideal settings. RAW exposure increases aren't perfect, but it seems like a better option than a blurry photo. IMO Feb 22 08 02:07 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: These are already ranked in best-to-worst order. Feb 22 08 02:14 pm Link OK because people are answering that do not seem to do great deal of camera and raw processing testing, I will further add that 1 stop underexposure on all dslr type digital sensors now produces a greater level of noise and 1/3-2/3rd stops more unrecovarable shadow detail than the same shot at a higher iso would have when pushed one stop in the raw software. And if you can get away with it and shoot at a higher iso than needed to get an overexposed image taking advantage of the high end of the sensor and bringing it down a 1/2 to a stop in the raw you will squash most of the noise and have a better cleaner and more detailed file than the other options. Stephen Eastwood http://www.StephenEastwood.com Feb 22 08 02:21 pm Link I suppose it depends on what I'm shooting. If it's more of a photojournalistic-type of situation (example, behind-the-scenes photos with Stephen Eastwood --wink--) in which I cannot control lighting, I'm more willing to forgive underexposure/noise/motion blur. Out of focus stuff typically gets tossed away. Feb 22 08 02:34 pm Link M Sebastian wrote: Stephen Eastwood is an obnoxious arrogant narcissistic type who insists on great lighting on him even before the talent since he knows what is really important Feb 22 08 02:37 pm Link Heck, in that situation, I'd gladly incorporate blur, grain and thin all in the same shot! Do it all the time, actually. I love the way a photograph can feel like beach sand that a wave has just passed over. But that's just me. Feb 22 08 02:49 pm Link Unique lighting, against the rules of photography, is the way to go, otherwise everyones work would look similar...Just my .02 Feb 22 08 02:51 pm Link all of the above! haha... Wha... never mind.... Feb 22 08 07:30 pm Link Noisy is fine for me ... there are relatively easy ways of making it look acceptable, artistic. Much more difficult to have shots that are blurry, out of focus or underexposed "saved" and put to good use YMMV Rudi A. Feb 22 08 08:03 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: Back from the depths... May 02 08 11:31 am Link Give me noise. At the very least, the composition & lighting of the image will be decent enough for some kind of use. May 02 08 02:07 pm Link Out of focus is a crime. May 02 08 02:11 pm Link Daniel Leon wrote: Unless you do it intentionally!!! May 02 08 02:16 pm Link Sean Baker wrote: Only on high iso and knowing that you are losing something to gain a cleaner looking file. Otherwise shooting accurately is better than shooting to the right for best results from the camera chip. May 02 08 02:20 pm Link StephenEastwood wrote: Got it. And thanks. May 02 08 02:48 pm Link |
