"Noise" criticism? -Bah humbug!! (Warning; -a RANT! ">})

Reading many of the photo mags I like, I'm often struck by the super-critical, almost anal criticism of the slightest hint of 'noise' (formerly known as 'grain') found in even the best of photographs!

For instance in one magazine I usually enjoy, the Brit one "Practical Photography", in the 6/10 issue there's a fantastic closeup, face-on shot of a Pelican. It's one of the best bird pnotographs I've ever seen! -But the critic there blew up a tiny lower side portion of the birds feathers by 250%, discovered a tiny bit of blurring, and then labeled the shot as only being mediocre because of "noise"!
I haven't seen such anal nit-picking of a good (actually great, IMO) bird photograph in all my 60 years of experience with photography! -But then, unfortunately, it's not limited to this magazine or this critic either..!

From whence cometh all this obsessive concern over a bit of grain or a bit of blurring in good photographs? Is it a byproduct of our overly perfectionist, overly tech-loving-as-opposed-to-art-making, nit picking times? Or have the "experts" now become so jealous of the rising expertise of amateur digital photographers that they are negatively bending over backwards to try and preserve their own cherished positions?? ">})

Sheeesh, if all of these ridiculous perfectionist standards the photo "experts" want to impose on us now were around in the era of great 35mm photo art, magazines such as Life wouldn't have been able to publish probably 3/4's of their fantastic in-the-field shots!!!

And shooting candidly, that wonderful experience of capturing just the right moment, is something else to think about here... Because if we all had to spend all of our photo opportunities first carefully checking and adjusting our DSLRs to obtain the minimum possible amount of 'noise', the chances of obtaining that great one-inna-million picture would become damn near impossible!

So if the picture is great (or even only just good?), I say hooray for a little noise, hooray for some acceptable grain, and let's put all those perfectionist "experts" opinions back into the little nit picking boxes they are always trying to stuff our photographs into!

Ah c'mon GW, tell us how ya REALLY feel!
hehehe
I hear ya, man, I hear ya.

That mag compensated him for that drek!

Reminds me of nit picking inspectors in another tech field.
They can quote you chapter, verse AND line by line of 'rules and regs'...
But completely MISS the overall 'picture' of the job site.
Which is usually right in front of their eyeballs!

Here's 3 pics I couldn't pass up: Are they noisy???

pjl said:

Ah c'mon GW, tell us how ya REALLY feel!
hehehe
I hear ya, man, I hear ya.

That mag compensated him for that drek!

Reminds me of nit picking inspectors in another tech field.
They can quote you chapter, verse AND line by line of 'rules and regs'...
But completely MISS the overall 'picture' of the job site.
Which is usually right in front of their eyeballs!

Here's 3 pics I couldn't pass up: Are they noisy???

View attachment 148View attachment 147View attachment 149

Click to expand...

Not in my book (magazine?) Pil! -I think they're great!
I especially enjoyed the trust the little girl is showing her father with her willingness to make that leap, and the dog on the rocks above smiling his general approval at the adventure..! -Great neat short story there, that says a lot!

Thanks, GW.
Right place, right time, good enough gear to grab the shot(s).
I also got the parental ok (on the spot) to post these.

crit·ic   /ˈkrɪt

ɪk/


–noun

1. a person who judges, evaluates, or analyzes literary or artistic works, dramatic or musical performances, or the like, esp. for a newspaper or magazine.
2. a person who tends too readily to make captious, trivial, or harsh judgments;faultfinder.

I agree with you.

I think too many "recognized" critics, like those in magazines and other so-called experts mostly enjoy the sound of their own voice as opposed to providing any actual insightful opinion. Case in point: when presented with a fantastic photograph, the critic in question must resort to 250% zoom levels in order to have something to write about. Even the Mona Lisa looks like crap when you're standing that close to it.

Personally, I will take a peer review over an "expert's" opinions any day.

Greywolf, you're right on the money with your rant! Well done, bud! Wish I could have put it those words, as they are so true! Too many anal people out there who think they are so called experts. They're so busy concentrating on the little imperfections that they miss the best part of the picture. Hey....maybe it makes them feel important, eh!

I'm going to take another view of this issue. Most all of the 'stock' sites will blow an image up to a minimum of 100% and will reject for any noise, dirt, abberation, etc. even though most sites won't offer an enlargement to this size. Tick you off? yes! But it's part of their quality control as their customers demand high quality, high resolution images. You might think about this as a possible quality control check you could employ into your own workflow. Quality is Quality, Snapshots are Snapshots.

DaveKoontz said:

I'm going to take another view of this issue. Most all of the 'stock' sites will blow an image up to a minimum of 100% and will reject for any noise, dirt, abberation, etc. even though most sites won't offer an enlargement to this size. Tick you off? yes! But it's part of their quality control as their customers demand high quality, high resolution images. You might think about this as a possible quality control check you could employ into your own workflow. Quality is Quality, Snapshots are Snapshots.

Click to expand...

I suspect we're talking about different kids of photography here..? Snapshots? -I'm sorry, but I think you're being rude and insulting with that kind of remark, yes?
I'm talking about wonderful photos that grab you, that tell a strong story to you, not pretty prints someone wants to buy for advertising or to decorate a wall with. I'm not a fool, and so yes, I can see why these have to be very clear... But have you seen the great shot of that Pelican I'm talking about? To criticize that excellent photo for a tiny lower corner blur only discovered in a 250% magnification is ludicrous, and a bit mean spirited, IMO...

Also do you look at the Magnum photo-journalism site? There are fantastic photos there that tell important stories, -and yes, some of them may have a bit of a soft focus now and then, or an off-looking exposure, and some of them may even have, gasp! -noise, occasionally..! But they are still nevertheless great photo art, and I doubt you'll find many nit picking "experts" daring to criticize them for perceived tiny 'technical imperfections'!
Yes, quality is quality. Yes, snapshots are snapshots. But also yes, nit picking is still nit picking....!

"Noise" criticism? -Bah humbug!! (Warning; -a RANT! ">})

Oh my, the never ending battle between those taking the photos and those looking at them. It is so easy to look at a photo, pick it to peaces, say it has this or that, or does not have this or that, or the composition could be different.... etc... etc... etc....

For me, I take photos because I like to. If it ever became a hassle, or a worry, then I wouldn't do it anymore. If I am working for a client, I still enjoy it. When I see them look at what they have paid for, and go WOW! I like that. But, when I take a photo for myself, that I have put the work into, then have someone look at it and go WOW, that is even better.

Yes, you can look at my photos and say I could have done this or that different, etc.. etc.. etc... and you may be right. But I took the shot, and process the photos the way I like them. So, your opinion will be listened to, maybe even considered, as I have tried different ideas that people have had some work, some don't, some were just pain stupid. (In my opinion anyway) A few reasons why I do not enter competitions is because I don't feel the need to. By putting my photo up against someone elses, to me, diminishes both our work. I do not feel the need to compete with anyone, not even myself.

I would prefer you looked at my photos and appreciate them for what they are, moments in time captured for all to share. Not whether it has too much of this or that, not enough of this or that. Like my work, or hate it, it does not bother me. I am not out for controversy, notoriety or anything like that. I do it because I ENJOY IT!

So if you are having your photo judged then just remember that.

Opinions are like armpits, everyone has at least 2 of them, and sometimes they both stink!

Enough of my rant about criticism.

Here's 3 pics I couldn't pass up: Are they noisy???

View attachment 148View attachment 147View attachment 149[/QUOTE]

Actually, there's a bit on a stud on the dog's collar. 2nd shot 2nd stud from top. And it just ruined the whole thing for me

;-)

ianmoff said:

Here's 3 pics I couldn't pass up: Are they noisy???

View attachment 148View attachment 147View attachment 149

Click to expand...

Actually, there's a bit on a stud on the dog's collar. 2nd shot 2nd stud from top. And it just ruined the whole thing for me

;-)[/QUOTE]

ROFLM!!!

Not trying to be rude or insulting at all, please don't take it that way. I know exactly what you are talking about in taking wonderful photos and having noise, abberation, focus issues, exposure problems, etc. taking the viewers eye away from the subject matter. Worse yet, having the viewer criticize, not critique, the image - their remarks can be pretty damaging to one's ego (believe me I have had my share). I have literally hundreds of 'snapshots' that I love, but will never been seen outside of the family due to imperfections, etc.

I guess what I was trying to do was to take the other side of the discussion, not to be condescending but to bring attention to the fact that there are standards that the "experts", as anal as they can be, use to critique and to judge photos. We have magnificent technology at our finger tips allows us to minimize imperfections. Set-up your equipment, when possible, for the occasion/event and take the best quality shots that you can. When you have a great, once in a life time shot, take it, capture the moment even though it's a quick study. I have to admit that I'm an anal kind of guy myself and in my quest for perfection I am very critical of my images and the quality of photography that I produce.

Although I am far from being a "Pro" or even advanced amateur, I do work hard to get good shots and even clean them up a little if that helps. I love the 3 shots. I also like many of my shots and if I didn't I'd sell the gear, buy a simple camera for Christmas & Thanksgiving dinner pics and that would be the end of photography as a hobby. Always trying to learn, grow and improve is what photography is about for me, but even if no one else likes my shots, I look for improvement. I hope nobody ever hesitates on posting up some shots for fear of harsh criticism. By-the-way, I seldom get good comments from women I take pics of, even if it looks like them, my wife included.

Yibel said:

By-the-way, I seldom get good comments from women I take pics of, even if it looks like them, my wife included.

Click to expand...

You and me both! I don't know why, but woman seem to think if you take a photo of them, you have some magical thing inside the camera that will make then look like a 17year old cheerleeder!! (Well you know what I mean) My other half expects me to make her look "more pretty" then what she is. I tell her I can not improve on perfection. *grin* Don't think she believes me though. LOL

Sorry if this got off topic, but I had to reply.

Oh, and the last thing she looks at is grain! More likely to notice the lines and freckles then anything else.

Can we say Gaussian Blur! Download a trial of Portrait Professional, you can make them look so good you wouldn't even recognize them!

Should have said Gaussian "Softening" They don't like the term blur either.

DaveKoontz said:

Not trying to be rude or insulting at all, please don't take it that way. I know exactly what you are talking about in taking wonderful photos and having noise, abberation, focus issues, exposure problems, etc. taking the viewers eye away from the subject matter. Worse yet, having the viewer criticize, not critique, the image - their remarks can be pretty damaging to one's ego (believe me I have had my share). I have literally hundreds of 'snapshots' that I love, but will never been seen outside of the family due to imperfections, etc.

I guess what I was trying to do was to take the other side of the discussion, not to be condescending but to bring attention to the fact that there are standards that the "experts", as anal as they can be, use to critique and to judge photos. We have magnificent technology at our finger tips allows us to minimize imperfections. Set-up your equipment, when possible, for the occasion/event and take the best quality shots that you can. When you have a great, once in a life time shot, take it, capture the moment even though it's a quick study. I have to admit that I'm an anal kind of guy myself and in my quest for perfection I am very critical of my images and the quality of photography that I produce.

Click to expand...

Okay...">}) -Sometimes I guess I am too quick to take offense...
And probably I shouldn't rant against the word "snapshots" too much either, because many of these quick grabs have created some of our world's most memorable images... (Like the WWII photos of the Normandy beach head, or Cartier's photos of lovers in Paris?)

But unfortunately the word 'snapshot' far too often generates in me distasteful memories of having to stiffly pose for very long moments in the hot sun while my father fussed about with his camera to get the 'perfect' family picture! He took so long to line us all up to take a "snapshot" that everyone in the family hated it when he broke out his (much cherished) fold-out bellows Voightlander! -I suspect as a result this has given me a sometimes lopsided appreciation of improvisation over studious technique..?! ">})

Chuckling; well ian, you just outed you Englander's as a cheeky lot!
lmao, now!

As mentioned by others:
I grab my pixels where I can, when I can.
I end up being my own worst critic as to 'what's acceptable' and what's not.

I'm sure there are 'errors' in quite a few of my shots.
So what.
Only way I learn how to not do it that way again.

I 'spect, if done 'right'(?), some graininess can add to a shot.
That path looks very long and torturous to me, so I ain't goin' there...