[pure-silver] Re: Rumors Of Film's Death Are Vastly Exaggerated
- From: Don Sweet <don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 08:34:46 +1200
I guess the unnamed writer's view makes sense if you think of "noise" as
unwanted components of a signal, but that implies a rather process-oriented
view.
A better word to describe the resulting problem in the image might be "dirt",
meaning stuff that's in the wrong place (as explained by Mary Douglas).
Don Sweet
----- Original Message -----
From: Dana Myers
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 10:29 AM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Rumors Of Film's Death Are Vastly Exaggerated
On 9/14/2010 3:23 PM, Gerald Koch wrote:
I was taken to task a couple of weeks ago for my description of grain. The
writer corrected me saying that grain was noise. I suppose that in a digital
sense this is true but for an analog photographer it sounds very strange.
At the risk of wandering off-topic, I'm not so sure this makes sense.
Grain seems to roughly parallel pixels, which relate to resolution.
Noise would seem to be inaccuracy in the *values* recorded in the
unit of resolution.
Dana
Other related posts:
