On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 07:46:20 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jun 24, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

Snip

I did not remove any noise, because I did not want to.

That’s OK if you could pass the noise off for grain. However, with that
image the noise does not have the quality or character of genuine grain, or
pseudo grain digitally produced by apps such as NIK Silver Efex Pro2, or
Exposure X2.

Anyway, it is your image. It is a great capture of a perfect moment, which
for me is spoilt by the noise issue.

But grain is but another form of noise, inherent in the film
technology. It has become so accepted that in many cases it is now
regarded as an essential part of the image. Why should digital noise
be considered unacceptable and chemical be considered desirable?

Here is an image from a nearby location taken on a different day. To me it's nothing but
a picture postcard.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zfnoczxji8vmryu/bow%20bridge.jpg?dl=0

Agreed. That is very much a postcard image. That said, sometimes postcard
images can be quite good.

The faux color image, was processed by warming the RAW and the doing a
color channel switch. To my way of thinking one of the neat things about
photography is that there is no need for all of us to agree.

...and my response just proves that point.

ditto. :-)

Having said that, when does photography end and digital art begin. Or
are we going back to the f64 discussions.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/esqa284w6tmxt7s/_DSC6534%20distorted%20and%20turned.jpg?dl=0

Personal taste is the overriding factor here. That sort of image is not in my
photography wheelhouse, and is just way too gimmicky, and obviously heavily
stepped on with process for me.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens