<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Where does digital noise come from?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://photocritic.org/digital-noise/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://photocritic.org/digital-noise/</link>
	<description>The Photocritic DIY photography projects blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:34:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: DON TREADWELL</title>
		<link>http://photocritic.org/digital-noise/#comment-308161</link>
		<dc:creator>DON TREADWELL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:16:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photocritic.org/?p=2140#comment-308161</guid>
		<description>Thanks for addressing my noise problem. It&#039;s been bugging me for several months and I&#039;ve had many bits of advice.... I&#039;ll let you know if any of yours is effective... and even if it isn&#039;t it is still good to discuss things with another fotog. Keep up the good work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for addressing my noise problem. It&#8217;s been bugging me for several months and I&#8217;ve had many bits of advice&#8230;. I&#8217;ll let you know if any of yours is effective&#8230; and even if it isn&#8217;t it is still good to discuss things with another fotog. Keep up the good work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gina</title>
		<link>http://photocritic.org/digital-noise/#comment-307561</link>
		<dc:creator>Gina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photocritic.org/?p=2140#comment-307561</guid>
		<description>Oliver&#039;s link above - i followed it ... and THE GRAININESS (to my mind) suits the subject ... but, to my eye, the main subject is blurred ...

i feel the eeeek part is the blurring and not the grain ... 

:) &gt;&gt;&gt; Gina</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oliver&#8217;s link above &#8211; i followed it &#8230; and THE GRAININESS (to my mind) suits the subject &#8230; but, to my eye, the main subject is blurred &#8230;</p>
<p>i feel the eeeek part is the blurring and not the grain &#8230; </p>
<p>:) &gt;&gt;&gt; Gina</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gina</title>
		<link>http://photocritic.org/digital-noise/#comment-307559</link>
		<dc:creator>Gina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:07:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photocritic.org/?p=2140#comment-307559</guid>
		<description>yes but what is wrong with noise ?

the grainy look, in some pieces is quite beautiful.

i must admit the &#039;type&#039; of pic that fits grainy is hard to find ... on one of my pieces, i stumbled into it when playing with effects in elements and ever since i cant find &#039;the&#039; pic that works as well as this one ...

its &#039;my shadow2) - with the noise and &#039;treatment&#039; it looks like a mezzotint ...
http://thefyneartsplace-gina.blogspot.com/

(i enjoy your blog very much) ... &gt;&gt; Gina</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yes but what is wrong with noise ?</p>
<p>the grainy look, in some pieces is quite beautiful.</p>
<p>i must admit the &#8216;type&#8217; of pic that fits grainy is hard to find &#8230; on one of my pieces, i stumbled into it when playing with effects in elements and ever since i cant find &#8216;the&#8217; pic that works as well as this one &#8230;</p>
<p>its &#8216;my shadow2) &#8211; with the noise and &#8216;treatment&#8217; it looks like a mezzotint &#8230;<br />
<a href="http://thefyneartsplace-gina.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://thefyneartsplace-gina.blogspot.com/</a></p>
<p>(i enjoy your blog very much) &#8230; &gt;&gt; Gina</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Haje Jan Kamps</title>
		<link>http://photocritic.org/digital-noise/#comment-307518</link>
		<dc:creator>Haje Jan Kamps</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:21:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photocritic.org/?p=2140#comment-307518</guid>
		<description>Artifacting will probably be JPEG compression rather than ISO issues - also, I find that stock houses are anally-retentive about some really stupid things, while still accepting talentless idiots as their stock photographers. 

... The latter of which is a good thing, otherwise I&#039;d never sell any stock photography ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Artifacting will probably be JPEG compression rather than ISO issues &#8211; also, I find that stock houses are anally-retentive about some really stupid things, while still accepting talentless idiots as their stock photographers. </p>
<p>&#8230; The latter of which is a good thing, otherwise I&#8217;d never sell any stock photography ;-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DON TREADWELL</title>
		<link>http://photocritic.org/digital-noise/#comment-307472</link>
		<dc:creator>DON TREADWELL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:39:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photocritic.org/?p=2140#comment-307472</guid>
		<description>Hi... I&#039;m a new stock photographer and I get a LOT of my stuff rejected because of excess artifacting.  I shoot at the lowest ISO and use a tripod and cable release.... still noisy. Can you help me.Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi&#8230; I&#8217;m a new stock photographer and I get a LOT of my stuff rejected because of excess artifacting.  I shoot at the lowest ISO and use a tripod and cable release&#8230;. still noisy. Can you help me.Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oliver</title>
		<link>http://photocritic.org/digital-noise/#comment-307456</link>
		<dc:creator>Oliver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:13:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photocritic.org/?p=2140#comment-307456</guid>
		<description>Hi Haje,

Nice explanation.
And I agree with you: We should not forget that removing noise will not make our photo better.

We just get a bad photo with less noise.

Check this photo out - its great. But look at the grain.. EEEK! ;-)
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/news/world_press_photo_jury/header.jpg</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Haje,</p>
<p>Nice explanation.<br />
And I agree with you: We should not forget that removing noise will not make our photo better.</p>
<p>We just get a bad photo with less noise.</p>
<p>Check this photo out &#8211; its great. But look at the grain.. EEEK! ;-)<br />
<a href="http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/news/world_press_photo_jury/header.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/news/world_press_photo_jury/header.jpg</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FELIX WU</title>
		<link>http://photocritic.org/digital-noise/#comment-307371</link>
		<dc:creator>FELIX WU</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:16:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photocritic.org/?p=2140#comment-307371</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the wonderful and educational post as usual.:)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the wonderful and educational post as usual.:)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
