My perception of noise has always been rather simple--sound I don't like. I have to expand my sensory definition of noise to include more than only sounds I hear and dislike. Noise can also be visual as found in playing with the word to include "visual noise".
This picture is a perfect example to me of visual noise:
This "dithering" effect in digital photography produces an unpleasing "image noise". The photo was taken with a 5 megapixel camera that leaves too much "noise" in brown, blue or green sections of pictures. Digital photography fills in areas but it produces an unpleasing effect.
In contrast, these pictures below were taken with a 16.2 megapixel Nikon D5100 DSLR camera which produces a more pleasing photograph. The brown, blue and green colors look more as the natural eye would see them. The image noise reduction of the camera is outstanding.
I tend to be a purist in photographic effects. Artistic renderings in photographic form that plays with reality can sometimes be pleasing to my eye, but that is distinctly different from "visual noise". Beauty is in the eye of the beholder perhaps, but it seems to me that whatever was intended and fails is what produces "visual noise." You recognize what is visual noise and what is artistic "photoshopping" or enhancement of photos. A deliberate manipulation of digital media can produce some very pleasing effects not unlike impressionistic painting. There are those who claim impressionists were just near-sighted artists. Even if that were true, I find the effect is a pleasing variation on reality. I wouldn't call it "noise".
According to that great expert in cyberspace, Wikipedia, noise can be expanded from acoustic noise to other applications as well as cellular noise, vibrational noise, electronic noise or thermal noise. The technical details of each makes very interesting reading. I don't need to try to paraphrase their definitions, but the idea of "noisy genes" tickles my fancy. It makes me wonder if there is such a thing as "tasty noise" or "smelly noise"--whatever interferes with the pure reception of a sensory experience.
At the core of all of these "noise" events, is the idea that something is unwanted. So I suppose I would define noise as whatever is unwanted or distracting and produces stress in the receptor. I like the notion of "white noise" which I would define as something so all inclusive that it soothes and ceases to stress or annoy.
I love looking at beautiful blogs where expert photographers display their photos of pets, children, sports events, fireworks and all those challenging photographic "Kodak moments". I've upgraded to a better camera several times, but I know I need a more sophisticated camera to produce results like the ones I envy online. I am learning to play with light settings, ISO, shutter speed, focal distance, and all those other little settings on my camera. Sometimes I even RTFM.
My great frustration is in finding a great opportunity to photograph, but my light setting might be wrong, or my shutter speed is wrong. Maybe I needed to do a macro of a flower. Other frustrations are in trying to take pictures of my grandchildren who constantly move about and don't like to pose for cameras. Sometimes I turn on the video and just take movies of them. I have played with the movie making software and pulled out a freeze frame still shot, but the quality isn't what I would want for a photo album or to put in a frame. I have played with Photoshop and a half dozen editing programs to try to improve focus, color, or lighting.
I once took a mini course on digital photography and came away with a few guiding principles that were helpful. The instructor said, "Take a deep breath, depress the shutter button halfway to allow it to auto-focus and squeeze it to take the picture to avoid camera shake." Standing still is very difficult so I often lean on a column or whatever is handy. Consequently, my photos often are out of focus and thank goodness it is digital rather than film, because I delete more than I use. Sometimes I take a dozen pictures or more to find one I can accept. The ones that are out of focus frustrate me when I expect a photo that looks as my eye sees something. I like a small camera and I don't like to drag around a tripod.
For those of us who love photography but struggle with our amateur status, help is on the way. In Science News, January 28, 2012, an article called "The Digital Camera Revolution" details a jaw-dropping list of innovations. Even though there are now cameras that take pictures around corners, or others that can make an image look like a 3-D image, the one that appeals to me is the new Lytro. You can focus the photo after you take it. How did they know I needed that? Cameras for Dummies.
I know where there are innovations, there are ways to manipulate great technology for nefarious motives. I already look at photos with skeptical eyes and fancy I can tell which have double images or have been Photoshopped into something that doesn't exist. Seeing is not always believing. Nevertheless, I look forward to the camera that will make my photos look as great as I want. I want to freeze that moment when my grandson pops a bubble with his nose and I want it focused.
