On 8 Dec 2004 at 18:10, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > I'm not trying to argue, but rather just point out that the degree and type of > grain can be a substantial creative tool. The problem today is that there > aren't that many films to choose from with which you can easily make such > gross > manipulations of a photographs feel and intent, although it is certainly > possible, and many, if not most, contemporary photographers aren't familiar > with > the possibilities or skilled in their use. Too many photogs are taking the > homogenous method of using chromogenic film for their B&W work instead of > learning real B&W techniques, thereby losing substantial interpretive and > creative possibilities, where Juan wanted to add grain to his pics to make > them > look more like Tri-X.
I think I know where you are coming from but grain to me was something that we had to deal with not my choice. I was a big user of D3200 and T-Max at high ISOs prior to my *ist D purchase. I used to scan most images but I did hand print 35mm up to 12x18". I dealt with the grain, I had to, now I have much more choice and can even use colour where it was near impossible before. > Of course, if grain were not such an interesting creative tool, numerous > digital photographer might not give much thought to adding grain to their > images ... which brings us back full circle to the start of this thread. Granted, I will say though that in a year of shooting with my *ist D the only time the concept of adding grain had occupied my brain space was during this recent discussion. I see it as sort of parallel to the audiophiles that add tube stages (thermionic valves add (some say pleasant) third harmonic distortions to the audio signal). Makes new gear sound like the old stuff they were used to, not something I'd be likely to do however "nice" it sounds :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
