FWIW, In real life there is no grain! So if you want the most realistic looking photographs, grain must be eliminated.
To me, noise/grain is an unnatural artifact and is very undesireable 99.9% of the time. With digital processing "grain effect" or noise can be added after the fact so if you want to an unnatural effect like grain/noise on purpose so its better to avoid it altogether on your originals and add it later in the exact amout you want. One of the reasons I like LF film photography so much is that grain/noise is pretty much eliminated visibly for the most part in reasonable size enlargements and is totally eliminated visibly in contact prints. The grain elimination is most noticable in the shadow details. Instead of that grainy shadowy look you get nice smooth deep tones. I don't need no stinkin' grain! JCO -----Original Message----- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 11:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: "Fake" vs "Real" effects Hi Rob, Quite honestly, while many photogs used grain creatively, I suspect most didn't, and looked upon it as did you, something that had to be dealt with. Perhaps most photogs learned one or two films and a developer or two, and that was the extent of their repertoire, after all, the almost universal admonishment was to learn one film and one developer well. Other photogs, however, went further, just as today most digi photogs probably won't go beyond minor tweaks and adjustments both in camera and in the "darkroom." There are, of course, those like yourself, who are doing some very creative things with PS and with the camera and technology - stitching, blending images, playing with "noise," and the like. Coincidentally, I read an article yesterday by Tom Abrahamsson who had been testing the new Epson R-D1 camera. He made an interesting comment, which I just happen to have handy. He said, "...Film can be pushed and in the case of something like the RD-1, just rack up the ISO setting to 1600 and your 21/4 becomes a 21/2. Yes, it will have "grain" (aka digital noise!) but if you shoot Neopan 1600 you also get grain. Big deal!" He touched on something I'd been thinking about and that you and others have been dealing with: you guys are working with grain of sorts, and by using programs like Neat Image, choosing the camera ISO, and such, are using grain as a creative or interpretive approach. Mostly it seems that you're trying to get rid of grain, but you determine how much and where in the image you'll be making the adjustments. So, while you may not have thought adding grain, perhaps you've been thinking about grain in a somewhat different context. Removing it or softening it, which is just the other side of the coin as far as I'm concerned. And that's just what conventional B&W photogs often try to do with film and developer choices - utilize the grain most appropriately. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 :-)
