Photography is sometimes more than just capturing "reality," but your point is noted.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 12/9/2004 8:23:35 AM > Subject: RE: "Fake" vs "Real" effects > > 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 > :-) >
