I respectfully disagree with you. Film Grain CAN be totally visibly eliminated with LF by not using enlarging techniques ( aka contact prints ). I have some 8x10 contact prints made from 400 speed negatives that have ZERO visible grain to the naked eye to prove it.
JCO -----Original Message----- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 9:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: "Fake" vs "Real" effects grain is still an artifact of the recording medium (film) and not inherent in image capture. its artsiness is a convention born of necessity. you couldn't get rid of it, so learned to live with it and to control it, but never to eliminate it. with digital, there are still many imperfections, but grain isn't one of them. adding grain back into digital images is making use of established conventions based on film's limitations. i am sure they discussed the merits of having or not having softening caused by paper negatives when wet plates first came out too. Herb.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 9:10 PM Subject: Re: "Fake" vs "Real" effects > I'd differ with you on that. Grain can be reasonably well controlled > in B&W once you know what you're doing by choice of film, exposure, developer, > developing technique, and choice of paper (both in terms of finish and > contrast grade). Apart from the size of the grain (actually grain > clumps) their hardness or softness can be controlled as well. Using > the various techniques, the look and feel of a photograph can be > changed substantially, > giving it one feeling or another, strengthing or softening its impact, and, > thereby, modifyng the meaning and intent of the image. Perhaps not on > as grand a scale as a color conversion to B&W, but to a substantial > degree.
