Shel is right. The look of film is more than just grain. But it's not a lot more than just grain. I've been showing my book to some art buyers for major ad agencies and some photographers reps. At the mement, the color pics in my book is a mix of digital and medium format printed at 11 x17. All of the prints are inkjet. The film prints were scanned from the 6x78 negs. I find that even the most knowledgable critics are frequently unable to distinguish the digital from the medium format film. That's not to say that there are no differences, but they are minimal to be sure. Paul
> My feelings exactly. If you want the look of film (which is more than just > grain) then shoot film. If you want a digital look, shoot digital. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Grain was once the nemesis of film photographers. Over the years, some > came to incorporate it as part of a style or look. Tri-X, at its inception, > was heralded as a high-speed film with minimal grain. For years, > photographers worked to eliminate the grain. Yes, there have been > exceptions, and some have incorporated a grainy look as part of their > artistry. But it seems somewhat ludicrous to try to introduce artificial > grain in digital photography. I expect this will be a short lived pursuit. > Digital does many thins well. Grain is not one of them. Minimal grain is > one of them. > > Paul > > > > > > > The grain structure of Tri-X - or any B&W film for that matter - varies > > > with the developer used and the developing technique, including time, > > > temperature, and agitation, and, to a greater or lesser degree, the > > > exposure. To answer your question, yes and no, more or less, it > depends. > > > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > Bit grainy. Is Tri-X really that grainy? But interesting results, > thanks. > > > > > > > >
