The beauty of grain

[Ricoh]

I've decided to remove the referenced article on the basis that the 'artist' is not present to defend adverse comment.

[Jim Ford]

Re: The beauty of grain

Perhaps we ought to have a thread 'The Beauty of Chroma Noise'!

Jim

[DerekW]

Re: The beauty of grain

I expect he gets a kickback from the dental industry, I have not seen so many teeth for a long time.

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: The beauty of grain

Hmmmm. An acquired taste I would say.

I like most of the photographs but many of them are spoilt by the grain in my view. This might be acceptable in some of the photographs but not in all of them.

I can understand why the photographer doesn't want to use medium format but I don't get the idea of developing every film to accentuate grain.

[Ricoh]

Re: The beauty of grain

Hmmmm. An acquired taste I would say.

I like most of the photographs but many of them are spoilt by the grain in my view. This might be acceptable in some of the photographs but not in all of them.

I can understand why the photographer doesn't want to use medium format but I don't get the idea of developing every film to accentuate grain.

The grain comes with the territory; using high speed Kodak P3200 and Ilford Delta 3200 in available low light will yield the results shown. As he explained, the effect of grain makes the highlights seem to explode from the page (remember we're seeing transmitted light using electronic devices and the effect would be somewhat different from a silver gelatine print under reflected light). The grain adds in my opinion, super smooth images would lose impact and the drama in the scene. The article also demonstrates quite nicely that focus is a secondary requirement. Imagine the same set taken with a top end digital camera - which would you prefer?

[Bikie John]

Re: The beauty of grain

As Dorothy Parker (I think) said, for those people who like that sort of thing, it is the sort of thing that they like. So if you like it, all well and good.

I started reading about how he did it but was brought up short by this assertion:

As high a resolving lens as possible is also recommended for use with these high speed films. A softer lens will just turn that big, beautiful grain to mush.

This strikes me as being absolute cobblers. Surely the grain effect is most pronounced in areas of smooth tone, many of which are out of focus, which renders the sharpness of the lens irrelevant. Presumably he is making this assertion based on experience, but unfortunately I just couldn't get past it to read the rest. Can anyone explain please?

John

[MJ224]

[Otto]

Re: The beauty of grain

So grain is a function of the lens, not the film and/or developer? What absolute tosh! However, it is apparent from the pix that whatever lens he's got on his scanner has turned that big beautiful grain to what looks much more like digital noise, at least on my screen. It's horrible. Grain can be very nice, but it has to be sharp, the sort you get from the old Agfapan 400 developed in Rodinal!

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: The beauty of grain

The grain comes with the territory; using high speed Kodak P3200 and Ilford Delta 3200 in available low light will yield the results shown. As he explained, the effect of grain makes the highlights seem to explode from the page (remember we're seeing transmitted light using electronic devices and the effect would be somewhat different from a silver gelatine print under reflected light). The grain adds in my opinion, super smooth images would lose impact and the drama in the scene. The article also demonstrates quite nicely that focus is a secondary requirement. Imagine the same set taken with a top end digital camera - which would you prefer?

Agreed; grain comes with the territory, but Jonny Martyr, the photographer says that he deliberately uses high acutance developer to make it worse! (Not his exact words admittedly.)

A handful of these might work as an art project but I wouldn't want an entire portfolio showing golf-ball like grain.

And I enjoy big, pronounced film grain of 3200 ISO 35mm films and high acutance developers. One can certainly reduce grain by shooting medium format, using flash or using a developer that tidies up the grain. But I enjoy the textures and de-emphasis of irrelevant details in a scene. Yet grainy b&w also makes out of focus highlights sparkle with energy.

We are viewing these as images on screen. I would imagine the prints look even worse.

[Internaut]

Re: The beauty of grain

I’m not a fan of grain. I don’t mind it so much if it is naturally occurring* and film like, but I see no point in adding grain to my photos in post (or behind the camera).

* My Old Ricoh GR does it rather well at high ISO.

[Ricoh]

Re: The beauty of grain

You mean adding grain digitally rather than using film and letting it occur naturally.

[Ricoh]

Re: The beauty of grain

Ok, question to all the armchair photographers out there, how would you go about capturing the wedding reception; what equipment would you use if flash was not an option for aesthetic reasons, and the annoyance it would cause to the guests. MF film is probably inappropriate unless you're Don McCullen!

[shenstone]

Re: The beauty of grain

Ok, question to all the armchair photographers out there, how would you go about capturing the wedding reception; what equipment would you use if flash was not an option for aesthetic reasons, and the annoyance it would cause to the guests. MF film is probably inappropriate unless you're Don McCullen!

Em1 MkII and the 12-100 - it's what I have done before and will be doing in a couple of weeks for my next door neighbours

it would then be about picking the time and place - often in these events there are times and place with better light and some moments when it's not an option. I would not bother with a tri or mono pod. in those events there are generally loads of walls to lean on or tables to prop a camera on

I would generally leave the ISO limit where I have it 3200, but I would move to higher ISO (6400+) for some pictures but with forethought that I may have to reprocess the pictures in DXO prime if there was too much noise for what I wanted.

Regards
Andy

[MikeOxon]

Re: The beauty of grain

How many people like to be portrayed as though they have some horrible skin disease?

[pdk42]

Re: The beauty of grain

There are a lot of good shots there, but are any of them the better for the grain? I think if he shot them with a Pen-F at ISO 3200 or 6400, he'd get more in focus, more properly exposed, and wouldn't be waiting until the day after to know whether his metering was right. He could add as much grain later as he wanted. I appreciate some will say that artificial grain is not the same, but I'd like to test that assertion with the people that matter - the customers.