I've decided to remove the referenced article on the basis that the 'artist' is not present to defend adverse comment.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The beauty of grain
Collapse
X
-
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.---------------
Naughty Nigel
Difficult is worth doing
Comment
-
Re: The beauty of grain
Originally posted by Naughty Nigel View PostHmmmm. 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.
Comment
-
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.
John
Comment
-
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!Regards
Richard
Comment
-
Re: The beauty of grain
Originally posted by Ricoh View PostThe 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?
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.---------------
Naughty Nigel
Difficult is worth doing
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
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!
Comment
-
Re: The beauty of grain
Originally posted by Ricoh View PostOk, 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!
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
AndyMy Kit (OK I'm a hoarder...)
4/3 E500, E510, E30 + 35macro, 50macro, 7-14, 11-22, 14-45 (x2), 14-54, 40-150 (both types), 50-200, 70-300, 50-500,
m 4/3 EM1MkII + 60 macro, 12-100 Pro
FL20, FL36 x2 , FL50, cactus slaves etc.
The Boss (Mrs Shenstone) E620, EM10-II, 14-41Ez, 40-150R, 9 cap and whatever she can nick from me when she wants it
My places
http://www.shenstone.me.uk
http://landroverkaty.blogspot.com/
https://vimeo.com/shenstone
http://cardiffnaturalists.org.uk/
Comment
-
Re: The beauty of grain
How many people like to be portrayed as though they have some horrible skin disease?
Comment
-
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.
Comment
Comment