Film grain in digital photos

N

Nh3

Well-known
Local time
7:06 AM
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
889
Whats your opinion of those who add film grain through photoshop plug-ins and other software to their digital shots during post processing?

Especially in the case of B&W images.

Edit:

Normal conversion to B&W with photoshop cs3:

_DSC0040.jpg


Converted to B&W using TRIX 400 pushed 1 stop plugin:

_DSC00401.jpg
 
Last edited:
I am using DxO Film Pack as a plugin and am happy with it.
You can even turn a coloured picture into a B&W with the typical interpretation of colours from different films. You could also mix them. Meaning use the colour rendering from a TMAX 400 and the grain from Fuji Acros 100.
Jari
 
There is also a watercolor filter in photoshop to make your picture look like watercolor.
 
I use the Alien Skin Exposure 2 for all my b&w conversions - and most of my photographs from the M8 end up as b&w. I find it works very well, not just for the grain, but for b&w conversions in general even if you don't want to add grain.
 
Updated my original post with two pictures as an example.

The more I look at it the more it appears that this is a good idea.
 
I think it's a fine idea. Do it all the time.
It is one many tools available to photographers who work with digital files. I also use curves, levels, layers, etc.
 
For my purposes it's neither silly nor pointless, as it's just another tool in the toolbox. For example, I was recently preparing a set of 80-some pictures for a book that's coming out in conjunction with an exhibit. The photos were taken over many years in various formats, from 645 transparency to 35mm print film to D1x to RD-1. For the purposes of this book it was best for the photos to have a consistent feel... so I played a lot with things like grain to get the appropriate look. That is, it wasn't about messing with an image just to mess with it, but rather to tune it to fit with a collection.

That said, I'm happy to mess with an image just to mess with it too.... à chacun son goût.

j
 
I like taking digital files and sometimes making them look like something else. It's just a "look" I like, nothing to do with digital or film purism or anything.

This is was taken in very low light in Camden Stables, London, with an R-D1:



I like this R-D1 "tube" shot but something similar has been done so many times it's a cliche:

 
Last edited:
Nh3 said:
Whats your opinion of those who add film grain through photoshop plug-ins and other software to their digital shots during post processing?
Click to expand...

:eek: I hope I don't hurt your feelings, but I find it pathetic. Get a film camera and some B&W film. For the cost of PS one can buy a mountain of film and developing.

Nice photo, however (the top one.)
 
TheHub said:
:eek: I hope I don't hurt your feelings, but I find it pathetic. Get a film camera and some B&W film. For the cost of PS one can buy a mountain of film and developing.

Nice photo, however (the top one.)
Click to expand...

What exactly is pathetic about creating a certain look that you like? Are we simply allowed to print a straight shot from the film or digital camera? Are we allowed to selectively blur the image, tone it, dodge, burn, or sharpen it? Why is it that if we choose to add a final look that involves adding noise that the image or the thought behind it becomes pathetic?

I prefer the look of the second image….but that’s just me. I don’t consider either to be pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom