myoptic3
Well-known
Well, of course you cannot add grain to a digital file, but you can add noise. The second B&W shot definitely looks better than the first! But it still looks pretty bad.
Maybe because the focus seems to be off. The guy in the background is sharp, but not so the central subject.
Maybe because the focus seems to be off. The guy in the background is sharp, but not so the central subject.
Last edited:
gdi
Veteran
There is a practical reason to add noise to digital files. When upscaling the files for print a bit of noise can hide the digital artifacts and make the print more pleasing.
But it simply doesn't work for film emulation.
But it simply doesn't work for film emulation.
mllanos1111
Well-known
My two cents: Whatever works for you is fine. The finished image is what counts, it's either a great image or it's not, how you arrived at it doesn't matter to me.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Currently HDR is a big deal , actually for a while now. There are digital plug ins for Velvia , Kodak Gold etc etc. I guess the thing that mystifies me is what is the point. I just figure if you shoot digital then shoot digital it's legitimate in my opinion. But 'treating' a digital image to become a faux velvia is like buying a $10 'Rolodex' watch off a street vendor's cart. It ain't the real deal it's a $10 watch. And the trouble with that is you know it's a fake.
Last edited:
Nh3
Well-known
I don't think anyone will put our humble images under a microscope to check the grain.
In my case I have a very good reason on why I will be adding some noise/grain from now on to 'some' of my pictures and if I was asked my answer would be 'I post processed that way in photoshop'.
Grain and noise are a by product of film or the sensor capturing the light, and adding it or removing noise from a picture is simply an artistic decision and it has nothing to do with 'fooling' people or emulating film... And even if the photographer tries to emulate film there is nothing wrong with that.
I was not sure how the response was to this technique but after reading the replies to this thread I'm encouraged and suddenly another creative window as been opened to me.
In my case I have a very good reason on why I will be adding some noise/grain from now on to 'some' of my pictures and if I was asked my answer would be 'I post processed that way in photoshop'.
Grain and noise are a by product of film or the sensor capturing the light, and adding it or removing noise from a picture is simply an artistic decision and it has nothing to do with 'fooling' people or emulating film... And even if the photographer tries to emulate film there is nothing wrong with that.
I was not sure how the response was to this technique but after reading the replies to this thread I'm encouraged and suddenly another creative window as been opened to me.
Nh3
Well-known
lol how I love amateur photographers.
This photo was used as an example to show the grain in the woman's hands, it not part of anyone's portfolio. Don't wear your critique hat every time you see a picture on the internet.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Fred, Nh3... then have at it! The flip side of this is it's just photography. Have fun. I'm outta here with a Fuji 6x9 ttyl
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
The whole question of "authenticity" is the wrong question. Every visual gesture in a photo can now be thought to have multiple layers of reference and meaning...all photography is thoroughly "meta." This is a good thing. It means that anyone can make precisely the image they want, regardless of their social or professional standing. The only thing now that holds you back is being any good, not who your agent is, what gallery represents you, what magazines you've been in, or where you went to school.
People can and should do whatever they want with their film or digital photos. Then they should delete the EXIF data, or print, and let their work speak for itself.
Film emulation plugins are as legit as using a different developer, or dodging and burning. They're a technique for achieving a certain effect. That they were made to "fake" film stocks is irrelevant.
People can and should do whatever they want with their film or digital photos. Then they should delete the EXIF data, or print, and let their work speak for itself.
Film emulation plugins are as legit as using a different developer, or dodging and burning. They're a technique for achieving a certain effect. That they were made to "fake" film stocks is irrelevant.
ZeissFan
Veteran
Not for me. I know that people like to manipulate photos, but it's not my thing.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Absolutely. A photo is, by its very nature, a manipulation of reality.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
This is how magnified GRAIN looks like.
delta3200:
neopan1600:
delta3200:
neopan1600:
Nh3
Well-known
The subject authenticity and what was in the frame remains the same so the image is not manipulated in anyway to alter "subject authenticity", the 'look' of the image has been touched to conform with the vision or the expectation of the photographer.
I think the only reason some people might want to dismiss this technique is the implication that, "do we really need to shoot film anymore?" but that's a controversial subject that i don't wish to discuss.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
At the risk of just saying "what he said" over and over, I agree. You manipulate when you point your camera and choose to include certain things in the frame and exclude certain things. Or when you use one camera or another, or one film or another. B&W is a manipulation in that it simplifies the way we really see the world.
The more technology advances, the truer this becomes, because it's less and less easy to pretend you're representing reality "accurately." You're representing it, for sure, but through the filter of aesthetic choice.
And now, using, say, Neopan 1600 is a choice we make not merely to be able to shoot in low light. We make that choice because we've seen lots of grainy photos and like the way they look, and want our photos to look that way too. Photography is now old enough so that every technological option is not merely a means of solving a problem, but a reference to the history of photography. Seen in this context, it hardly matters whether your grainy photo is the result of shooting ultrasensitive film in low light, or of shooting with a DSLR and applying a plugin. Ultimately, in fact, the DSLR is more "natural" an approach here than the high-ISO film, because it is the most advanced and available tool for capturing a detailed image under those conditions.
Being "natural" isn't what any of us is really interested in, though, I don't think. We're interested in good pictures, which we can get in many different ways.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Agreed. There is a huge difference between the introduction/reshaping of noise and the outright manipulation of images (things like removing an unwanted object or person through cloning tools).
When using a film camera, you have to decide upfront which film you want to use to best convey your vision. You'll follow that up with processing choices, which will again alter the final product.
You could shoot the same scene with two different films each processed a different way, yielding two very different final images.
Why should it be any different with digital? When doing a raw conversion, why limit yourself to the standard baseline conversion?
That would be akin to saying all Tri-X must be developed in a 1:50 dilution of Rodinal at 75 degrees.
When using a film camera, you have to decide upfront which film you want to use to best convey your vision. You'll follow that up with processing choices, which will again alter the final product.
You could shoot the same scene with two different films each processed a different way, yielding two very different final images.
Why should it be any different with digital? When doing a raw conversion, why limit yourself to the standard baseline conversion?
That would be akin to saying all Tri-X must be developed in a 1:50 dilution of Rodinal at 75 degrees.
Encinalense
Established
Great discussion!
I'm interested in the way it has become, in part, preoccupied with authenticity; I didn't understand that concept to have anything to do with the original question, but it is very much in the background. (and slightly out of focus
). It struck me, reading this, that one of the concerns regarding authenticity, here, is being expressed as a desire to differentiate between simulation and dissimulation -- some of the responses seem to want to identify the practice of digital post-processing as a kind of simulation, which, according to some philosophical and theological traditions, is an act of deception, an abuse of good faith on the part of the photographer (granted, most of these historical discussions (the Wikipedia entry on "Dissimulation" links to a few) pertain to the self, not to the production of expressive material).
Dissimulation, on the other hand, seems potentially to bother people more, because what it leaves unspoken can lead to a misunderstanding or a misreading located in the viewer.
What's the difference? Well, none if the concern is a fixed, aesthetic one -- if as mabelsound and leicasnapper argue every decision we make about images (film type, speed, color filters, traditional processing, digital post-processing) are basically parallel kinds of decisions. In this regard, every photographer is a kind of simulator, and everyone understands this.
But it's that concern, I think, that everyone does not understand it -- that concern that audiences might reasonably expect that what they think is photography simply is the result of light and film and chemicals -- that leads to the reading of dpp as a kind of dissimulation (should those images actually wind up in a gallery, for example).
Here's where I'll express an opinion: I think this second concern -- expressed by those, in other words, most opposed to mabelsound's assertions -- comes from the old tradition of defending photography as a 'legitimate' expressive and artistic process involving decision and action on the part of the artist. When someone here referred to digital plugins as "another tool in my kit," he or she struck a chord: can proprietary "tools" -- especially if you're not a programmer who understands them -- be a legitimate part of expressive photography? But this leads inevitably to: can proprietary chemical formulations and film -- especially if you're not a chemist who understands them -- be a legitimate part of expressive photography? Sure, right?
I'm not at all interested in Photoshop or its plugins, personally, because I so much enjoy the physical stuff (and when I do venture into the virtual, I prefer the -- admittedly limited, by contrast -- GIMP for its openness). But on the issue of authenticity, I'm with mabelsound.
If you've actually read all of this, accept my apologies for taking so much space and time simply to say: "I agree with that one!"
I'm interested in the way it has become, in part, preoccupied with authenticity; I didn't understand that concept to have anything to do with the original question, but it is very much in the background. (and slightly out of focus
). It struck me, reading this, that one of the concerns regarding authenticity, here, is being expressed as a desire to differentiate between simulation and dissimulation -- some of the responses seem to want to identify the practice of digital post-processing as a kind of simulation, which, according to some philosophical and theological traditions, is an act of deception, an abuse of good faith on the part of the photographer (granted, most of these historical discussions (the Wikipedia entry on "Dissimulation" links to a few) pertain to the self, not to the production of expressive material). Dissimulation, on the other hand, seems potentially to bother people more, because what it leaves unspoken can lead to a misunderstanding or a misreading located in the viewer.
What's the difference? Well, none if the concern is a fixed, aesthetic one -- if as mabelsound and leicasnapper argue every decision we make about images (film type, speed, color filters, traditional processing, digital post-processing) are basically parallel kinds of decisions. In this regard, every photographer is a kind of simulator, and everyone understands this.
But it's that concern, I think, that everyone does not understand it -- that concern that audiences might reasonably expect that what they think is photography simply is the result of light and film and chemicals -- that leads to the reading of dpp as a kind of dissimulation (should those images actually wind up in a gallery, for example).
Here's where I'll express an opinion: I think this second concern -- expressed by those, in other words, most opposed to mabelsound's assertions -- comes from the old tradition of defending photography as a 'legitimate' expressive and artistic process involving decision and action on the part of the artist. When someone here referred to digital plugins as "another tool in my kit," he or she struck a chord: can proprietary "tools" -- especially if you're not a programmer who understands them -- be a legitimate part of expressive photography? But this leads inevitably to: can proprietary chemical formulations and film -- especially if you're not a chemist who understands them -- be a legitimate part of expressive photography? Sure, right?
I'm not at all interested in Photoshop or its plugins, personally, because I so much enjoy the physical stuff (and when I do venture into the virtual, I prefer the -- admittedly limited, by contrast -- GIMP for its openness). But on the issue of authenticity, I'm with mabelsound.
If you've actually read all of this, accept my apologies for taking so much space and time simply to say: "I agree with that one!"
V
varjag
Guest
There is really one simple thing: people miss something (for whatever reason) in digital images compared to film, and try to reproduce it. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened and we'd never seen this fake film plugin industry rolling.
Maybe they are simply too lazy to mess with film (or to give it positive spin, have not enough time), or like to have their digital superiority argument going while still craving for classic BW look. Anyway, I'm not sure how much sincere are all the high art justifications.
Maybe they are simply too lazy to mess with film (or to give it positive spin, have not enough time), or like to have their digital superiority argument going while still craving for classic BW look. Anyway, I'm not sure how much sincere are all the high art justifications.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I don't think I do anything with digital images that I couldn't do with film negatives. I used photoshop to crop, dodge, burn and adjust contrast.
The introduction/manipulation of grain/noise during raw processing fits well within the scope of my thinking.
Grain is not a part of life. We don't have sunny days, cloudy days and grainy days. Grain is introduced to photos through the processing of the film on which images are captured.
I see no difference - from a philosophical standpoint - in manipulating the grain of a roll of film during processing and in manipulating the noise of a digital file during raw processing.
I just don't see that as threatening the authenticity of the image being presented.
Regardless of how it gets there, grain is something we add to the pictures we create.
The introduction/manipulation of grain/noise during raw processing fits well within the scope of my thinking.
Grain is not a part of life. We don't have sunny days, cloudy days and grainy days. Grain is introduced to photos through the processing of the film on which images are captured.
I see no difference - from a philosophical standpoint - in manipulating the grain of a roll of film during processing and in manipulating the noise of a digital file during raw processing.
I just don't see that as threatening the authenticity of the image being presented.
Regardless of how it gets there, grain is something we add to the pictures we create.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Or maybe it just gives film purists one more thing to worry about in the never ending debate of film v. digital.
V
varjag
Guest
Back in 2003-2004 I was writing my own film look plugins, taking into account spectral sensitivity, introducing grain pattern layers, etc. - stuff us geeks like to do. Thing about this, you can often get look similar to film, but too much depends on specific image: you have different range of tones and color palette in your digital image from what was at the actual scene. The dynamic range is also narrower than BW film latitude, so it is akin to attempts of converting color slide to BW. That's why it's much easier to produce a "pushed film" look than normal or subdued contrast you can have for instance with Tri-X at EI 200.Or maybe it just gives film purists one more thing to worry about in the never ending debate of film v. digital.
So after a while I questioned myself why am going through all this and just switched to film. Still the conversion path is very popular, and usually the less folks shot real BW film the more they willing to persuade you that conversions work as well as real thing.
amateriat
We're all light!
Ah, but the first member of the audience to lay eyes on my "finished" images is me, and I do care about both process and this thing we call "authenticity." I regard my photography as my "second memory" of sorts, my true "photographic memory". Photographic "truth" can be a steep and slippery slope, but human memory on its own can be steeper and far more slippery. Therefore, I deal with my photography as a form of record-keeping...yes, including the fancy-ass fine-art stuff. And my post-shoot tools, principally PS, are largely transcription tools. Tweaking works for me; intensive surgery doesn't so much.I'm seen plenty of grain under a focusing magnifier over the years. And I know what that looks like. But 99.99% of the people in the world who will look at our photos have never seen grain under a focusing magnifier. They don't know what it looks like. And few will ever see our images cranked up in Photoshop to look at the grain Exposure 2 adds.
The audience only sees the magic, not the technique.
And this brings me to a possibly controversial POV: when it comes to the final image, the print that gets hung somewhere, the more I've had to hammer away at the image to make it "work" in print form, the less-satisfied I am overall. It's not that I don't expect to do any kind of work on the image after the shoot, but if I have to go overboard to make the final print satisfying to my eye, I feel I've somehow blown it from behind the camera. (This is one reason why I shoot film 90% of the time: I know the film I shoot awfully well, whereas with any given digital camera I'm working with at a given moment, how in Hades should I know?)
I sort of grok your point here, but it puts me in mind of Glenn Gould, who not only eschewed live performance for the studio, but believed in using all the studio bells-and-whistles then at his disposal (he was an early adopter of digital recording, BTW), including editing from several "imperfect" takes to create one "perfect" take. Other pianists regard performing a work as something of a high-wire act where you either get it right in one take or call it a day and try again tomorrow. I hew much closer to the latter philosophy, but I don't let that get in the way of enjoying listening to Gould make his way through Haydn.
(Or the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper, for that matter.)
- Barrett