I can't get comfortable with adding grain to digital images!

Keith

Keith

The best camera is one that still works!
Local time
7:51 AM
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
19,237
Location
Australia
View My Gallery
SPP (Sigma Photo Pro) has a very good grain adding feature in the advanced black and white adjustment functions and I've used it a couple of times out of curiosity to see the effect ... and for what it is it works very well. There is also plenty of film simulation software out there with plugins to emulate various emulsions but to me they detract from a digital image rather than add to it ... only my opinion here of course.

Tones are there for the asking in a raw file being converted to monochrome provided you understand your post processing software so a plug in for Tri-X or whatever is only utilising information that's already there to achieve it's particular look ... discounting the grain component of course! I guess 'one click' black and white film simulation has its appeal when applied to a raw file but I just can't get my head around it.

If I want an image to look like film ... I'll use film!
 
I sometimes use grain to rescue very slightly OOF digital photos (as an alternative to unsharp masking, which can introduce unwanted halo artefacts); and to mask unwanted digital pixellation artefacts at high enlargements.

But generally I agree - one of the main reasons I went back to shooting film.
 
Keith said:
SPP (Sigma Photo Pro) has a very good grain adding feature in the advanced black and white adjustment functions and I've used it a couple of times out of curiosity to see the effect ... and for what it is it works very well. There is also plenty of film simulation software out there with plugins to emulate various emulsions but to me they detract from a digital image rather than add to it ... only my opinion here of course.

Tones are there for the asking in a raw file being converted to monochrome provided you understand your post processing software so a plug in for Tri-X or whatever is only utilising information that's already there to achieve it's particular look ... discounting the grain component of course! I guess 'one click' black and white film simulation has its appeal when applied to a raw file but I just can't get my head around it.

If I want an image to look like film ... I'll use film!
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. I have like to use the Tri-X preset in Silver Efex Pro 2 as a starting point. Then I dodge and burn as needed. The last step is to set the grin level. It's funny how it just doesn't seem right to simulate the Tri-X grain I first experienced in 1971. But I do it anyway if I think it suits the photo.

I started a series at a local horse racing track using Ilford DELTA 3200. I finished it using a X-100. I did not add extra grain to the digital photos. This Series might be subtlety more cohesive if I modified the digital photos to more closely resemble those from film.

They are here in the "Fairmount Park Race Track series here:

http://www.williamchuttonjr.com
 
I never add simulated grain... Just does not seem right somehow. Don't get me wrong, I used to shot everything from panatomic-x to tri-x. Pushing tri-x, grain comes w/ the territory and the look was expected..but somehow adding grain to digital even those that have high noise just never really entered my mind.

Gary
 
When I first switched to digital I used to add grain with Silver Efex but stopped after deciding that none of the pre sets appeared to emulate the emulsion that closely. From there I ended up preferring digital black and white to look just like that, digital. I've got no issues with anyone adding grain, certainly not as far as 'cheating' or 'deception' goes as some seem to. I ended up buying another M6 and a old Nikon F801s for film.

I still use Silver Efex as part of my PP as I really like the controls, now I just have to remind myself to avoid the structure slider as I had to avoid the clarity tool in LR. My natural propensity to be heavy handed with my monochrome processing requires constant restraint 🙂
 
sometimes i also add grain to my digital pictures. but not fake film grain, just real digital noise.

the sometimes a bit too soft images of my digital compact look in my opinion crispier and sharper then with some noise added.
 
Erm, it's a question of ethics, is it not?

Erm, it's a question of ethics, is it not?

Digital photography is fundamentally cheating anyways. Digital cameras having a hidden built-in signal demosaicing/processors/noise-shapers/sharpening engines that create the "final" image and that resemble not even close what the sensor itself actually "sees". Even if you shoot raw it goes through university-mathemathics-institute amount of mathematical calculations and manipulations to obtain that "nice" looking digital image saved on your SD card.

So since you already have that "cheated" (manipulated) image, there ethically shouldn't be a problem cheating even more with additional software simulations and emulations on those digital photos? 😀

Just sayin' 😱 😀

Margus
 
Keith said:
If I want an image to look like film ... I'll use film!
Click to expand...


I think most people forget that film didn't automatically mean "grain in the image". Slow film, fine developers...there are countless samples of...emm...last century photography where the drive was to have no grain (like high ISO buffs do nowadays). That "digital" images are expected not to have "grain" and film the opposite, is one thing. And I don't think that "grainless" film-based photos were thought of as "cheating" back in da day.

But saying that "grain" is necessary to "look like film" is not accurate. And I mention this as the main subtopic here is "grain".
 
I agree. This idea of grain being the 'film look' is a bit of an odd one for someone who has been away and come back.

I used to push HP5 to 1600, and it was grainy, yes. And I quite liked that effect. But I mostly shot on XP1 to avoid grain, and most of the serious photographers I knew shot FP4 or similar to avoid the grain. It's some kind of overlayed fake memory that all photos were Lomofied, which is to say: Vignetted; badly exposed; colour cast and grainy. It's an interesting attempt to be 'retro' without understanding the period at all, which we can see in a great many 'vintage' things popular now.

That's not to say I would never add grain to a digital image - and what is noise except grain in another disguise? But I have never felt the need to do it yet.
 
Keith said:
I guess 'one click' black and white film simulation has its appeal when applied to a raw file but I just can't get my head around it.

If I want an image to look like film ... I'll use film!
Click to expand...

It's your image, so do what you like to it. If it looks right, it is right.

I just use film 95% of the time so grain is usually there (unless it's a slow film and printed small). But if I were doing some project where I needed digital images to have the same feel as film I wouldn't hesitate to make whatever digital adjustments necessary. It's no big deal really and nobody but photographers care anyway.

But I sure like the grain from medium or fast films. Tri-X @ iso800, wet printed to 6X6". Lovely. 🙂
 
I love film, and I love film grain. It looks organic, and it is.

I use digital tools for convenience. It allows me to shoot without contemplating the cost of the shot. It also allows me to work without chemicals and in less space.

It's my photo, if I want to add grain for a more organic look, it's my choice. As far as ethics, I don't think anyone cares anymore how an image originated...there is no ethical problem. Are dodging and burning unethical? Is it unethical to choose high-speed film or b&w over color film for a grittier feel to your photos?

I totally understand if someone prefers a cleaner, more "sterile" look...but saying its wrong or unethical to add grain is kinda silly.

I guess, by my defensiveness, you can tell I don't mind adding grain to season 🙂
 
Keith said:
SPP (Sigma Photo Pro) has a very good grain adding feature in the advanced black and white adjustment functions and I've used it a couple of times out of curiosity to see the effect ... and for what it is it works very well. There is also plenty of film simulation software out there with plugins to emulate various emulsions but to me they detract from a digital image rather than add to it ... only my opinion here of course.

Tones are there for the asking in a raw file being converted to monochrome provided you understand your post processing software so a plug in for Tri-X or whatever is only utilising information that's already there to achieve it's particular look ... discounting the grain component of course! I guess 'one click' black and white film simulation has its appeal when applied to a raw file but I just can't get my head around it.

If I want an image to look like film ... I'll use film!
Click to expand...
Why anyone would want an image to look like digital is beyond me... 😕
 
To be honest I have no problem with "film simulators" for digital processing. What does tri x actually look like? Did you use D76 or HC 110? Which dilution? Did you expose at 250 or 800? Did you give it a 5 sec slosh every minute or every two?

Most digital looks too clean for me. Why not dirty it up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Keep grain lose dust and scratches?
Replies
14
Views
1K
willie_901
willie_901
D
Sodium Sulfate with D-76 for fine grain results
Replies
10
Views
768
Freakscene
Freakscene
B
BW Digital Image Creation -- Do you use "Grayscale" after B&W conversion?
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
AndyCapp
A
lxforrest
Rewindpix Camera - sample photos
Replies
0
Views
274
lxforrest
lxforrest
I
Canon FD Film Scans Softer than Digital Camera with Canon FD
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
ifaynshteyn
I
Back
Top Bottom