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

David_Manning said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

I entirely agree.:)
 
i remember in the old days when i processed all my own film...and worked so hard to achieve a grainless image...and now i get that without pain with my digital box!
life is good...
 
Recently, Figital Revolution made some (sarcastic) comments concerning this issue. Essentially, if you want your digital color images to appear like b&w tri-X you should have knowledge of what tri-X looks like. You can not gain that knowledge by looking at a program. People doing this have never shot film or have personal knowledge of what b&w tri-X looks like. Taking that one step further: If you want a b&w Tri-X image why not shoot tri-x film, which is readily available. I am paraphrasing his comments. On a personal level I sort of agree. Why not take a second camera with you when photographing or decide before you leave your domicile. To get off topic for a moment. It is my personal belief that when you press the button on your camera you should have a very good idea of what the final image will look like.
 
I think I said this here before, but I believe if someone 30 or 40 years ago had come up with a 35mm film that looked like digital does today, a lot of people would have been all over that.
 
Grain where grain belongs, beer and other malt based beverages :D.

Honestly for me it's just a "I'm used to it" aesthetic preference, like the dried on brush stroke on an oil painting.
Some prefer all smooth diluted paint and no visible clues of the artist working the medium. Others like the dynamic strokes that let you closer into the process.

For me reality does not have grain. If I take a picture and want it to represent what I saw, grain gets in my way.

If I want to make an "artsy" file that looks more interesting than a straight picture of the scene, adding fancy borders and toning "selenium style" everything can be done by hitting a button in some menu. It's just a preference and it's not mine but obviously there is no right or wrong "grain police" out there, I hope at least;)
 
haempe said:
For me reality does not have pixels... ;)
Click to expand...

For me neither and I guess that is true for everybody but unless you pixel peep into the image on your screen at 300%, you will not see that the image is composed of individual pixels;).

If you look closely enough, you will find the smallest individual particle/element in anything.
 
I can't stand digital b&w. "Tones" or not. If i have to shoot digital, i always process it to look as much like film as possible. It's just an aesthetic choice. If i shoot medium format film and it looks too 'glassy,' i do things to fix that, as well.

There's a reason why i don't like large format film for certain applications. Too often, it just doesn't have the kind of 'texture' i like in photography. I've made this comparison before, but it's like viewing a painting without brushstrokes. It's just less interesting somehow. Probably because, at 45 years of age, everything i've seen prior to the last five years has had grain. Grainlessness is not yet 'the new normal.'

Agreed, that simulator and plug-in presets should not be relied upon for 'verbatim' translations of the film look you're expecting. They have to be tweaked, and then tweaked again for each individual image. Alien Skin, in particular, is very, very good. I find, though, that digital capture is inherently 'too sharp,' and i dull it down a little with Guassian Blur before applying BW film filters. Digital is just sharp. Film is kinda soft and kinda sharp....
 
icebear said:
For me neither and I guess that is true for everybody but unless you pixel peep into the image on your screen at 300%, you will not see that the image is composed of individual pixels;).

If you look closely enough, you will find the smallest individual particle/element in anything.
Click to expand...
True. I was nitpicking. :eek:

But the main point is what Gabriel said in #12: Film does not necessarily means visible grain.
 
I still say do whatever you want...they're YOUR photos.

I'd like to add this...if you look at an image and the grain, tonality, or borders attract your attention...well, your probably missing the point of the photograph. Maybe like having a nice filet mignon and wondering whether its Oscar Mayer bacon wrapping it.
 
I've done it and enjoyed the results. I guess that's all that really matters to me.
I'm shooting film again though. Lots of Tri-X.
No need to add grain. It's everywhere, all by itself.
Somehow, though, I feel no more pure.
 
I guess comparing the look of grain in a film image to the very clean look of digital is a little like looking at a sculpture done in polished marble and comparing it to a sculpture done with a block of wood and a chainsaw ... or the same marble sculpture with a chiseled finish.

I don't mind the look of a digital image shot at high ISO with a fair amount of sensor noise once it's been converted to monochrome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom