Is grain really a problem?

Along with good skintones, I know the quest for a clean, grainless

image can be one of the holy grails of wedding photography. But is

grain really a problem? Wedding films, and certainly digital capture,

are all so good nowadays that it's difficult to introduce enough grain

into the image to have the effect be noticeable, isn't it?

 

I found this image on an Zip disc that I just unearthed, and it got me

thinking... Does anybody shoot with the intention of getting a grainy

image? Any examples you'd care to post...?<div></div>

Most people say that grain is not a problem when it is controlled and done with taste. I certainly have not heard of anyone who would want all of their wedding pictures to be grainy. So why not shoot for the best quality pictures you can get and then worry about adding grain later if you think it will add to the picture. The problem I've noticed with grain at high ISO raitings with digital cameras is that it can be uneven and blotchy and uncontrolled.

Kevin, that looks more like reticulation than grain.

I shoot a lot of TMZ 3200 purposefully for its distinctive graininess. I happen to like its look, as do many of the couples to whom I point it out. I think grain in b&w images is more readily accepted because people already associate b&w as being more "classic", with grain adding to this perception. I find grain in color shots to be much more distracting. I find digital noise to be the most distracting of all.

I like grain for some things- more abstract than portrait. I like the grain from cross processed film and high speed B&W- I don't normally like digital grain- but this is an example of grain from a P&S camera- available light, plus some glow...<div></div>

It's grain, Al. The original negative is smaller than your pinky nail. :-)

 

I agree that grain is more accepted in B&W work, as everyone assumes the intent was artistic. But generally, it remains something to be avoided in color work. Has anyone added 'grain' to a digital image in post processing that they are happy with?

:p <p>

<img src="http://www.gigliwood.com/mentos/seurat.jpg">

I love grain and often use 3200 Black and White film - rating it at 800. This shot I've posted is 3200 rated at 3200. It was raining out and since I was going to shoot my next roll in church (check out "A recent wedding - 2004" in my portfolio for more of the 3200 film - no flash in church) - I shot a few of this scene with the last two frames with my 400 film (also in the folder) and then I shot this one with the 3200. <p>I like this one for the grain and the other for the mood and composition. <p>The clients with the art backgrounds usually go for the grain. I check with my clients before I use it and show them examples including an 11x14 I have in my office. I must say that most people agree that I should use it especially in church. I usually only shoot 2-3 rolls out of 25+ rolls.<div></div>

Kevin - There is a color image in my folder that is done with 800 speed film and it is slightly grainy. It is a close up of the bride's face - profile.

Peter, I like your reply!

 

Mary, I like that image. Hard to believe it's 800 speed film!

Oh, FWIW, my pic is a Super-8mm screen grab. Vision 200T, lit with a 200W Photoflood lamp in a china ball suspended over the dance floor.

I'm a big fan of TMZ as well, and shoot it at 1600. I've actually never tried to scan it and don't have a flatbed set up at the moment... The trick with any neg film - especially higher speed films - is not to underexpose. An underexposed neg will result in a much grainier print especially in the shadows.

I really like the look of grain for certain applications. I find that a lot of the clients I have don't care as much for it. Any way, here are a couple of samples. 3200 tmax rated at 1600.<div></div>

and the result of the pregnancy!<div></div>