Grain is in fashion

<p>Jeff,<br>

You are adding a pattern to an image that has no relation to the subject of the capture. You are overlaying a texture that was not formed from an imprint of the subject, thus reducing detail. Same as sharpening...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This link, on the other hand, is similar to how grain is imprinted by the subject:</p>

<p>

<p> </p>

<p>Larry,</p>

<p>It is all semantics. Graininess is visual noise, but not all noise is created equal. Photographic grain has particular qualities that are not replicated with simple noise algorithms. I'm convinced that if you get the right frequency pattern of the noise and the correct amplitude variations with density, it will look something like photographic grain. There are probably some additional subtleties. That is partly why film users still exist. </p>

<p>Ron I know that is why we still exist. :) Grain is both visual and a feeling. Noise is a sound that some think they see.</p>

<p>I'm only happy when it grains.</p><div></div>

<p>There are some pretty advanced free actions for adding film grain taking into account shadows, highlights and midtones. One is the <a href="http://nikant.white-tree.net/pstechniques/">Nikos Kantarakias action</a> which incorporates the Russel Brown layers action for B&W conversion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You are adding a pattern to an image that has no relation to the subject of the capture. You are overlaying a texture that was not formed from an imprint of the subject, thus reducing detail.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you look at how it is done, you can understand that this is not true. Which tools have you tested? It sounds like you need to get a better understanding of how layer modes can work and take into account details of the subject.</p>

<p>BTW, film grain reduces detail.</p>

<p>Panasonic LX3 and Olympus E-P1 all have some kind of " art filters" to add grains to the JPEG images. Have you guys tried them yet?</p>

<p>For example (EP1): http://www.stevehuffphotos.com/Steve_Huff_Photos/OLYMPUS_EP-1_REVIEW_2.html</p>

<p>Maura that is a lovely grainy pic of the woman. I also love how the light wraps and flares around her. I used a red 25 filter for my Delta 3200 shot. It was open shade so that's why the contrast is low. Also, the model has very pale skin to begin with...always more photogenic!</p>

<p>If I wanted lots of grain then I'd shoot with my Mamiya 16 or Minolta 16 and fast cheap B&W film pushed. Starting with a 10X14mm negative helps in the grain department!</p>

<p>if you want grain from film: push tri-x to 800 or 1600, develop in straight dektol, 5 min @ 68 d--lots of very nice grain.</p>

35mm Ilford 3200 rated at 1600 in HC-110.<div></div>

<p>Film grain is an integral function of the emulsion and is dependent upon many factors, including emulsion structure, age, developer used, time, temp, and agitation during physical development. It also has a feature called "acutance". Film grain CAN degrade fine detail, yet at the same time enhance edge sharpness. It is a <em>RANDOM analog</em> pattern. <br>

I have nothing against digital photography or the images a good DSLR can produce. However to say that digital noise, which is an<em> ordered pattern of electromagnetic interference</em> in relation to the usable digital signal is simply ill informed. Adding it later in Photoshop does not replicate an analog grain image. Do you guys even print your work?? If you did you'd see the difference. A Merlot wine is not a Sangiovese, no matter how hard you wish it to be so. Wasn't this thread closed down over on the Nikon forum? </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 16, 2009; 11:02 a.m.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>BTW, film grain reduces detail.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's not entirely accurate Jeff. On B&W emulsions, the image is made up of grain....fine or course. Overlaying a digital image with artificial grain, be it in PS or with something like Nik Silver Efex, is not the same. I can easily tell the difference. That is not to say the digital file isn't nice in it's own way....but it is different.</p>

 

<p>Let me put it a different way. As grain increases, detail decreases.</p>

<p>Yes Jeff, but so does Acutance, AKA edge sharpness....as digital noise increases acutance does not. Sharpening can increase the illusion of acutance in a digital or scanned file. Let me post a couple more examples. An overall shot, and then a close crop from that shot. In small jpegs the acutance effect is not always visible. You'll see the random grain pattern in the crop. The close up will show you the acutance. A lot of what we call "grain" and "Noise" changes with viewing distance. With digital screen images it's as if you were permanently Frozen into one viewing position. The only way to simulate print viewing online is with multiple crops. Bear with me....</p><div></div>

<p>OK here's the close crop. Note the random pattern... and the dust spots I need to re-touch!</p><div></div>

<p>I'll get some examples later, but I have to say between work I've done digitally and with film, people tend to lean towards the flim stuff with grain, even if they aren't aware which is which. There's just something less "sterile" and more photographic about images with grain. Digital is great in a lot of cases, ie HD video, but people seem to prefer a little edginess to my photographs in the form of grain, which none of the digital stuff will ever have.</p>

<p>Just figured I'd throw in my .02 cents.<br>

JRMM</p>

<p>How about this grain folks?</p>

<div></div>

<p>And then we have grain and contrast.<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3184/2648930422_cd0fb88db5_o.jpg" alt="" width="930" height="610" /></p>

<p>Ilford Delta pushed to somewhere approaching 12,800 ASA yields nice grain:</p><div></div>

<p>Larry, I still love that cemetery shot!</p>

<p>The purpose of this conversation is to share experiences, techniques and results. Those using digital cameras don't need to feel alienated. If they have had good results mimicking the look of film grain via software, everyone would appreciate to see examples as well as the technique employed.</p>

<p>Thanks Simone.</p>

<p>I like using Tri-X in Diafine, pushed to 1250 or 1600. A lot of people don't like Diafine, but Tri-X developed in Diafine scans well and gives nice grain. It also prints decently, and an 8x10 from a 35mm neg looks great.</p>

<div></div>