A little history about grain

<p align="left">Lately there have been a lot of posts about people’s digital cameras having “unacceptable” noise at various iso’s, depending on the viewpoint of the poster. Usually the level of noise being complained about looks pretty good to me. I’m posting this in the Nikon forum because I used Nikons in the examples. </p>

<p align="left"> </p>

<p align="left">You see, I used to shoot black and white film, such as Tri-X, and did my own enlarging for many years. 35mm Tri-X developed in D-76 has a certain amount of expected grain. Sometimes it is minimal, and sometimes it is rather pronounced, depending on amount of exposure and development. In any case, if printed well, the resulting prints are beautiful in their own way. The texture of the grain is part of the look. 35mm with Tri-X as used in countless images in Life and Look magazines and newspapers, and in fine art documentary images, are accepted as they are, with the typical gradations and textures we’ve come to expect and love in these types of images. </p>

<p align="left"> </p>

<p align="left">I have found that even with my D80 I can shoot at 1600 iso or even higher and the “noise” or “grain” is still no worse than typical Tri-X developed in D-76 at iso 400, and often much better in terms of texture. So, what is all the fuss about anyway? I’m posting an image taken about 1969 with Tri-X and developed in D76, and scanned at about the same ppi of the 10 mp image of the D80, and another image taken in 2007 with my D80 at iso 3200 for comparison. No sharpening or noise reduction was done on either image. You can see maybe why I am not so unhappy with the results of the D80. Both shots were taken with a Nikkor 50mm MF f1.4 lens. </p>

<p align="left"> <br>

Now, some of you younger folks will be horrified at the “grain” in the D80 shot. But look at the Tri-X shot that was the standard for decades and try to understand why us old timers are not so bothered by some texture in our digital shots. In the final prints the grain will look much smaller than in these 100% “pixel peeping” crops anyway. Before digital, we used medium and large format cameras if we wanted to eliminate grain completely. But that’s another story. </p><div></div>

<p>I think I like the film grain better, but that's just me. Anyway, I think you're right, people are being awfully picky about their digital noise. I think it's a combination of a few things:<br>

-People take digital shots and view them at 100% on their monitors, which is way more magnification than they'd see on a typical print from film.<br>

-People have their expectations raised by seeing amazing shots taken by very skilled photographers with very expensive cameras under studio lighting or with much more thought to lighting and exposure than most people use.<br>

-People leave the dynamic range adjuster (e.g. Nikon "D-Lighting") in Auto then shoot either scenes with a lot of contrast, or poorly exposed shots. DR adjuster applies highlight/shadow adjustment to make histogram look good, and that amplifies noise.</p>

<p>Good points, all. It's definitely a matter of elevated expectations.</p>

<p>My D2H is very noisy above ISO 800, but still equal to any film I've used and better than many. So for my purposes it's still acceptable. And the noise can be easily fixed - it's tedious but not difficult.</p>

<p>Let's not forget that during the height of the film era photographers argued endlessly about the merits and flaws of every popular type of film. And like today, many of them were more concerned about "image quality" in terms of grain, tone and color, and less concerned about image content. That hasn't changed. The same debates have shifted to another target.</p>

<p>I used to shoot GAF500 color slide film, even pushed; and I find the noise of ISO 3200 of modern digital to be more than acceptable, even charming on occasion. ;)</p>

<p>Great point Lex. I agree that pixel peeping and "image quality" arguments continue to dominate the landscape along with the various opinions about bokeh and which lens is the sharpest. Image content is a more elusive beast and has much less to do with things you can purchase, and more to do with talent.</p>

<p>I'm a youngin' and I love b/w film.</p>

<p>Noise isn't bad and actually is slightly better than an image that is too flat. </p>

<p>I liked 1600 on my D2H when I exposed it right. With Nikon at least, I've noticed that when shooting at higher ISO's, it's good to overexpose your shots to +0.3 or +0.7, because noise is much more prominent in darker areas.</p>

<p>I read people all the time complaining that noise is noticeable and unacceptable in their newer cameras at 800. If you're really unhappy with noises levels at 800 or lower on say the D300, get a new hobby. Heh.</p>

<p>Heck, Sports Illustrated made a cover shot at 6400 ISO on the D3. Granted they shoot RAW and have great software, but the point is made. </p>

<p>I've been experimenting with the D2H at 3200 and 6400, where the luminance noise resembles the fluffy popcorn grain of Delta 3200. The tricky bit has been mimicking the tonality of Delta 3200 in my monochrome conversions. The monochrome conversions look good, but not quite like Delta 3200.</p>

<p>Getting some pepper into the salt is another tricky difference between digital noise and typical film grain. One of those things we notice without necessarily recognizing why the two look different.</p>

<p>Another tricky bit is the banding with underexposure. To avoid objectionable banding above 1600 I need to blow the highlights in contrasty shots. So I usually set the exposure comp to +2/3 EV and meter normally. Works well enough for moderate and low contrast subjects.</p>

<p>Anyway, I wouldn't mind having less noise at high ISO's, but in this case I'm hoping to mimic a very grainy film so it's practically an asset.</p>

<p>Grain is not noise, and noise is not grain. Grain has a purpose in the art form and is an element of the wonderful creative control film gives us. It is a choice that you make based on your vision before you make the image. <br>

With digital imaging, noise is the result of signal gain and enhancement circuitry. It is not distributed equally throughout the tonal range nor does it manifest as a consistent pattern or shape. <br>

Here is an analogy to sound. Grain is to the sound of a bow over a cello string ...as Tape hiss is to an analog tape playback. Very different.<br>

That said, noise is an area of only moderate concern in digital imaging at this point, certainly not as much a part of the creative process as grain has been. Attaining a linear response to image sharpness (resolving power) and smoother gamma (overall tonality and color depth) is the bigger concern in digital developments for the future. Canon has determined that more pixels (resolution) increases noise as each pixel must get smaller to fit on the chip real estate and are putting R&D $$$ into the areas mentioned here, better tonality and color depth.</p>

<p><em>I’m posting an image taken about 1969</em></p>

<p>Therein lies your problem. People have moved on. Expectations are relative to contemporary peers' work, not what was done in 1969. Also, people with expectations of high quality used slower film than Tri-X even in 1969. The scan looks like it's a scan from the negative and the darkroom print probably looks a lot better than that.</p>

<p>I love film grain personally. I think it gives some photos more personality.<a href="../photo/10183531"> My sample.</a></p>

<p>Dale: good points. Grain is not the same as noise. I have found that with careful raw conversion particularly with no sharpening, the higher iso digital images can look more film-like, especially in the print. Adobe ACR 2.4 actually does this better because it seems to do less aggressive sharpening with sharpening turned off compared to the latest version of ACR with CS4. My main point here is that some texture in a print when tastefully done doesn't have to be an over-sharpened digital mess.<br>

Ilkka: yes, the Tri-X image is from a negative scan, and it is about what Tri-X grain looks like in a 20 power "grain focuser" like we used to focus our prints in the darkroom. Certainly, the finished print looks fine and nobody would see the grain like this without using a magnifying glass. <br>

I think many of my friends in the street/doc world would disagree with you that "people have moved on." Many people are still experimenting with Tri-X and developers like Diafine, Acufine, Rodinal, and home made soups to achieve the classic "look" of Tri-X. In the 70's I used medium and large formats to get a smoother look to my prints, but the 35mm available light work using Tri-X and fast lenses allowed a certain intimacy because no flash was needed. People barely knew you were taking pictures. Yeah, you can do this now with a D3 or D700 and achieve very low noise, but not all of us can just run out and buy a new camera every time a new version comes out. Another point is that professional photographers have different demands on them than amateurs. When I did studio work I used a 4x5 and medium format all of the time. I also preferred the 4x5 when doing landscapes, for obvious reasons. <br>

Again, my main point is that most current digital cameras can be used at higher iso's to get attractive prints if the post processing is done carefully. Some texture in a print is not necessarily "bad" and one does not have to limit one's self at base iso in other words. If you are a pro or doing landscapes for large prints certainly the investment in a full frame digital or even medium format digital camera would be warranted (or just scan large format film!).</p>

 

<p>Here's another example, shot with the D80 at iso 1600 and acr 2.4 used for conversion and desaturation. At 8.5 by 13 inches this image prints very much like a similar shot done with Tri-X.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/10178733<br>

here's a 100% crop to compare to the Tri-X example above. How's that Lex? As Dale pointed out, digital grain is not consistent across different tonal areas, but in a print this is less noticeable.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Look, most pixel-peeping is perfectly pointless :) I remember getting a lecture on noise from some peeper who said (I am <strong>not</strong> making this up) in answer to my 'How big do you print?', "I don't usually 'print out' my pictures."</p>

<p>Les, that's my main point! Make a print and enjoy it! 100% crops don't exist in the real world outside the computer screen.</p>

<p>Some how - people hate noise because that's mean it will be harder to manipulate it in Photoshop. How can you get a good selection or do this and that in a bumpy ground?</p>

<p>Since when is grain to be compared with noise? It's just not the same.</p>

<p>I've always wondered about all the fuss made about noise. I can only assume that their must be a lot of people out there making huge prints or doing some pretty serious selective cropping. Most of the DSLRs that have been made have generaly produced cleaner images than 35mm film of the same ISO. In terms of clean images photographers have never had it so good.</p>

<p>BITD, we tolerated film grain (particularly Tri-X) because that was as good as it got. No one I know <em>liked</em> it - we lived with it because we <em>had</em> to. Digital noise is an image quality flaw. Why not get completely rid of it if that's possible? I could sell my D700 kit and use my G10 all the time. To paraphrase Nancy Reagan, just say 'shhhh' to digital noise.</p>

<p>Now that the movie industry is busy remastering their back catalogue for Blu-ray, it's common to see a review that praises the transfer for minmising digital noise and other artefacts so that we can finally see the film grain. Although grain was for many photographers a necessary evil, for others it soon became part of the language of the medium, with (e.g.) grainy Tri-X suggesting gritty realism. Emulsions and processing which emphasise grain have often been a deliberate choice.</p>

<p>Noise in current digital cameras is not an issue with prints. The bigger problem with noise is that, when it is visible, it is not attractive. It is like a badly tuned TV.</p>

<p>Grain on the other hand, you can either seek or try to avoid with you selection of film, chemicals, exposure and development. It can be attractive. It is like a message written on the sand with a stick. You just want to touch grain. (you don't want to touch noise - you'd rather feel like tapping the top of that badly tuned TV.)</p>

<p>As an example of pleasing grain. This is a 100% crop of 35mm TMAX 400 pushed one stop to ISO 800. Scan is a 21MP 4000dpi capture with Coolscan 9000. No processing.</p>

<p>And to see this (depending on your screen) on a print, you need to make a 4 foot print.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>And this link is a crop of Kodak TMZ 3200 at 100% exposed at 25,600 (developed at 12,800):<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Other/TMZ-3200-at-25000/6634375_LcJZ5#423084779_Eo4cW-O-LB</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This link is 35mm TMAX 100 pushed to ISO 800:</p>

<p>http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/People/People-Spaces/3639679_XzEoL#582602111_6oiPk-X3-LB</p>

<p>This is 33mm TMAX 100 develop at nominal speed (or 200...):<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Beach/8072306_QeWRb#525850813_5XTH7-X3-LB</p>

 

<p>This is TMAX 100 pushed over the edge:<br>

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Nature-Ot/4811519_F9MBv#427771770_c45Yh-O-LB</p>