Adding 'fake' film grain to images

[nickc1]

<p>The latest copy of a UK digital magazine has just dropped onto the mat, and I am amazed by the included CD - it includes scans of the grain structure of 'films like Ilford FP4, HP5, Delta 400' and the list continues for a range of Ilford and Fuji Films. According to the article you can 'make your clean, digital files look like they were shot on classic films' <br>

Your views on this may be different to mine, but if it takes off lots of images will include both digital noise and film grain, so can I clean up by selling copy negatives of noise to sandwich with film and produce the same effect in an enlarger..............? </p>

 

[starvy]

<p>nick, please ignore my ignorance, i don't understand the question. are you trying to recreate film grain through some other method?</p>

[mike dixon]

<p>Programs, macros, and techniques that recreate the "look" of various films by adjusting film curves, color, and saturation and by adding "grain" have been available for several years. Adding a "grain" layer from scanned film is also a relatively old trick.</p>

[nickc1]

<p>Starvy: No - the magazine includes scans on cd so anyone can add a film grain of their choice to any digital image.<br>

My position as someone who tries to use both mediums to their strengths is why might someone want to do it?</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>There is an excellent exhibition of new photographs by the Canadian photographer Edward Burtynsky at the Flowers East Gallery in London, as I posted to the news forum the other day. These photographs are made , according to the catalogue, by superimposing a file of film grain over image files made using a Hasselblad and digital back to "achieve the long smooth transitions that were so seductive on film".<br>

From observation of the 602 x 48" prints the technique can work well indeed, and certainly there was no intrusive noise visible. OTOH he has of course a team of experts producing his work, and the opportunity to expeiment until he's happy. </p>

[mike dixon]

<p>Why would someone want to use an extremely saturated film like Velvia when there are many other films with more accurate and subtle color palettes? Why would someone underexpose film and develop it longer, causing loss of shadow detail, more grain, and higher contrast? Or use a high-speed film when there's enough light to use a slow speed film?</p>

<p>Why is taking advantage of the extreme adjustability of digital images <strong>not</strong> using digital's strengths?</p>

[Spearhead]

<p><em>My position as someone who tries to use both mediums to their strengths is why might someone want to do it?</em></p>

<p>Because they want to. Why does it matter what techniques someone else might want to use?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Mike--</p>

<p>You make an interesting point. Nevertheless, having read many statements of purpose, critiques, and responses, it becomes clear that most people layering film grain onto a digital image are intending to mimic film and not trying to take advantage of digital's unique characteristics. True, they actually wind up, as you say, using the adjustability of the digital process to do so, but that doesn't change their intention or goal.</p>

<p>Working with digital noise or gearing one's workflow from setup through snap through post-processing specifically keeping in mind that an image will be viewed using the backlighting of a monitor would be cases where someone was using the inherent characteristics of this new medium. (And I'm certainly not advocating that one SHOULD do this or that there's anything wrong with layering film grain onto a digital image.)</p>

<p>It seems to me Nick's point was questioning motives and their relationship to medium, a point worth considering.</p>

<p>Jeff--</p>

<p>The reason it matters what techniques someone else might use is that photographers find each others' work, processes, motivations, and results interesting and can learn from talking about them and questioning them. That's how I understand at least part of the purpose of these forums and I'm grateful to PN for providing a great place to do just that.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>Been using a film scan of Tri-X for years on images that "require" (in my mind's eye) a little more "grit" than a converted from digital to B&W can attain. It's what I saw (admittedly, after years of shooting with tri-x in my film cams) when I took the pic. I don't always carry, nor have the time to swithch to, a film cam AND a digital cam (although I do carry both alot). So knowing that the process of adding scanned film grain to a converted digital pic works..I actually pre vision the whole nine yards.<br>

Although, admittedly, I sometimes "see" the added grain later than the button push...but...<br>

....it don't really matter when I "see" the final image.........what matters is that I SEE it. Creativity does not end at the push of the button......it extends right up to and including the Print. And sometimes even after the print...if I decide later to re do the whole thing.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>The reason it matters what techniques someone else might use is that photographers find each others' work, processes, motivations, and results interesting and can learn from talking about them and questioning them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be true if the poster actually wanted to know. The last line, however, makes it clear that the intention wasn't to learn.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>it becomes clear that most people layering film grain onto a digital image are intending to mimic film</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have done it for a consistent look. If I'm going to show film and digital images together, I want there to be a certain amount of consistency if I'm working in a similar overall style.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>My position as someone who tries to use both mediums to their strengths is why might someone want to do it?</em><br>

<em></em><br>

It seems whenever someone asks about achieving film style results with digital technology, there are critical comments about anyone wishing to do that. I don't know if you are really asking why or phrasing your "position" in the form of a question. In either event one answer is that...</p>

<p>Some people like the attributes of one medium to achieve the look of another. </p>

<p>They like to be able to use digital photography to...</p>

<p>1) see the intial results instantly</p>

<p>2) not spend time hunting around on ebay auctioning for expired but expensive discontinued film </p>

<p>3) not drive, using up gas and time, to stores to spend money buying currently stocked film or waiting for it to be left on the porch exposed to the elements on an uncertain day by a someone driving a brown truck</p>

<p>4) mail out or drive, using up gas and time, to labs to get film developed</p>

<p>5) wait around to see if the results are suitable and then not being able to shoot the scene later because of changed conditions if the results are not suitable</p>

<p>6) not be able to see or use the results on computer unless they pay money for a scanner and spending time scanning or drive, using up gas and time, to a store and wait around to drive back, using up more gas and time, to pick up the scan or mailing out the film hoping, either way, the slide or neg doesn't get scratched</p>

<p>7) then spending time cleaning up the scanned image.</p>

<p>I use both mediums as you do for various reasons for each but, as Jeff said, it doesn't really matter why anyone else does. I'll give one exception though which is if I am really asking why in order to help me decide what I may want to do.</p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>Some people have completely moved from digital to film, others only use film sparingly because of the inherent delay compared to digital in getting images back, others don't like to mess with the chemicals anymore, and there are other myriad reasons to shoot digital. Maybe they have different lenses on the film versus digital body, for another? If you can choose which medium you are using, then of course, real film grain looks more, well "real", compared to simulated grain on a digital image. But, film-like grain, as opposed to luminance/color-noise in digital that looks positively ugly, can often be used to add creative effects to digital images to make them visually more expressive and interesting.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

Why not pretend you're using a medium or large format camera, which have no visible grain in an 11x14 inch print nor, obviously, on the WEB? If you like film, or would like to experiment, why not use film?

[steve_mareno]

<p>I've been busy trying to perfect a technique to add digital noise to film images. The world will surely beat a path to my door.</p>

<p>Well, don't forget that there are ways to add faux brush strokes to a photograph as well.</p>

<p>Maybe someone can figure out a way to add film's tonal range and exposure latitude to digital files. That might be something worthwhile.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"That would be true if the poster actually wanted to know. The last line, however, makes it clear that the intention wasn't to learn."</p>

<p>Jeff--</p>

<p>People have different ways of approaching these forums. Ultimately, perhaps you are right, some posters don't want to learn. They want to be provocative. Nevertheless, some of the most provocative posts have produced interesting threads from which I and others have learned a lot. </p>

<p>Even when contributors make very dogmatic statements that seem to convey a bias, they often open up a discussion that can be enlightening. I'd encourage participation in these forums, even by, if not especially by, those who are the most opinionated or passionate. Several members come to mind who tick me off regularly by their attitudes and strong opinions and from whom I've learned an awful lot.</p>

<p>Threads generally stay more productive when commentors respond to the question (or statement -- I don't believe there's any PN guideline requesting that we initiate threads with a question) rather than characterizing it or questioning the motivation of the questioner. </p>

[rossb]

<p>It's a strange world were living in. The original poster is making a joke about making money selling a noise simulator to a film shooter that would work in conjuntion with an enlarger. I must admit I have never read about a film shooter wishing to simulate noise but I enjoy the thought..<br>

The Fuji S5 has a film simulator mode as a function however they do not mention grain as being part of the simulation. But somebody above mentioned why not just shoot film and I was thinking because of many reasons such as owning a film camera and all the other factors that a person would shoot digital..such as no labs around (my situation), wait periods, lack of the RAW function etc, etc. A point about the film grain simulation is you are mainly simulating 35mm as medium format and larger does not have a lot of grain in the images. So as odd as it may be it's possible for a large format photographer to use a film grain simulator in their work. I have never heard of this being done but that does not mean it is not so. Photography has many faces.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Wonder if you'ld get film grain with your digicam pics transferring them to a film recorder.</p>

[david_manning1]

<p>Nick, I appreciate your sense of humor at the irony. "Can't see the forest for the trees" comes to mind. If you have a creative vision that requires that gritty look, why not drop a roll of Tri-X into a film camera? </p>

<p>I feel that this is a fundamental difference between a "creator" of images and a "capturer" of images. The creator will pre-conceive their image, and use the best tools to realize it, i.e. emulsions, filters, focal lengths, depth-of-field, etc. A "capturer" will just shot-gun away and shoot everything, hoping that they'll end up with something they can work with in post-production. Adding a scan of film grain to a digital capture for "film" effect seems, to me, to indicated that the "capturer" found something they could do to make more out of the image than what it began with. Saturate or de-saturate, use of gaussian blur for DoF, change color balance, crop, etc. </p>

<p>It's humorous to me that a hobbyist will drop $5000 on a camera that records a technically perfect scene, and then destroy it in post-production for effect. *In my own opinion*, a straightforward image captured on Tri-X and wet-printed with average scene contrast, has more depth than most digital captures hot-rodded to look the same. </p>

<p>"If it was easy, everyone would be doing it"...coincides with the digital photography revolution. Connect the dots...</p><div></div>

[ray .]

<p>Not always, but I think in large part adding grain to digital pics is done because people are simply conditioned to looking at photos that show the grain characteristics of the older medium. </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>"My position as someone who tries to use both mediums to their strengths is why might someone want to do it?"</p>

<p>By way of example, I digitized another photographer's very old, overexposed Tri-X image for her. It was a great image, but there was no detail in the sky. So I browsed through a number of my digital photos until I found a sky I liked that would go with the Tri-X image. I then created a sky layer behind the foreground of the main image. It looked strange for obvious reasons -- relatively "grainless" sky and huge grain in the foreground. I then added noise to match the Tri-X noise and did some final touch-up. The end result looks fabulous.</p>

[Alan Johnson]

I tried adding grain to B/W images from my 10mpx DSLR using DXO filmpack.Whilst it is possible to emulate 400 ISO traditional films quite well,IMO the resolution of the 10mpx sensor is not sufficient to emulate 100 ISO tabular grain B/W films and I'm back to shooting film again.I should mention the said filmpack has other features which still make it useful, even with 10mpx.

[nickc1]

<p>Maybe the irony at the end of my original post was a bit over the top, but I did not then see the reason why I should want to add a film look to a digital image. While I am appreciative of all of your suggestions as to why you find it useful, I have yet to be convinced, except in the case mentioned by Sarah, matching parts of a Photomontage - a venerable and important technique in itself.</p>

<p>Please don't think me controversial, that was not my intention, but I am afraid I am still a 'horses for courses' kind of guy, and I will continue to attempt to use film for the film look, and digital for speed/convenience/clean look etc. and all the other excellent reasons to do so. Thanks for your input.</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>The question is why one would want to add film grain to a digital image.<br>

Practical answer: Digital has artifacts--noise varying with exposure, restricted dynamic range, pixelation, and posterization with extended manipulation. One can conceal these artifacts to some extent by adding noise. Film grains are randomly distributed in space, of varying sizes, and of varying tonalities, and thus a particularly useful kind of noise. <br>

Creative answer: Because it is there.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>this is a fundamental difference between a "creator" of images and a "capturer" of images. The creator will pre-conceive their image, and use the best tools to realize it, i.e. emulsions, filters, focal lengths, depth-of-field, etc. A "capturer" will just shot-gun away and shoot everything</em><br /><em></em><br />Its all relative isn't it?</p>

<p>Some people utilize skills that allow them to preconcieve and then 'create' an image using a tool called Photoshop and make images that look like it could only be 'captured' by a camera when no camera was used at all. If you don't do this, then it is you who shoots everything and are the capturer and they who are the creator.</p>

<p><em>Adding a scan of film grain to a digital capture for "film" effect seems, to me, to indicated that the "capturer" found something they could do to make more out of the image than what it began with. Saturate or de-saturate, use of gaussian blur for DoF, change color balance, crop, etc. </em><br /><em></em><br />Seeking to priduce an image on film isn't enough for some film photographers. They choose papers that will yield a certain result, choose filters which will add or lower contrast, they cause prints to have a different color balance, crop images, burning and dodging and all sorts of things or they will expect someone else at a lab to do all this. Unless you have never done any of these things, it indicates that you are merely a capturer who found something you could do to 'make more out of your images than what you began with'.</p>

<p><em>It's humorous to me that a hobbyist will drop $5000 on a camera that records a technically perfect scene, and then destroy it in post-production for effect. *In my own opinion*, a straightforward image captured on Tri-X and wet-printed with average scene contrast, has more depth than most digital captures hot-rodded to look the same. </em></p>

<p>Tri-X wet printed images cannot be better if your hobbyist's camera yields a "perfect scene". It can be perfect as well or imperfect. Whatever the quality may be, post production "for effect" may tend to enhance or ruin an image whether it is digital or film. Some of it is subjective, some of it is objective by most people's standards. We might not expect digital process to be exactly like wet printed Tri-X prints because it is not. This, as you say, only applies to "most" digital captures however. You concede that it, in fact, it can be done.</p>

<p>If we use the forest from the trees thinking, which you admire, all that you are really telling us is that you don't care for (as Jeff phrases it) techniques other people might want to use. As to your question asking <em>If you have a creative vision that requires that gritty look, why not drop a roll of Tri-X into a film camera?, </em>If you stepped back from the trees one more time and read my first post, you would have one answer before even asking. If other people's reasons are not good enough or 'convincing' then that's fine.<br>

<em></em></p>

[john_h.1]

<p>P.S.<br>

...but they might react negatively to inferences that their way is something to be looked down upon.</p>