Grain... Noise... paranoia or art?

[rapyke]

<p>OK, so, anyone else here old enough to remember the dawn of 'fast' films? 64, 125, 400, 1000 speed films? We thought we had the world by the tail - we were freed from light worries forever. The cost of this freedom was the evil <em>grain</em>. But we were OK with that because we were the masters of light.</p>

<p>Now though, we have entered the digital age. There is no grain! Now, we have <em>noise</em>. Noise is evil. A good camera should not produce noise... not ever.</p>

<p>Um... it seems a bit like deja vu all over again doesn't it? I have heard this song and dance number before I think... </p>

<p>For me though, the real irony of this whole dog and pony show didn't strike home until I was out for a walk last night and decided to try out the nifty Art Filters on my E-620. I am a raw shooter, so they simply never pop into my mind - until last night.</p>

<p>I worked my way down the list until I came to <em>Grainy Film</em>. Grainy film? And sure enough, what I got was somewhat worse than pushed 1000 speed film printed B&W... and you know what? I liked it. I liked the grain.</p>

<p>

<p>So, if film grain is now 'art'... what is going to happen with 'noise'? Will noise also be an art filter one day?</p>

 

<strong>

 

</strong></p>

<div></div>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Ron, As my bio states, I became really interested in photography when Super Anscochrome 100 was introduced. Also, around that time, came Royal X-Pan with an ASA of 1600 (advertised). My philosophy on noise or grain is that there is a time & place for it. I have no hesitation in bumping up the ISO to speeds which are inherently grainy for a shot which would otherwise be missed. They are usually people shots where there is some action of a short duration taking place in dim light. I also usually convert these types of shots to B&W for a more classic look. Otherwise, I guess it's really the end use of the image which should dictate the graininess or lack of it. A fine art landscape might demand smooth tones with no noise as would a formal portrait. Street photography or candid people shots might be less demanding. And then there is the 'Artistic License' element where the artist breaks all the 'rules' & simply does what damn well pleases HIM! As they say in the little tykes Soccer Leagues, "The first goal is to have fun". Knock yourself out. (and don't forget to post your favourite results. Best, LM.</p><div></div>

[johnfarrar]

<p>So, if film grain is now 'art'... what is going to happen with 'noise'? Will noise also be an art filter one day?<br>

Good q. In B+W, grain is OK and maybe even art (not fine grain art, but coarse grain art?). And yes, as in your example, it can look good. Texture in even sky, all that stuff. But chroma noise - ugh. Those horrible shadows full of chroma were the chief reason I swapped my G9 for an EP1, and why I love my FX digital. So who's done B+W digital with high noise and does it work? Never tried it, but may do now.<br>

As for art filters - I've got an inbuilt fine art filter. I don't make fine art, I just take photos. Even when the art filter is switched on...</p>

 

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Noise and grain seem very different to me. Grain I like: it's a tangible, solid texture, the building block of the film. Grain can make a sharp picture appear sharper, and is often a welcome addition to a dslr capture, especially in conjunction with a b/w conversion. Noise is just evil.</p>

<p>Here's some notes I made, regarding adding grain to digital captures:</p>

<p>Paraphrased excerpt from "The Art of Black and White Photography", by Torsten Andreas Hoffmann, regarding adding grain digitally, in Photoshop:</p>

<p>Go to Pull-down: Filter|Texture|Grain<br>

Set Intensity to around: 12-14<br>

(Intensity decides grain size, the above is rough equiv. to asa 100 film)<br>

Set Contrast to around: 50%<br>

Set Grain Type pulldown to: "soft"</p>

[machts gut]

<p>Grain is not art. There are certainly some grainy photos that are concidered art, but grain doesn't turn a photo into art. It won't be any different with noise.</p>

[discordianist1]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Grain is not art. There are certainly some grainy photos that are concidered art, but grain doesn't turn a photo into art. It won't be any different with noise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Painting is not art, painting can be used in production of art. Grain is not art, grain can be used in production of art. But that's not the discussion here. Question was if "art filter" of tomorrow is "high noise", well maybe in my oppinion, but I hope not to live the day when it get's overly used as grain filters are today (yet I love a bit of artificial grain in a shot here and there, when done gracefully).</p>

 

[mukul_dube]

<p>I remember the time when Adox KB14 was a staple and the new Agfa Isopan ISS at ASA 100 was considered fast. In general, grain was something to be avoided. It could be tolerated only when there was no other way to get the photograph. For this reason, for two decades starting in the early 1970s I used, for nearly all my work, FP4 or Plus-X rather than an ASA 400 film. I have recently moved up to ASA 400 colour negative film because its grain is now so much less obtrusive than it used to be. As with film, so with noise. With my E-300 and E-510 I go over ISO 400 only when in dire straits: and then too, I keep to ISO 800.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Yeah, I'm old enough to remember 'fast' film.<br>

Tri-X in Diafine, ASA1600<br>

Pushed Ektachorme tungsten, ASA320<br>

Ansco 500 slide film, ASA500<br>

Kodak recording film (I froget the stock#) ASA1000<br>

Except for the Tri-X I never liked the results of any of the other fast films. Now, if need be, I set my E-410 for 1600 and in 4X6 it's just OK, not great but if you have to hand hold it's better than motion blur. No 'Art' filters on the 410 but then I'm certainly no artist so it all works out in the end. Still shoot 400 ISO B&W. Not so much because I love film but the cameras are works of mechanical art and are lovely to hold and use whereas the E-410 is a competent but soulless plastic lump. </p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>My personal opinion is that grain is fine, but noise is bad. I've never liked the look of noise, especially chroma noise. Of course, even if you up the ISO to ridiculous levels, you can always do a B&W conversion and you solve the noise issue. Not it just appears as grain.<br>

To me this is one advantage of a really fast color film over high ISO sensor settings. The really fast color film just has a lot of grain, the really high ISO sensor settings have a lot of noise. The grain looks okay, the noise is obtrusive. Of course sometimes grain is obtrusive. That and of course these days there isn't a film in the world at ISO800 that can touch most dSLRs at 800 (and it gets worse from there).<br>

You still won't get my film away from me without prying it from my cold dead hands.</p>

[rapyke]

<p>Generally I agree that grain is more acceptable than noise, but I will put up with either to get a shot I couldn't get any other way...<br>

John Robinson said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I love film but the cameras are works of mechanical art and are lovely to hold and use whereas the E-410 is a competent but soulless plastic lump.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I felt exactly this way about my 410 for the first year I had it... then I got an adapter or two and started using 'heritage' lenses - *presto* soul.</p>

<p>Today, IMHO, lenses matter more than the camera - assuming a certain basic technical ability on the part of the camera... </p>