Untitled

Somehow, an originally beautiful photo marred by post-exposure factors is like the face of an old person who was very beautiful in youth. It may offer just a shadow of its former beauty, but, oh, what a shadow that is!

 

There's no argument that this photo, presented here as a digital image, would most likely be more beautiful if the image (as opposed to the photo itself, which, apparently, none of us have seen) was bigger and cleaner. Nevertheless, to me this is probably the most evocative POW since July 19th, or maybe even since May 3rd. Certainly the first since then that managed to bring a smile to my face.

 

To add some confusion to the grain vs. digital artifacts debate, I think the strange pattern is a result of what a high amount of digital artifacts does to a high amount of grain. In other words, it looks like it's both!

Great choice Elvis!

 

From time to time, some mistake is made by making a great choice!

 

It is certainly a magical shot. I would think that the scanner used did not focus properly on the image to result this beauty. Whatever went on, the result is outstanding!

 

Good work!

I?ve seen grain like this when you travel with your film and have x-rayed 10

different times. You will also see grain like this when you are trying to hard to

make a shot work by dodging and burning.

 

To me the? the grain ruins the shot because the same mystic affect could have

been achieved using most pan film?s with proper filters. Plus, a pan film like

Tec-Pan would have resolved 550 lpm as apposed to 150 lpm. That?s a big

difference especially when you are limited to a 35mm format.

 

Anyway, I like the shot but the technical faults restrict me from saying that it is

worthy of a POW.

 

Michael

Ronnie - You may be right that this is both grain and some kind of post-production reticulation. All but the best scanners are pretty rough on grain. Another source of the pattern may be some sort of specialty paper. Regardless of the source, or whether there IS a cleaner image to see, I think the grain was an aesthetic choice by the photographer. If you look at his portfolio, I'd also say he has some level of control of the process -- and I actually prefer its application to a couple other pictures there.

This is a great shot Ramaiah! Actually the grains on the photographs makes it feel like an oil painting on canvas. India is a great playground for photo enthusiasts. She provides a vast kaleidoscope of opportunities for great photographs. I am already feeling nostalgic. Ramaiah, Just out of curiosity, which part of India is this shot?

Unfortunately, I don't have a clue as to how this image was created... but it doesn't matter... as is, I can't tolerate the "grain" and low quality. If there is any way that this image can be salvaged, digitally or in the darkroom, please try, because the subject and mood of the image is outstanding. It is a total winner in composition, mood, subject(s), and atmosphere (I mean that literally), but if this is really a representation of the quality of the photo, then it is a great loss, unless something better can be produced from that negative, in which case I'll bet many here on photo.net would like to help you achieve that goal. Best wishes Ramaiah... you are an artist, just hope you get the technical skills to make your vision something that can be appreciated.

Nice shot. The grain doesn't bother me, but in print it might. It looks half-decent to m, but it would be a shame if it were resultant from digitizing. Actually, it almost looks like a scan from a newspaper, or magazine.

 

The elf's question is a tad silly, if you ask me, because a sharper, more detailed version would indeed compromise the mood of the image. Will we hear from the artist on this one? Narry a peep from him in over a year, and not one comment to his name.

Kodak does claim that Tri-X is a fine grain film when it is not. I feel that the grain of Tri-X has a particular look and feel to it and it a beautiful grain. Also, this appears to me to be a low-light image and in my experience grain becomes more visible with low-light images. I think the scanner has made the grain obtrusively visible; scanners do seem to do this. I'm wondering if the scanner bed was clean; there seems to be streaks that I've encountered before on my scanner bed. I think an actual print would look much better than this digital image. There would most likely be less grain, but the correct amount of grain. (Not every shot can nor should be taken using a view camera with Pan F or TechPan.) The grain and the muddiness of the image and to its mood and its mystery. It would be less of an image without these qualities.

I also like grain (I add it to digital images pretty often) but it's the pattern in the grain that is weird. Something *happened* here to make the grain linear or grid-like. I assume that it's not in the acutal print (unless it was caused by xrays as mentioned by someone above).

 

Again, the picture is wonderful... I just don't think that the grain we're seeing is representative of the "real" picture... hmm...

The only flaw I would remark is the goat (?) on the right. Too obscure. And maybe it would help the photo having more depth or maybe a panoramic format. I find it too enclosed. Apart from that, excellent of course. 7/7

I like it. 6/5

Good composition and good the foggy atmosphere that renders this image something like magic.

About KODAK TRI X, I think that fog created this so evident grainy effect and probably it is due also to jpg compression.Ciao. Ferdinando

firstly I always find strange when the elves chose a photo for which the photographer didnt request any critic or rating on it... probably the photographer posted it for other purpose than being criticized ...

but, this point apart, the image itself is pleasing although heavily photoshopped as some of this folder.

The effect here isn't grain or scanner noise, though it may have started out as both. The pattern is the result of an extremely low quality jpeg compression which gives the exaggerated grain the screen door or cloth texture. I'm sure this was a conscious choice of the photographer and if some find it distracting, it probably isn't as distracting as whatever it is it's obscuring. I for one like the obscure nature of this image, though I'd prefer more natural grain if given a choice. I do feel the elements and composition presented are first rate, and congrats to Ramaiah for this fine work of art being selected.

i have seen his portfolio with kodak film. i felt he used the grainy nature of the film very well. The film gives more artist appeal to the images than a more clean resolved better quality film. I feel in this type of compositions, may be such films are a better choice.

I find myself in agreement with Matt Pearson and Ronnie Niedermeyer regarding the technical issues here... There is indeed a combination of factors here, which result in a grainy image with fine parallel lines as well as a third problem: some sort of reticulation.

 

1) The grain is from the film, yes, but the film was scanned on a poor scanner (see #2 below), and therefore, I suspect the picture had to be sharpened more than it is usually necessary - which would in turn mlake the grain more obvious.

 

2) Evidence of a poor scanner: the fine parallel lines that we see quite clearly in some parts of this POW picture, but which are also obvious on another wonderful picture by the same photographer (titled "calf with girl"), are the sure sign of a poor scanner.

 

(Please be reminded, that in India, a scanner is not something everybody has in his house!)

 

3) Reticulation: this pattern we see all over the frame (and more obvious perhaps in the top left area) is something I have seen before - even in my own drumm-scanned images. Such reticulation occurs when the image was saved several times, or when it was compressed in a rough manner - I suppose it could even come from photo.net's own automatic compression of the picture, depending on how it was saved...? At any rate, such reticulation would certainly not appear on a print, unless of course the print is made from a poor digital file - but who would be silly enough to go for such a printing method when the original is on film...?!

 

Conclusion: We are here imo blaming the POW for poor technical presentation on the web, but none of the problems would occur on a print. I wish we'd drop the technical issues, simply because it leads nowhere, and because I find it somehow unfair when having a scanner - be it even a bad scanner - is almost a luxury in a country like India.

This is imo a very nice picture, well composed, with a lovely subject and a lovely light. It's got a fairy tale mood, it's very exotic and, to me, nostalgic - at least from a western point of view.

 

Is grain a good thing for this image ? In my subjective opinion, grain doesn't add or detract much from this image: it just adds mood in a way, but I think it wasn't really necessary either, since the light and subject already set the mood very well.

 

(By "grain", I mean "just grain"; not "grain + evidence of poor scanning + digital compression artefacts". It is obvious that a better scan and compression etc would produce a nicer presentation.)

 

My only (very minor) concern about the photo itself (besides technical issues) would be the odd format, and the way the picture "ends" on the right side. But it's a very good photo imo, although its presentation isn't all that great.

 

I would like to add that I love "Calf with Girl" just as much as this POW - despite the scanning lines. Congratulations on POW.

There is only one reason to post to the photo.net gallery: to exhibit work and get critiques. Any other reason is misuse of the site.

 

As to the horizontal lines: they can also be processing/drying scratches, and I very much doubt that they would be induced by the scanner somehow.

Hi

I've checked all of the photos in Ramaiah's folders and I can see almost all of them have this heavy grainy feel. I can say that I did get some heavy grains on my photos too when I used Agfa APX 400 and tried printing in the lab with Aperature 11 to 16 and filter 4 1/2 and 5 (which are darker) and was using time from 90 seconds to 5 minutes doing dodge/burn. It is possible to get grains like that and I'm assuming Ramaiah is printing them in his lab using those low aperature and higher filter number. I don't think his photos are naturally grainy. It's how he's printing I suppose.

 

Nazzina

"As to the horizontal lines: they can also be processing/drying scratches, and I very much doubt that they would be induced by the scanner somehow."

 

I think, you misunderstood which "parallel lines" I was talking about. Of course some parallel lines can come at the film processing stage, but these are different. I was refering to VERY very fines lines that run all over the pix parallel to each other and actually just next to each other - touching each other, almost. These lines are the sign of the screening that you still find visible on poor scanners. In fact, I saw these lines on all the scans I made during my try-out. Regards.

I think that Ramaiah is very good at using low contrast and grain in his images to make them mystical or dream-like or painting-like. For this, I completely agree with this choice for picture of the week as it is excellent material for discussion. I do not think that really it is usefull to argue if the grain came from the film, jpeg, scanner or whatever. It is certain that it is there because the photographer liked it this way. As can be seen in his folder the amount of grain is used in analogy with the subject. Therefore, IMHO here the grain is successfully used to amplify a wonderful image, I do agree that maybe it is a bit a lot but ... this is personal taste.

I am not sure how to repond to a photo of such beauty. The grain, low contrast, and the simplicity of the image create at the same time a sense of place and timelessness. As an amature photographer myself, that this the artistry that I wish I could conjure up. The rest of the photos in your folder are great as well.

 

Cheers

if people do not like this POW of the goatshephered becaue of the grain or the scan they can pick one of my altar eggos.

It is a great shot, and the mood is set by the mists. Adding grain adds nothing of value.

In a strictly compositional sense, it is the shepherd in the foreground - the way he stands and how he faces the herd - in relation to the herd - they are basically won over - that creates a solid foundation for the photo. I agree that it is the mists that create a sense of magic and not the grain. However I felt that if this photo was brighter or in color, it would lose some of its strange appeal.

I've shot a lot of Tri-X, and I don't remember grain like this unless the shot was underexposed or I tried to crop it heavily. I have gotten grain effects like this with excessive Photoshop manipulation - changing contrast and brightness. I guess if you were to combine an underexposed negative with PS attempts to resurrect the image, it might look like this. Or it might have been intentional. Only the photographer can tell us. As far as the composition, of course it's excellent.