First Born (No Grain)

In addition to general comments, I'd like to know what you think about film grain in this picture. I have a version with film grain in the same folder; please take a look and let me know which version you like better. This picture is of my sister-in-law and my first nephew and I'm planning on framing it and giving it as a present. Thanks in advance for all comments.

Timothy, please keep in mind that this is opinion—it is not carved in stone nor is it intended to be. You asked if the no-grain or the grain is better. Being a very old person, predating digital by some half century I love grain—film grain. I miss grain. I sometime loath the flat, uninteresting areas of digital images. To me they look more like a gravure than photograph. I love texture, feel, tactile sense that grain adds. I absolutely hate digital grain—I prefer to call it digital speckle rather than grain. Film grain changes size with the degree of exposure to light—digital grain just speckles everything the same. Truthfully I prefer digital noise to fake digital grain—which is my way of saying that of the two I prefer the straight print. Again, that is opinion and it is perfectly okay to disagree with opinion.

As far as digital manipulation in general—when it adds to the intent of the image. Otherwise it screams bad photograph that I’m trying to salvage. A good photograph can stand on its own without the use of gimmicky. This photograph can stand on its own.

First, let me say that I love comments, critiques, criticisms, and opinions so long as they are meant to be constructive and to make me a better photographer, so thank you for whatever opinions & thoughts you can give me.

In response to what you said, I realized I wasn't completely accurate in my description. The "grainy" image is actually digital noise, which I improperly used interchangeably with a film grain effect. They looked similar to me when in B&W I hadn't really thought about the difference, though as soon as you mentioned it I realized my error.

In response to your comments on digital manipulation, I used to agree with you more but have moved more towards the software camp lately. While there are always exceptions, I think that the difference is not manipulated or manipulated, and most of my images happen to qualify for the PN's unmanipulated check box, but whether or not the manipulation is tasteful. Ideally, you won't be able to tell that an image has been altered by looking at it. I think that most people's dislike of digital manipulation comes from looking at badly manipulated images; if it is done right you wouldn't know.

That being said, while I appreciate that you think this image can stand on it's own, it's easily one of the 2 or 3 most heavily edited images I've worked on, which isn't that huge of a list, but this photograph is still far from the original. To me, the fact that it didn't look like that way spells success for this picture. If you want to see the original, it's posted in the comments for the "with grain" version. Thanks again!

Timothy, Sorry, I was not clear in my statement about manipulation. To paraphrase David duChemin there are three factors in every photograph: your vision at the time of taking the photograph; the image you capture in the camera and the image you create in post. I take great issue with the straight out of the camera people. Post is necessary if you want your photographs to be anything other than the documentation of an object or situation, if you want to say more with the photograph beyond what a mechanical device is capable of capturing.  

Someone once suggested on one of my blogs that we post “straight out of the camera.” I said no way. You will never see a photograph of mine that is SOOC. Post is no less necessary in digital than a wet darkroom was in film.

I am considerably more interested in what your photograph communicates than how you managed to get there. A big part of creating a photograph is what you exclude. It would be wonderful if photographers had the ability to exclude every distracting element at the moment of conception—that surely should be the goal. As photographers we need to work at that in every photograph. There are times when that is simply not possible. Those are the times that we try to hide the distracting elements if possible by moving them behind other objects or by casting them into shadow. When that is not possible we are left with post processing, even cloning. That is all that you have done with the original—in a less than ideal situation you removed the offending background—I do not consider that manipulation. That is simply creating a background that strengthens the message of the photograph.

You are correct. When the manipulation calls attention to itself it lessens the photograph. We may disagree slightly on the cause—you see it as poorly done work, I see it as an artificial approach to make an interesting photograph from an poorly done photograph. Either way the results are the same the work calls attention to itself rather than strengthening the message of the photograph.

I feel certain that your photograph Liam and Grandpa is also highly edited. That doesn’t bother me it, like this one captures something of value, they both present something of value as a photograph. IMO, they are the two strongest photographs on your page. It isn’t editing that I find objectionable, it’s gimmicks.

Gary, it appears that we are on the same page. I do always find it interesting what people think are or are not edited. The Liam & Grandpa picture is actually a low quality picture that I took with a cheap, hand held camera, but I liked the content so much that I decided to do something with it. So I cropped, drained the color, and did a blur effect (it wasn't especially clear, so I decided to just go with it) and I thought something decent came out. What do you think of the Liam picture with selective color drain? It may be considered gimmicky, or it may be considered a good, artistic choice.