Digital grain?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hello,

When working with film there distinct grain structures for different
films. At times these are used as an "enhancement" for the image. I
was doing more photography 20 years ago. At the time one of my favorite
photographers was Max Waldman. I enjoyed very much his dance and
theater images. I seem to remember him using 2475 recording film
developed in dk50. The images had *extremely* sharp grain that added to
the quality of the image.

Jump forward to today. A short time ago I picked up a Canon 20D. Nice
camera, and I am learning and re-learning a lot. However, I don't see
how to attempt the type of grain images that were done with film.

I am just curious if the this is just a loss in the digital changes.
Sure, I could go and do some post processing in PS or PSP, but I don't
think it would be the same thing.

eric

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eric <eric@imnothere.com> writes:
> When working with film there distinct grain structures for different
> films. At times these are used as an "enhancement" for the image.
> I was doing more photography 20 years ago. At the time one of my
> favorite photographers was Max Waldman. I enjoyed very much his
> dance and theater images. I seem to remember him using 2475
> recording film developed in dk50. The images had *extremely* sharp
> grain that added to the quality of the image.
>
> Jump forward to today. A short time ago I picked up a Canon 20D.
> Nice camera, and I am learning and re-learning a lot. However, I
> don't see how to attempt the type of grain images that were done
> with film.

Well, if you pump up the ISO settings on your 20D, you get noise.
Noise, like grain, are artefacts of the recording process. Some
day we may see that somebody that are able to use digital noise
creatively.

> I am just curious if the this is just a loss in the digital
> changes. Sure, I could go and do some post processing in PS or PSP,
> but I don't think it would be the same thing.

In what way do you think it is different?

Max Waldman was an artist, and he selected unusual materials and an
unusual workflow to get a particular artistic effect. I would say
that Waldman used (chemical) digital processing to realize his
artistic vision. Today, an artist with a digital workflow will use
(digital) image processing to realize /his/ artistic vision. I don't
see that digital approach is very different (or inferior) to the
chemical.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eric <eric@imnothere.com> writes:

> When working with film there distinct grain structures for different
> films. At times these are used as an "enhancement" for the image. I
> was doing more photography 20 years ago. At the time one of my
> favorite photographers was Max Waldman. I enjoyed very much his dance
> and theater images. I seem to remember him using 2475 recording film
> developed in dk50. The images had *extremely* sharp grain that added
> to the quality of the image.
>
> Jump forward to today. A short time ago I picked up a Canon 20D.
> Nice camera, and I am learning and re-learning a lot. However, I
> don't see how to attempt the type of grain images that were done with
> film.
>
> I am just curious if the this is just a loss in the digital
> changes. Sure, I could go and do some post processing in PS or PSP,
> but I don't think it would be the same thing.

Well, there are products to add fake grain, to duplicate that sort of
effect. But don't expect viewers in 30 years to understand it!

For me, much of my photographic life from 1969-2001 was an endless
fight to subdue, minimize, hide the damned film grain. Digital
signalled the end of this for me, and I'm *so* happy!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

> The digital equilivent of grain for digital is noise.

The Holy Priests of the One True Religion of Photography are not
pleased with your blasphemies. Repent now or risk their wrath!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

*amused sigh*

We spent the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s talking about how to get rid of grain.

Now we're going to spend this decade talking about how to get it back?

You could of course add it as a digital special effect. I doubt that any
camera is going to provide that as an in-camera built-in effect, though.

In the old days, grain was considered an undesirable side effect of using a
small film format. Sheet film, or even big roll film, didn't have visible
grain.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <41b07ebc$1@mustang.speedfactory.net>,
"Michael A. Covington" <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address>
wrote:

>*amused sigh*
>
>We spent the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s talking about how to get rid of grain.
>
>Now we're going to spend this decade talking about how to get it back?
>
>You could of course add it as a digital special effect. I doubt that any
>camera is going to provide that as an in-camera built-in effect, though.
>
>In the old days, grain was considered an undesirable side effect of using a
>small film format. Sheet film, or even big roll film, didn't have visible
>grain.

True, but when you blow something up big and it gets too soft, some kind
of texture makes the image more palataboe to many people.

Getting rid of grain in the '60s also implied replacing it with more
detail, did it not? The compromise there is between grain and detail.
For a grainy look in a digital capture, it is really more of a
grain-or-no-grain decision, as you will not lose any detail if you
upsample the image first.

Of course, if you want to texturize an over-magnified digital image, you
can do it many other ways than grain.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"eric" <eric@imnothere.com> wrote in message
news:wpednRfnftSUaS3cRVn-rw@wideopenwest.com...
> Robert Klemme wrote:
>>
>> Hm... Of course digital photography and film photography are not the
>> same
>> thing. Do you consider it a drawback to have clean images that can be
>> postprocessed easily with PS / PSE vs. the film era where you didn't have
>> the choice? Personally I like the digital times which make it much
>> easier
>> to post process a picture than in darkroom times. YMMV. What exactly do
>> you miss?
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> robert
>>
>
> I appreciate the comments from several people. Thanks.
>
> Typically, I, like most people, want clear, precise images. Film grain
> was not something that I would normally try to enhance. But on various
> occasions and with various subjects it can add to a composition.
>
> Different film/developer combinations yield various grain structures that
> can be interesting. Some things I liked working in were BW Infrared
> developed in D76. When push processing TriX I would choose Ethol UFG if I
> was trying to minimize grain, but use Ethol Blue when wanting to enhance
> grain. This, of course, depended on the subject, context and purpose of
> the images I was working on.
>
> Several have stated that noise is the digital equivalent of film grain. My
> problem is that I have yet to see an image where noise adds a similar
> effect to an image that film grain would. Most noise that I see in images
> just looks ugly. If anyone has examples of it adding to an image I would
> be most interested in seeing them.
>
> Thanks.
>
> eric

I mentioned in my earlier reply that Paint Shop Pro has a noise addition
effect that is claimed to mimic film grain. Try it on your own images by
downloading the free trial from www.jasc.com.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com writes:

> Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
>
>> The digital equilivent of grain for digital is noise.
>
> The Holy Priests of the One True Religion of Photography are not
> pleased with your blasphemies. Repent now or risk their wrath!

Tough bippies, he's right. It's certainly not identical, but it's a
non-pictorial element that appears preferentially in low-light photos;
it plays the same role as grain does.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Well before the digital era, there were people whose personal style
> depended significantly on grain.

....though they were usually farmers... ;^)