Funny, I got hammered once. I think it even involved grain. . . .but, there was alcohol in there too. :)
Seriously, adding grain to an image in PP seems to either enhance a photo or destroy it. I haven't seen many examples of anything in between. I wouldn't give up on a process just because it didn't work in this instance.
I think the thing to focus on is. . . How do you feel about your image?
I think it worked very well here but as you can see it still only scored a 6.2 which is in my opinion too low. some voters only like very sharp images and if the grain is not very evident some people think it is noise.
I think it worked very well here but as you can see it still only scored a 6.2 which is in my opinion too low. some voters only like very sharp images and if the grain is not very evident some people think it is noise.
I agree that some voters do not seem to like a picture unless it is razor sharp. I would expect a more definate grain- that looks obviously deliberate- instead of a more sublte grain that may be taken for either out of focus or covering for poor sharpness- would be more accepted. Unfortunately sometimes the editing can add grain. I know you are talking about the conscious decision to use grain for mood in a photo, but sometimes I edit a pic and like it but when I save it and post it into a challenge, it looks granier that I expected or intended to. I have lost points this way. Maybe that is just my weak processing skills. [/url]
Artifical grain (added noise) will rarely look as good as the real thing. Real film grain has a look and feel that is very hard to duplicate digitally.
Artifical grain (added noise) will rarely look as good as the real thing. Real film grain has a look and feel that is very hard to duplicate digitally.
Mike
True to a point but just using basic filters to add grain is dumbest. There is a photoshop plugin that add snoise that is based of certain types of film.. You basicly select a filter for what ind of film you want the grain look of.
I took a picture of some geese in heavy fog and submitted to a challenge. I got comments that the image was too grainy. Funny thing is, there was no grain added, nor was there any noise in the image, the person saw the "texture" of the fog and made an assumption.
I think many times people don't stay with an image long enough to evaluate it. In the short time the images are viewed (by some), they are judged by the first thing that hits them in the face, not the overall impact of the image.
If you like it, that's all that matters. If the comments make you evaluate your technique then they've done their job. Doesn't mean you have to change anything.
