I don't mind that kind of grain John. In fact you see it in a lot of 'film' b&w shots. To me, it usually adds to the shots interest. After all Photoshop allows you to add noise-grain for depth.
Someone mentioned yesterday about little things in the National Geo. photos and how they would be voted down here.(tilted horizons, etc.)
I think often we are too quick to discount a shot for grain-noise. It's not always a bad thing as seen in your shot of the squirrel.
It's good to be flexible.
i agree with justine, i believe in a b&w pic like that, the grain looks natural to the photo, after being used to seeing it in B&W photos for so long. i think it looks fine and wouldn't worry about it at all. now how much that grain affects a color image is another story, i'd be interested in seeing some of your ISO 3200 results in color.
I feel the plenty of artistic look in this picture. It can´t be better in color. Only this grained look gives some special emotion to this picture. A clear sharp vivid color has a visual impact. A BW grained very well taked picture as this, gives a emotive impact. I can´t explain this but it´s what I feel when saw this. May be the next generations, that never sees a BW old printed photo don´t feel this.
I don't mind that kind of grain John. In fact you see it in a lot of 'film' b&w shots. To me, it usually adds to the shots interest. After all Photoshop allows you to add noise-grain for depth.
Someone mentioned yesterday about little things in the National Geo. photos and how they would be voted down here.(tilted horizons, etc.)
I think often we are too quick to discount a shot for grain-noise. It's not always a bad thing as seen in your shot of the squirrel.
It's good to be flexible.
I don't mind that kind of grain John. In fact you see it in a lot of 'film' b&w shots. To me, it usually adds to the shots interest. After all Photoshop allows you to add noise-grain for depth.
In my pic for the 'All Alone" Challenge - Click Here I used an ISO of 400 - to get the grainy effect - but no one liked it - what to do - different strokes for different folks.
I like the shot and the grain, but it seems like the average viewer/voter prefers a smooth look. Not enough time is spent really looking at the photo to appreciate just what was accomplished here.
I like very much the idea of using grain artistically, it can really be an effective tool to set a mood, to recall an earlier time. Some shots just cry out for a bit of grain (or more than a bit).
I would rather shoot at low ISO and add grain in software than try to get it in-camera, at least with the Canons. I don't find that the noise introduced at high ISO on the Canon 10D & 300D is all that pleasing. The fixed-pattern noise on these cameras tends to produce horizontal bands that are very distracting, though random noise usually predominates at high ISO/high shutter speed combinations.
I'd rather have control over the amount of grain and the characteristics of the grain. Grain Surgery was mentioned above, it does seem to be the ultimate tool for this, though the $179 retail price seems out of whack for this product. I've not tried it, certainly would not buy it at that price. Anyone know of good, less expensive alternatives?
I would hazard a guess that the perception of the grain varies with people's perception of the intent of the photographer. Since we *know* john's a good fotog with a good camera, he must have done it on purpose, therefore we can appreciate the artistic value. when voting on a challenge, the question will come up: "is this grain intentional, or does this guy just not know how to light his subject properly?"
that's why the shots that fall 'outside the box' tend to languish in the challenges (note the absence of the term 'artsy' pictures).
My kid paints great abstracts that would sell for thousands...if he were picasso.
I like this shot and the graininess, but it doesn't look like film grain. Dunno if that was the effect you were looking for on not. Maybe adding grain in post processing would let you get a more "film" look to it.
I don't like grain, cannot see anything artistically about it.
This is OK too. I think this is probably a general consensus overall. I was hoping that someone would define for me what it is about grain that they like. Why is it that grain adds artistic value for some? I don't know either :)
I don't like grain, cannot see anything artistically about it.
This is OK too. I think this is probably a general consensus overall. I was hoping that someone would define for me what it is about grain that they like. Why is it that grain adds artistic value for some? I don't know either :)
For me it isn't a like it or not thing - grain can add texture where a clean image might lack that tactile quality. Some times this enhances and other times it gets in the way. Grain can also artifically enhance the contrast in a scene, giving it some more punch. I've heard of pros who use digital shooting at ISO 200 or higher for that added effect in their shots, rather than any need for higher shutter speeds.
The funny thing about grain is that it was never intended as an 'added value' to any print. It was just a product of the limitations of technology at the time.
That's what I'm trying to figure out, too. When looking at older photos in family albums, it was always said, "That would be a great photo, too bad it's grainy." After putting in some time trying to clean it up with software you came to the realization that it was a great photo with the grain and the grain added to the authenticity. So...is the grain added to photos today to achieve that antiquated look? Are there other applications?
When shooting film, I would push ISO 400 B&W (Tri-X Pan or TMax) film to ISO 3200 or 6400. Images would look almost like sand paintings when printed at 8x10. Sometimes, that was the only way to get an image at all.
what do you mean it was the only way to get a image at all?
because of light conditions?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Sometimes, that was the only way to get an image at all.
in certain instances i think grain adds to a photo - to give a rock solid answer as to when exactly, i cant.
but zeuszen has some decent BW's with grain in my mind.
I would hazard a guess that the perception of the grain varies with people's perception of the intent of the photographer. Since we *know* john's a good fotog with a good camera, he must have done it on purpose, therefore we can appreciate the artistic value. when voting on a challenge, the question will come up: "is this grain intentional, or does this guy just not know how to light his subject properly?"
that's why the shots that fall 'outside the box' tend to languish in the challenges (note the absence of the term 'artsy' pictures).
My kid paints great abstracts that would sell for thousands...if he were picasso.
edit: /Pedro needs a spel chek
I think the responses to Johns post illustrates the kind of respect he has earned. He posted a shot to get opinions and we assume that he (John) must like the shot and the 'grain look', but actually (by the sound of it) it is to the contrary.
what do you mean it was the only way to get a image at all?
because of light conditions?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Sometimes, that was the only way to get an image at all.
in certain instances i think grain adds to a photo - to give a rock solid answer as to when exactly, i cant.
but zeuszen has some decent BW's with grain in my mind.
Yeah, in very low light where you can't use flash like street photography at night or the occasional surveillance job. The effect itself is kind of interesting too in some cases.
I think the responses to Johns post illustrates the kind of respect he has earned. He posted a shot to get opinions and we assume that he (John) must like the shot and the 'grain look', but actually (by the sound of it) it is to the contrary.
I do like the grain. In fact, I love the grain that is produced at ISO 3200 on my camera.
I don't like grain, cannot see anything artistically about it.
This is OK too. I think this is probably a general consensus overall. I was hoping that someone would define for me what it is about grain that they like. Why is it that grain adds artistic value for some? I don't know either :)
Sorry John, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I guess I interpreted your questioning of it's artistic value for some as not liking the grain. - my bad.
Although I too use that 'webdev' template on pbase.com, it adds a texture to the photo which is changing your 'grain'. Perhaps using something that dooesn't change the appearance of the photo will be a better indication of the true 'graininess' of the photo. Personally I use a high-ISO and/or push a lower ISO in post whenever I need to properly expose a shot, but I don't find the extreme patterning of the noise from a DSLR to be all that attractive. Shooting in RAW and converting using C1 or something similar certainly helps eliminate noise, but there are still always tradeoffs. I like the 1.4 on my 50 for really low-light situations, where it's gotta be really dark before you need to bump the ISO past 800.
