| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/22/2004 11:20:36 AM · #26 |
Thanks for the invite blemt, but I don't think I have the expertise to write a tute. Here's the "grainyest" pic I ever took, and when I pp'ed it I was trying to minimize the grain, or noise.
 |
|
|
|
05/22/2004 11:24:55 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by blemt:
For purposes of this exercise, I would strongly urge that "photograin" be a key component of the image. No using NI to remove noise, but you can add or enhance noise. Here noise=grain. |
I'm not sure I like the idea of being able to artificially "add grain". That would be like using "gaussian blur" to simulate "soft focus" or "shallow depth of field". To me, it loses its "camera technique" aspect and becomes more of a "post-shot editing" challenge.
And to me, realistic, eye-pleasing "film grain" is a lot more than just using the "Add Noise" filter... which is why $179 plug-ins like Grain Surgery exist that use scientifically-measured profiles for common film stocks. See this sample, for example.
Message edited by author 2004-05-22 11:26:35. |
|
|
|
05/22/2004 11:33:30 AM · #28 |
I thought the grain from this shot made it look cool...
|
|
|
|
05/22/2004 11:44:08 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by blemt:
For purposes of this exercise, I would strongly urge that "photograin" be a key component of the image. No using NI to remove noise, but you can add or enhance noise. Here noise=grain. |
I'm not sure I like the idea of being able to artificially "add grain". That would be like using "gaussian blur" to simulate "soft focus" or "shallow depth of field". To me, it loses its "camera technique" aspect and becomes more of a "post-shot editing" challenge.
And to me, realistic, eye-pleasing "film grain" is a lot more than just using the "Add Noise" filter... which is why $179 plug-ins like Grain Surgery exist that use scientifically-measured profiles for common film stocks. See this sample, for example. |
In a perfect world I'd have full PS so I could get Grain Surgery as a plug-in. The purpose of this particular exercise is to help teach photographers without a film background that grain/noise can be used effectively as a photographic technique. If you know that your camera produces "noise" under certain circumstances, then you can plan that noise into your shot as an element of the image.
In this case I'd argue that adding noise is no different that using a different paper/developer mix to enhance grain post process in film. If you take an uninteresting picture and add grain, it's not going to do well.
Clara
|
|
|
|
05/22/2004 11:50:36 AM · #30 |
comme ca? |
|
|
|
05/22/2004 12:01:45 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
How do you get grain in a digital image? Seems that we must equate it to noise if this proposed challenge were posted. You can get noise by using software, as lenkphotos has said, and also you can shoot in an inordinately high ISO. To me, grain, or noise, is basically a defect in a photograph. Something that you try to make look "artsy" in order to reclaim an otherwise undesirable image. |
Maybe it depends on your perspective on photography. I came into digital photography as a film photo buff. I still prefer film, truthfully, and have been considering a return to it.
I haven't looked at your profile, Coolhar, but the statement you made regarding grain seems to be coming from someone who hadn't spent a lot of time looking at great film photos before discovering digital. I don't think someone who had a working knowledge of some great photographers would make such a blanket judgement about a technique. Noise isn't the same thing as grain. With bad noise you see anomolous spots of pixelation and jagged edges. See dpreview's definition of noise with examples.
I think there are times when graininess can be appropriate to the shot. In the past, fast film was much grainier.Street photographers wanting to capture night scenes, candid street scenes, etc would use fast film in order to be as inconspicous as possible. In my opinion, graininess can make a candid shot like this work because it gives that 'in the moment' feel of old greats. Graininess can lend a sense of immediacy to a scene. Do I think Alfred Stieglitz would have used finer grain fast film were he alive today. In a heart beat. But that is speculation. For now, check out some grainy greats.
Stieglitz, Icy Night
Winter on Fifth Avenue, New York
Snap Shot, Paris
Georgia O'Keefe
Henri Cartier-Bresson, (Seville), Spain 1933
Bettman, Tee-Time
And some contemporary street photography:
Nils Jorgensen
Nils Jorgensen
Mason Resnick |
|
|
|
05/22/2004 12:10:17 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Thanks for the invite blemt, but I don't think I have the expertise to write a tute. Here's the "grainyest" pic I ever took, and when I pp'ed it I was trying to minimize the grain, or noise.
|
I think you have a definite misunderstanding of the difference between noise and grain. They result from similar problems (fast ISO rating) but the visual effect is completely different. |
|
|
|
05/22/2004 12:16:31 PM · #33 |
One of the first few challenges I had voted on was Despair back in Feb 2003 and the image below was probably one of the first 'grainy' shots I had seen and thought it was quite effective.
Interestingly enough, going back now and looking at it I see I was the only comment not marked helpful too, and I actually liked it *cry* I'm so misunderstood! |
|
|
|
05/22/2004 12:18:25 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
I'm not sure I like the idea of being able to artificially "add grain". That would be like using "gaussian blur" to simulate "soft focus" or "shallow depth of field". To me, it loses its "camera technique" aspect and becomes more of a "post-shot editing" challenge.
And to me, realistic, eye-pleasing "film grain" is a lot more than just using the "Add Noise" filter... which is why $179 plug-ins like Grain Surgery exist that use scientifically-measured profiles for common film stocks. See this sample, for example. |
How would one create a true film grain image in-camera? My entry for Habits is grainy from a happy accident, I admit. I underexposed an indoor shot with my camera set to b&w with an ISO of 100. I thought it was a goner but for the hell of it I equalized it and was surprised to discover how much detail had actually been captured. The resulting image was grainy (but not noisy, which I attribute to the low ISO rating) with a halo effect in one spot (a weak point for me) but to me it worked for the shot which was definitely a street scene type of shot, accept done indoors. It's not doing to great at 4.8-ish but no one has commented that it is noisy. I've added noise and film grain to photos in the past but I'm not always satisfied with the effect which looks like....well, an effect. I'm going to check out that link you provided, EddyG ( I hope it was you). |
|
|
|
05/22/2004 12:46:32 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
How would one create a true film grain image in-camera? My entry for Habits is grainy from a happy accident, I admit. I underexposed an indoor shot with my camera set to b&w with an ISO of 100. I thought it was a goner but for the hell of it I equalized it and was surprised to discover how much detail had actually been captured. The resulting image was grainy (but not noisy, which I attribute to the low ISO rating) with a halo effect in one spot (a weak point for me) but to me it worked for the shot which was definitely a street scene type of shot, accept done indoors. It's not doing to great at 4.8-ish but no one has commented that it is noisy. I've added noise and film grain to photos in the past but I'm not always satisfied with the effect which looks like....well, an effect. I'm going to check out that link you provided, EddyG ( I hope it was you). |
Some people shoot at a very high ISO like 1600 or 3200 that causes, I guess, noise but that a lot of people refer to as grain.
You may also want to avoid talking about fairly specific details of your image while it is being voted on as well as it's often frowned upon to do so.
Message edited by author 2004-05-22 14:15:06. |
|
|
|
05/22/2004 01:19:48 PM · #36 |
  
Two of the (above) digital images contain noise, one does not. The one which doesn't was faulted by some voters of being grainy. What these viewers perceived as grain was natural, albeit thick fog. All of my attention with this shot, frankly, went into exposing the fog right while struggling to have a real subject to focus on, as opposed to the fog itself.
Both the two factually noisy images were taken at dusk under very low ambient light with the aperture wide open. With one ('Promontory') the effect was incidental - in other words, my intention was to include as little noise as possible under the conditions. The extreme and coarse noise in 'Socked in' was quite deliberate, shot at ISO 500, 1/30 shutter and f 2.1.
Message edited by author 2004-05-22 13:26:42.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2004 01:47:17 PM · #37 |
I feel like you guys are holding my head underwater, LOL.
BradP's Mass at rest is not graiiny or noisy to me. That's the a way a crankshaft looks, rough & bumpy on the cast parts and shiny on the machined parts, journals I think is the correct term. I've seen the inside of engines. BTW, nice pic Brad.
Originally posted by G4Ds:
I feel that the majority of people on this site, do tend to find that an image just isn't done well if there is grain. |
For once I'm in the majority.
Originally posted by soup:
grain is associated with film - and enlargements
noise is a product of the digital cameras.
they are similar, but different. grain can be used effectively - where in general noise is undesireable. |
Originally posted by blemt:
For purposes of this exercise, I would strongly urge that "photograin" be a key component of the image. No using NI to remove noise, but you can add or enhance noise. Here noise=grain. |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Noise isn't the same thing as grain. |
Color me confused!
Originally posted by blemt:
There is never a case where a black and white shot is not appropriate. .... You just have to learn how to see in black and white. |
My sister told me that some dogs see in B&W. Color is the natural mode for my eyes and the default mode for digicams. I don't wanna be anybody's dog!
Originally posted by melismatica:
I haven't looked at your profile, Coolhar, but the statement you made regarding grain seems to be coming from someone who hadn't spent a lot of time looking at great film photos before discovering digital. I don't think someone who had a working knowledge of some great photographers would make such a blanket judgement about a technique. |
You nailed me there mel. Dabbled in film when I was in school, camera club had good SLRs we could use, it didn't hold my attention. Digital is a whole new world for me; and whether parts of it relate to film or not is irrelavant.
Originally posted by melismatica:
I think there are times when graininess can be appropriate to the shot. |
OK, I can agree with that.
Clara-- since you proposed this challenge (you got me hooked now) would it better for Basic or Advanced rules? And what methods should be permitted to get the grain/noise ?
Message edited by author 2004-05-22 13:52:19. |
|
|
|
05/22/2004 02:45:59 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I feel like you guys are holding my head underwater, LOL. |
Cool, too bad it would kill the camera or we could get some underwater shots, cause I have a feeling I am about to join you. :D
Originally posted by coolhar:
BradP's Mass at rest is not graiiny or noisy to me. That's the a way a crankshaft looks, rough & bumpy on the cast parts and shiny on the machined parts, journals I think is the correct term. I've seen the inside of engines. BTW, nice pic Brad.
|
I completely agree with this. I see the texture of the metal (which is present before the picture is taken, but I do not see any noise.
Originally posted by melismatica:
Noise isn't the same thing as grain. |
Excuse me? What has been called grain is the noise produced by the uneven irregularities of the slide, negative, photopaper or chemical process used in the creation process. What is called digital noise is due to the uneven irregularities of the sensor. How are they different? Both are defects added by the camera or developement process, and both are equally undesirable. All of the examples posted so far would have been much better without the noise, with the single exception of zeuszen's 'Mercy'
.
In which I do not see the noise, but the fog that would have been present if I was standing there.
I do not like noise. And, no, it does not matter if you call it grain or chocolate cake. I do not like noise. I do not want it in my photos anymore than I want it on my TV screen.
David |
|
|
|
05/22/2004 03:12:25 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
I do not like noise. And, no, it does not matter if you call it grain or chocolate cake. I do not like noise. I do not want it in my photos anymore than I want it on my TV screen.
David |
do you like noise?
I do not like it Britann-I-am.
I do not like it from my cam.
would you like it here or there?
I would not like it here or there,
I would not like it anywhere.
would you like it in a picture of a goat?
would you like it in a picture of a boat?
I do not like it here or there,
I do not like it anywhere,
I would not like it on a goat,
well, I guess it's ok on ZeusZen's Boat.
I will not take noisy pictures with my cam,
i do not like them Brittan-I-am.
Dr. Pedro-Suess |
|
|
|
05/22/2004 03:18:41 PM · #40 |
Simply shooting at high ISO's also adds color noise (color aliasing), which does disappear if you convert to B&W, but it requires some additional work to remove the color noise while retaining the graininess in a color image.
Here's my method: Shoot at a noisy ISO. Open in PS, create a duplicate layer, Apply Gaussian Blur (enough to get that layer blurry, but not too blurry, try rad=3.5 or so), Change the blend mode to color. That will eliminate the colored specks, but retain the grain structure. At that point, if there is not enough grain, you can use the Add Film Grain filter in PS.
If I was Bill Gates and had money to burn, or was doing this for income, I would be able to justify the $700+ for PS and the hundreds more for plug-ins to do all this kind of stuff.
Message edited by author 2004-05-22 15:21:22.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2004 06:44:40 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Shakey:
I sure wish there was a small Photographer comment for each photo in the challenge so that one can enlighten voters to their motive.
Say 10-15 words or less. |
This got skipped over. Anyone else like this suggestion? I really think it would give just a touch of balance; as stated, just a few brief words. People can still choose to vote it down if they think it was a poor way to go, but at least they can know what they are working with.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2004 07:03:00 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Kylie:
Originally posted by Shakey:
I sure wish there was a small Photographer comment for each photo in the challenge so that one can enlighten voters to their motive.
Say 10-15 words or less. |
This got skipped over. Anyone else like this suggestion? I really think it would give just a touch of balance; as stated, just a few brief words. People can still choose to vote it down if they think it was a poor way to go, but at least they can know what they are working with. |
There are many threads that discuss having an option like that, including debates about the pros and cons of such a system. The general consensus was that it could be abused either by trying to influence the voting by putting something like 'this was my mother's favorite item before she died last week' or by giving away information that would remove the anoymity of the image.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2004 07:11:14 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by Britannica:
I do not like noise. And, no, it does not matter if you call it grain or chocolate cake. I do not like noise. I do not want it in my photos anymore than I want it on my TV screen.
David |
do you like noise?
I do not like it Britann-I-am.
I do not like it from my cam.
would you like it here or there?
I would not like it here or there,
I would not like it anywhere.
would you like it in a picture of a goat?
would you like it in a picture of a boat?
I do not like it here or there,
I do not like it anywhere,
I would not like it on a goat,
well, I guess it's ok on ZeusZen's Boat.
I will not take noisy pictures with my cam,
i do not like them Brittan-I-am.
Dr. Pedro-Suess |
:) |
|
|
|
05/22/2004 08:36:46 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by moodville:
You may also want to avoid talking about fairly specific details of your image while it is being voted on as well as it's often frowned upon to do so. |
I realize that but I didn't give any revealing details. |
|
|
|
05/22/2004 08:38:07 PM · #45 |
[quote=coolhar] I feel like you guys are holding my head underwater, LOL.
BradP's Mass at rest is not graiiny or noisy to me. That's the a way a crankshaft looks, rough & bumpy on the cast parts and shiny on the machined parts, journals I think is the correct term. I've seen the inside of engines. BTW, nice pic Brad.
I agree. I didn't find this image grainy either.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2004 08:50:25 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Originally posted by melismatica:
Noise isn't the same thing as grain. |
Excuse me? What has been called grain is the noise produced by the uneven irregularities of the slide, negative, photopaper or chemical process used in the creation process. What is called digital noise is due to the uneven irregularities of the sensor. How are they different? Both are defects added by the camera or developement process, and both are equally undesirable. All of the examples posted so far would have been much better without the noise, with the single exception of zeuszen's 'Mercy'
.
In which I do not see the noise, but the fog that would have been present if I was standing there.
I do not like noise. And, no, it does not matter if you call it grain or chocolate cake. I do not like noise. I do not want it in my photos anymore than I want it on my TV screen.
David |
I'm sorry but I adamently disagree with you. Grain in fast film is due to fewer emulsion crystals per inch then slower film. Sometimes grain is caused by 'pushing' a slower speed film in developement to allow for faster exposures. The grain in a negative print is *evenly* dispersed whereas noise in a digital image appears in certain areas of the image but not others. The 'flaws' may be due to similar circumstances but the appearance, or asthetics, is entirely different. Past experience leads me to assume I'm not changing anyone's opinion with my explanation so I'll think we'll have to agree to disagree. I do agree that noise in a digital image is never good. I just don't agree that it is the same as grain.
This whole discussion leads me to wonder how many folks on this site actually have a working grasp of traditional photography. I know that the comparitive ease and immediacy of digital photography has brought a lot of people to photography who wouldn't have bothered with film work, so I don't think this hypothesis is a huge stretch. This isn't a dismissal of digital photography (or I wouldn't be here). Just an observation based on comments and what appears to be the overall photographic asthetic of users of this forum. |
|
|
|
05/22/2004 09:15:28 PM · #47 |
Yeah, grain would be cool. I second that!
|
|
|
|
05/22/2004 10:59:14 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I feel like you guys are holding my head underwater, LOL.
|
*hands over snorkle*
Very hard to take pictures if you can't get air. :)
Originally posted by coolhar:
Clara-- since you proposed this challenge (you got me hooked now) would it better for Basic or Advanced rules? And what methods should be permitted to get the grain/noise ? |
Okay, I'd say advanced rules (to take advantage of dodge and burn and clone). Grain in photography can be a function of pushing it in the darkroom, so adding grain in the image is allowed. The grain needs to add to the mood of the image. So you don't just take a picture and slap the noise filter on. Think photojournalism, street photography, sports photography with high speed film. Think classic black and white images. Evoke a mood, anger, dispair, passion.
I think the images that will do best will probably be black and white or duo tone.
Any other suggestions?
Clara
|
|
|
|
05/22/2004 11:10:44 PM · #49 |
yea! grain challenge here is my vote.
And for all those stating grain is a deffect, it most probably is, but in certain conditions they enhance a composition alot. In art it's verry common to use accidents and defect to enhance a piece. They do it in painting, they do it in music, they do it anywhere. Mosto of the times grain is bad, but I seen some grainy masterpieces, and none of them would of been the same without the grain. |
|
|
|
05/23/2004 12:10:51 AM · #50 |
A grainy photo I made today....
 |
|
