Grain - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

10/20/2005 04:37:13 PM · #201

Originally posted by Formerlee:

Enough grain?

Steve

This was my poverty entry and comments were too much grain/don't like the noise...it was supposed to express gritty and harsh. I haven't introduced grain or noise just for this post.

Steve

Message edited by author 2005-10-20 16:37:31.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

10/20/2005 04:40:47 PM · #202

Originally posted by Formerlee:

Originally posted by Formerlee:

Enough grain?

Steve

This was my poverty entry and comments were too much grain/don't like the noise...it was supposed to express gritty and harsh. I haven't introduced grain or noise just for this post.

Steve

I think you had the right idea however to me the added noise does not seem natural. Shooting at high ISO might have made a difference.

Stagolee

Kodak Easyshare C180

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

10/20/2005 04:49:41 PM · #203

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by keegbow:
"Create an image where image grain or "noise" is an integral part of the message of your photo".

I don't think it is about the amount of grain added but whether the effect is an integral part of the message.
Some of the examples I have seen in this thread seem to be just adding noise for the sake of it. Nothing to compliment the image message.

No question about it, BUT these are just for the purpose of asking technique questions. There's two components here; one is "How do I GET grain, what are my options, what's 'enough' grain, etc?" and the other, rightfully not being addressed in this thread, is "What sort of an image would effectively use grain as an 'integral part of the message'?"

To deal witht hat question would be seen by many as an attempt to "steer" the voters/submitters in certain directions, but I got no problem with people discussing grain techniques int he abstract, since this is new territory for a lot of people.

Robt.

I agree Rob but what I was trying to say is the type/mood/style of image will directly relates to the amount of noise required. For example in some cases the add noise filter will do perfectly.
I was just trying to emphasize this challenge is not about the amount of noise/grain added but how it is relates to the subject.

SteveJ

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

10/20/2005 04:52:50 PM · #204

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Formerlee:

Originally posted by Formerlee:

Enough grain?

Steve

This was my poverty entry and comments were too much grain/don't like the noise...it was supposed to express gritty and harsh. I haven't introduced grain or noise just for this post.

Steve

I think you had the right idea however to me the added noise does not seem natural. Shooting at high ISO might have made a difference.

It was taken before I got the 300D with the Fujifilm 6900z and at a higher than usual ISO.

Jutilda

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro for Canon

10/20/2005 05:06:15 PM · #205

Eddy - I love the middle one. The third one almost seems "clumpy" to me. Bear - I love the noise on your seascape/dunes shot. I think it adds a richness to it. A character that the shot doesn't have without it.

Let's all just get real gritty. ;op

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/20/2005 05:35:00 PM · #206

Muahahaha! This is what you guys are coming up with?

Let the trash talking begin...

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

10/20/2005 08:14:01 PM · #207

Originally posted by glad2badad:

If you have the $179 to shell out for the grain plugin you mean?

What makes you think I used Grain Surgery in my example? There are lots of much better ways to simulate grain than the bad/obvious "Noise > Add Noise" option. How about duplicating the background layer, selecting "Filter > Pixelate > Mezzotint", choose "Grainy Dots", change the layer mode to "Overlay", reduce the layer opacity a bunch and then tweak to taste with Levels? Lather. Rinse. Repeat (with other Mezzotint settings, of course).

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I took a look at your three example pics. The "grainy grain" almost appears to be snowing.

Perhaps I was a bit heavy-handed with my example. I was just trying to illustrate a point.

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I have 3 "noise" choices - one being gaussian

The second example was Gaussian noise. The "Uniform" noise looked even more "digital".

Originally posted by Jutilda:

I love the middle one. The third one almost seems "clumpy" to me.

Ewwww! Yuck. It is just single-pixel dots! Real grain is clumpy since it is caused by the clumping of photographic chemicals in the emulsion...

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

10/20/2005 08:39:25 PM · #208

Originally posted by EddyG:

... Ewwww! Yuck. It is just single-pixel dots! Real grain is clumpy since it is caused by the clumping of photographic chemicals in the emulsion...

Emulsion is ewwww film, this is digital. ;^)

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

10/20/2005 11:13:42 PM · #209

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by EddyG:
... Ewwww! Yuck. It is just single-pixel dots! Real grain is clumpy since it is caused by the clumping of photographic chemicals in the emulsion...

Emulsion is ewwww film, this is digital. ;^)

Did mine with ISO 1600. The only filter I used was USM, once at full size, then again at half the radius after resizing to 640 px. This enchanced the grain effect. After desaturating it no longer looks like colour channel specific noise and is pretty darn "film" looking to me. Why use a filter if you need not?

10/21/2005 08:54:08 AM · #210

Does an image have to have a lot of grain to do well, or do you think subtle grain will be ok? You cancertainly see it but it is not as much as I have seen in the examples in this thread.

CalliopeKel

Canon EOS-5D

10/21/2005 09:50:48 AM · #211

To be honest. I am going to be looking for significant amounts of grain. Not just any ole image with grain added, but a photo that looks good with grain and also fitting to the subject matter itself.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

10/21/2005 10:26:57 AM · #212

Originally posted by CalliopeKel:

To be honest. I am going to be looking for significant amounts of grain. Not just any ole image with grain added, but a photo that looks good with grain and also fitting to the subject matter itself.

Well to be honest, I think this is my best shot ever and I think with a lot of grain it would ruin it. The grain that I have is visable..just not snowing with it like some of the examples I have seen.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

10/21/2005 10:29:01 AM · #213

I think the amount of grain will depend on the image. A small amount may be needed for one image whereas more will be needed for another. This is where the challenge comes in. Use the appropriate amount of grain to suit the image.

What's appropriate? Ask 10 people, get 10 different answers.

CalliopeKel

Canon EOS-5D

10/21/2005 10:37:43 AM · #214

troberge-

Does the grain you added enhance the look of your photo? or is it better without it at all? Everyone is so grain/noise obsessed anymore you have to retrain your brain to accept it in any photo sometimes, atleast I do. I think grain in grunge is readily accepted, but in other types of photos it often just doesn't do much for me.

Can't wait to see your entry btw!

FotoMunki

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/21/2005 10:39:55 AM · #215

Originally posted by CalliopeKel:

Well, I'll know to expect a low score from you. :-) Personally, I'm interested in pictures that use grain with the theme of the picture and give it a "film" type quality - the more authentic the better (seeing as "grain" is really a film concept). Over processed grain/noise will score low by me. Funny thing is, (IMO) I created one of those authentic looking pictures that you might find in an old photo album, using minimal grain and no post-processing, - but I expect the picture to score low, as I believe most voters on this site enjoy the more "processed" type images.

CalliopeKel

Canon EOS-5D

10/21/2005 11:03:45 AM · #216

Don't be too sure about my giving you a low score. I judge each photo individually and don't drop someones score without fair assesment. I just want to see some grain...Hurry up rollover. If your photo seems enhanced by the noise/grain I will give it a fair score.

stare_at_the_sun

Canon EOS-10D

10/21/2005 11:11:38 AM · #217

I'm going to win.

Not really...but I'm in love with my entry, I keep clicking on it on the home page just to see it, lol.

Jutilda

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro for Canon

10/21/2005 11:15:36 AM · #218

Originally posted by macpapas:

Originally posted by CalliopeKel:
To be honest. I am going to be looking for significant amounts of grain. Not just any ole image with grain added, but a photo that looks good with grain and also fitting to the subject matter itself.

Well, I'll know to expect a low score from you. :-) Personally, I'm interested in pictures that use grain with the theme of the picture and give it a "film" type quality - the more authentic the better (seeing as "grain" is really a film concept). Over processed grain/noise will score low by me. Funny thing is, (IMO) I created one of those authentic looking pictures that you might find in an old photo album, using minimal grain and no post-processing, - but I expect the picture to score low, as I believe most voters on this site enjoy the more "processed" type images.

I think the beauty of digital is the ability to creatively post edit. It is the artistic part of it for me. You will probably not like my Grain entry at all. It is very sandy/gritty/grainy but it really works for that image and I took it, with adding the grain/noise in mind. But this "agree to disagree" attitude is what makes this site go round - the difference of opinion. I just know I'm not a "purist" in that sense and I appreciate additions to a shot as much as I would a crystal clear image straight out of the camera. This should be fun and I'm sure there is going to be ranting and lots of controversy. With Halloween around the corner,watch out for daggers, people may be feeling a stabbing in the back. Not from me, but.... it's the nature of scoring beast.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/21/2005 11:32:57 AM · #219

Originally posted by stare_at_the_sun:

I'm going to win.

Not really...but I'm in love with my entry, I keep clicking on it on the home page just to see it, lol.

Haha, I was worried I was the only person narcissistic enough to do that. I love mine too, but I've looked at it so much (and redone it so many times) that it has lost a bit which won't come back until the voting starts.

FotoMunki

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/21/2005 11:51:46 AM · #220

Originally posted by Jutilda:

Originally posted by macpapas:

Originally posted by CalliopeKel:
To be honest. I am going to be looking for significant amounts of grain. Not just any ole image with grain added, but a photo that looks good with grain and also fitting to the subject matter itself.

Well, I'll know to expect a low score from you. :-) Personally, I'm interested in pictures that use grain with the theme of the picture and give it a "film" type quality - the more authentic the better (seeing as "grain" is really a film concept). Over processed grain/noise will score low by me. Funny thing is, (IMO) I created one of those authentic looking pictures that you might find in an old photo album, using minimal grain and no post-processing, - but I expect the picture to score low, as I believe most voters on this site enjoy the more "processed" type images.

I think the beauty of digital is the ability to creatively post edit. It is the artistic part of it for me. You will probably not like my Grain entry at all. It is very sandy/gritty/grainy but it really works for that image and I took it, with adding the grain/noise in mind. But this "agree to disagree" attitude is what makes this site go round - the difference of opinion. I just know I'm not a "purist" in that sense and I appreciate additions to a shot as much as I would a crystal clear image straight out of the camera. This should be fun and I'm sure there is going to be ranting and lots of controversy. With Halloween around the corner,watch out for daggers, people may be feeling a stabbing in the back. Not from me, but.... it's the nature of scoring beast.

Jutlinda, couldn't agree with you more! I really laugh at the rants and whinings in some threads of how the "voters just don't get it, my entry DID meet the challenge..bla bla bla". Photography is an art, people either like the picture or they don't. What's art to me may not be art to you, and that's OK! I don't know how many times I have walked into an art gallery and said "that's art?!, hell, my kid could do that!"

With photography, I happen to be more of a purist because that's where my interest lies. For others, the art comes from taking the basic picture and evolving it into some different (and often better). Since I tend to enjoy taking picture of people more then scenes or objects, and enjoy more natural settings over studio set-ups, I know I will mostly score in the 5 range - but it's still nice to get 200-300 people viewing your pictures and giving you their opinion (whether good or bad). A great example is the Pride challenge. I had an American flag in my picture and it scored eight 10's and twelve 1's. Compositionally, it was a good picture, but for some, the image struck a very positive tone, for others a negative one. In EITHER case, it struck a cord and produced an emotion - to me, that makes it a good picture (the actual score is irrelevant).

10/21/2005 11:57:50 AM · #221

Originally posted by CalliopeKel:

Well I guess mine does have a grungy feel so it does tend to really enhance it I think. I was one of the people at the beginning who was not going to enter this challenge, thinking all noise/grain is just wrong when taking photos. I have to admit though, I was wrong. I do really like it. (but am sure there will be some who will not so I am going to just let this one go which ever way the voting goes I think!)

10/21/2005 11:59:53 AM · #222

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by stare_at_the_sun:
I'm going to win.

Not really...but I'm in love with my entry, I keep clicking on it on the home page just to see it, lol.

Haha, I was worried I was the only person narcissistic enough to do that. I love mine too, but I've looked at it so much (and redone it so many times) that it has lost a bit which won't come back until the voting starts.

Come on Sunday!!!

AlexSaberi

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

10/21/2005 12:00:55 PM · #223

Originally posted by Jutilda:

actually photographers using film have post edited their photos for years.

FotoMunki