| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/01/2009 01:32:32 PM · #1 |
From the comments I have heard on the current "Image Grain" challenge, it sounds as if voters have two views of the challenge. Images are either way over processed with noise that does not help the image, or a free-study with noise reduction filters turned off, which under close scrutiny, a hint of noise in the sky or areas of even tone becomes apparent . Which one you vote up or down depends on what you thought the point of the challenge was.
With subject challenges voting is less a question of preference, if its a Spam challenge most can agree if there is sufficient Spam in the frame. With little discussed technical challenges like this one, there seems to be several camps who believe the other camps missed the point of the challenge. Getting demerits for noise in a grain challenge is a bit like not having enough focus in a Bohken challenge. But how do you vote on a very pretty picture in a grain challenge that is just slightly less than perfectly smooth?
For me these largely grain free images are a bit like submitting a slightly desaturated color image to a black and white challenge. I grew up using film, and my notion of image grain comes from the days of pushing tri-x two or three stops, so you would get these gnarly clumps of emulsion. It was a look that suited some subjects better than others, but it was the look of shooting at the edge of recoverable light. Now, when ISO goes to 800 before noise starts to show, and then the images are passed through several noise reduction steps so every sky is perfectly even in tone, and what was normal grain then, is wildly loud noise by todays aesthetic, I can see how people who never dealt with emulsion based film grain would have a different notion of how much grain was pleasing in a photograph.
But in a grain challenge, can that answer be none? |
|
|
|
07/01/2009 01:41:10 PM · #2 |
Vote however you think is fair. Of course, that will be different for just about every voter. I don't think there's a need to or even the possibility of pinning it down.
To personally answer your last question, no. For me, an image with no visible grain doesn't meet the challenge. An image that is just slightly less than perfectly smooth has to be judged individually. If there's any grain at all and I think it adds to the impact of the photo, however little, it meets the challenge. Your mileage may vary, and I think that's just fine. |
|
|
|
07/01/2009 01:45:59 PM · #3 |
I know I'm basing my own voting, and commenting, in that challenge based wholly subjectively from the ability of the image to please me based on my concept of appropriate image grain.......for that image.
I've already been lambasted for not knowing what I'm talking about in a comment, but the truth of the matter is.....if YOU are the voter, and YOU have an impression of how it should be done, YOUR vote should be according to YOUR criteria.
Just my $0.02 US......YMMV!
|
|
|
|
07/01/2009 01:51:28 PM · #4 |
| What makes the difference to me, regardless of the type of noise/grain, is that it is creatively used to enhance the image. It is an easy challenge to nominally meet the spec, but not so easy to pull off effectively. |
|
|
|
07/01/2009 02:27:46 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
What makes the difference to me, regardless of the type of noise/grain, is that it is creatively used to enhance the image. It is an easy challenge to nominally meet the spec, but not so easy to pull off effectively. |
I couldn't agree more. I participated a bit in the High ISO challenge for June, and this was exactly my criteria when viewing images. If grain is a given, how will you utilize it? In the challenge, many people did a great job of making a photo look quite retro, which was an effective use of the technique. I haven't viewed all the imeages in the grain challenge, but a good number appeared to be applied in PP. Personally, this strikes me as shoehorning (ironic, eh, that I'm agreeing with  Yo_Spiff, eh?). If you have a standard photo and put grain in it, this is missing the point of the challenge to me.
Grain should fit the scene, and one of the easiest ways to do this is to make things nostalgic. Holga-fy your image. Things like that. Don't just stick a crappy noise filter on things. To see what I mean by making your image retro and/or nostalgic/holga, check out  Zigomar. All of his images would work well with grain, and they are amazing captures.
Using the technique with intent is the key. |
|
|
|
07/01/2009 02:32:59 PM · #6 |
| If I really liked the picture but thought it didn't have enough apparent grain I would say so in a comment and then vote it a bit lower. Another possibility would be to not vote at all and leave someone else to sort it out :¬) |
|
|
|
07/01/2009 03:01:20 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
From the comments I have heard on the current "Image Grain" challenge, it sounds as if voters have two views of the challenge. Images are either way over processed with noise that does not help the image, or a free-study with noise reduction filters turned off...
But in a grain challenge, can that answer be none? |
I find in Challenges and Side Challenges people go through motions but often enough, the technique used or asked for, really has nothing to do with the image at hand.
The way I see it, if you employ a technique there should be a reason for doing so (and to the OP) at whatever level.
Whether it's the lensbaby, use of overlays, noise, blur etc. they should enhance or play a meaningful role in what you are trying to show.
Message edited by author 2009-07-01 15:06:00. |
|
|
|
07/01/2009 03:21:11 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
a good number appeared to be applied in PP. Personally, this strikes me as shoehorning |
I do realize this is your own take on the concept, but as far as the challenge goes, it IS advanced editing. |
|
|
|
07/01/2009 03:49:56 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
a good number appeared to be applied in PP. Personally, this strikes me as shoehorning |
I do realize this is your own take on the concept, but as far as the challenge goes, it IS advanced editing. |
I definitely get where you're coming from, but if you took a photo, say the challenge was smoking. The photo was of a man standing there with his arm out. You insert a cigarette. Does a man with his arm out meet the challenge of "smoking"? I'm not super intense about challenge association, but I think the point of challenges is to create a challenge. The criteria are there to make things more specific and difficult, not easy. Doing such things is just trying to get around the expectations.
I agree with pawdrix. They should have a definitive correlation. To make a bad comparison, consider the "lipstick on a pig" cliche.
ETA: I hate using this damn stiff keyboard. Sorry for all the post edits... my keyboard's keys don't go down unless I press really hard.
Message edited by author 2009-07-01 15:51:29. |
|
|
|
07/01/2009 03:50:35 PM · #10 |
I tried to get my grain the old fashioned way- higher ISO plus underexposure but when the pic was resized for the challenge it was fairly hard to see the grain much so I did use some PP to add back in grain. Some of the other entries may have also had grain but lost it on resize too. There is no real way to know by looking at what was posted. I don't think that is the reason mine is not doing very well though. It is up to the view to make their own determination on if they think the photo meets the theme of the challenge and secondly if they think it is a good photo.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2009 04:15:11 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by JeffryZ:
I tried to get my grain the old fashioned way- higher ISO plus underexposure but when the pic was resized for the challenge it was fairly hard to see the grain much so I did use some PP to add back in grain. |
Gee, fortunately the D40 has no problem with displaying noise, so it was a bit of a blessing for this challenge. Now if the D40s photographer could just get it together... :) |
|
|
|
07/01/2009 04:19:49 PM · #12 |
I have yet to find a filter that applies grain the way it looks on film.
like here
there was only one (or mybe two) in the challenge that looked really realistic in the fashion of film grain (will wait for pointing them out till the results are due). but yeah, probably 80% of the images in the challenge either didn't fit the grain or it looked too artificial/digital... |
|
|
|
07/01/2009 04:56:19 PM · #13 |
| There's the issue with grain in digital. It either looks like digital noise, or it is artificially induced in PP. Either way you choose to do it, I think it is still challenging to find a photo that benefits from it. |
|
|
|
07/01/2009 05:07:56 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Mephisto:
I have yet to find a filter that applies grain the way it looks on film.
like here
there was only one (or mybe two) in the challenge that looked really realistic in the fashion of film grain (will wait for pointing them out till the results are due). but yeah, probably 80% of the images in the challenge either didn't fit the grain or it looked too artificial/digital... |
Thanks for my comment Christoph, my grain shot was going to be in 'never before seen' or even 'high contrast' but whilst there was little grain in the original I believe the added grain enhanced my image so hope my shot might be the one (or maybe two) lol.
I'm off to Scottyland tomorrow so won't manage to vote on all images but the shots I've voted on often just seem to be an image ruined by the addition of grain/noise. |
|
|
|
07/01/2009 05:55:47 PM · #15 |
pm'ed you andi
what i meant were images that look like they were taken on high sensitve b&w film (iso 400+) and those are very rare in the challenge imo (tonal quality plays a significant role here, too). on the other hand, digital noise can be very effective, too... |
|
|
|
07/01/2009 06:07:27 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Mephisto:
what i meant were images that look like they were taken on high sensitve b&w film (iso 400+) and those are very rare in the challenge imo (tonal quality plays a significant role here, too). on the other hand, digital noise can be very effective, too... |
What I was wondering was how many folks know what that looks like. I happen to like that look, but it is a bit of a canard, given that an artifact of high speed film can only be reproduced artificially in this digital media. I have sheaves of old B&W concert and rainy day sports shots that have more grain than a corn bin, but it doesn't just happen by accident anymore. |
|
|
|
07/01/2009 08:49:37 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I happen to like that look, but it is a bit of a canard, given that an artifact of high speed film can only be reproduced artificially in this digital media. |
interestingly, i once read a test review in a german photography magazine, that said that the noise produced by nikon cameras was really close to what high speed film grain looks like due to the fact that the noise is a monochrome grainy texture, whereas canon produces more of colored artifact-ish noise. i think the test was d200 vs. 30d, but it's probably true to all sucessors as both manufacturers haven't really changed their internal noise filter algorithms (i think?). anyways, i'd love to see photo samples (100% crops) from the latest models to proof that...
Message edited by author 2009-07-01 20:51:29. |
|
|
|
07/01/2009 09:42:07 PM · #18 |
Okay....staight outta my D200 @ 1250 ISO, desatted & cropped only....
Taken an hour & a half ago....
Whadda'ya think?
|
|
|
|
07/02/2009 12:28:29 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Mephisto:
I have yet to find a filter that applies grain the way it looks on film.
like here
there was only one (or mybe two) in the challenge that looked really realistic in the fashion of film grain (will wait for pointing them out till the results are due). but yeah, probably 80% of the images in the challenge either didn't fit the grain or it looked too artificial/digital... |
I have a set of plugins from Nik software for Photoshop. They include Nik Color Efx Pro and Nik Silver Efx Pro. They have one on film grain (the latter for black and white images) which gives you control over the grain pretty nicely. I have not used them much outside of this challenge though. Silver Efx has some presets supposed to aproximate the appearance of several types of film. They now have a version which works in Lightroom too. They have demos if anybody wants to try them. I have no relation to them other than using their software.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2009 12:40:12 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by JeffryZ:
[quote=Mephisto] I have yet to find a filter that applies grain the way it looks on film.
like here
I have a set of plugins from Nik software for Photoshop. They include Nik Color Efx Pro and Nik Silver Efx Pro. They have one on film grain (the latter for black and white images) which gives you control over the grain pretty nicely. I have not used them much outside of this challenge though. Silver Efx has some presets supposed to aproximate the appearance of several types of film. They now have a version which works in Lightroom too. They have demos if anybody wants to try them. I have no relation to them other than using their software. |
Yeah, Silver Efex does a decent job at it, from the limited amount I've used. Of course, it isn't flawless, but it's definitely more subtle.
From Nik:
"State-of-the-Art Grain Engine
Silver Efex Pro features a revolutionary new grain engine that accurately recreates your digital photographs to look like a traditional black and white image. In contrast to other methods which merely overlay a grain pattern over your image, Silver Efex Pro recreates your image out of grain mimicking the traditional silver halide process." |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 05:45:27 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
From Nik:
"State-of-the-Art Grain Engine
Silver Efex Pro features a revolutionary new grain engine that accurately recreates your digital photographs to look like a traditional black and white image. In contrast to other methods which merely overlay a grain pattern over your image, Silver Efex Pro recreates your image out of grain mimicking the traditional silver halide process." |
Ya gotta love the digital era!
When a manufacturer, with detail & reverence, describes their success in replicating what is essentially, a flaw!
LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
07/02/2009 06:52:21 AM · #22 |
Andrea Electronics Corporation (OTCBB:ANDR), a leading developer of innovative digital noise reduction and echo. Guess I should look into that for my picture. Yesterday stock price went up a total gain of .12 cents
Message edited by author 2009-07-02 06:53:40. |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 12:38:46 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
From Nik:
"State-of-the-Art Grain Engine
Silver Efex Pro features a revolutionary new grain engine that accurately recreates your digital photographs to look like a traditional black and white image. In contrast to other methods which merely overlay a grain pattern over your image, Silver Efex Pro recreates your image out of grain mimicking the traditional silver halide process." |
Ya gotta love the digital era!
When a manufacturer, with detail & reverence, describes their success in replicating what is essentially, a flaw!
LOL!!! |
Is it a flaw?
Watch the Film Types video. Grain is good, it's just been vilified because of the control issue or lack of with lesser sensors (cheaper cameras).
Message edited by author 2009-07-02 12:46:25. |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 01:00:49 PM · #24 |
Grain and noise are two different things. Also, the challenge was Grain but don't just add grain to any image, add the grain because it adds something to the image.
-- This is just a general comment and not directed at any one (if any at all) images in the challenge.
I did not enter this challenge but have started voting. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/17/2024 08:17:17 PM EDT.
