I Love Grain

Anouilh

There was a lot of discussion on the Web a few years ago on how grain in film photos is atmospheric whereas noise in digtal images can be seriously disturbing and, at times, ugly.

I use a Pentax MZ 50 film camera and find that Ireland is often quite a grainy experience, given our low light levels.
A class I attended had one professional photographer explain how, rather that go against this light, he was working dark and mysterious imagery into his portfolio, as it represented the reality in front of him better than saturated blue skies and bright landscapes.

I recently had a loan of an Olympus E-1 and took some shots indoors under tungsten light with ISO 600. They are quite pleasing and anybody who is interested is welcome to look at the recent uploads on my Flickr account.

I would be grateful for any C&C that Boards.ies might find time to make. I have not uploaded photos for individual scrutiny here, but certainly any improvements that experts think I could make will be noted and worked on.

Merry Christmas to all here!

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

There was a lot of discussion on the Web a few years ago on how grain in film photos is atmospheric whereas noise in digtal images can be seriously disturbing and, at times, ugly.

I use a Pentax MZ 50 film camera and find that Ireland is often quite a grainy experience, given our low light levels.
A class I attended had one professional photographer explain how, rather that go against this light, he was working dark and mysterious imagery into his portfolio, as it represented the reality in front of him better than saturated blue skies and bright landscapes.

I recently had a loan of an Olympus E-1 and took some shots indoors under tungsten light with ISO 600. They are quite pleasing and anybody who is interested is welcome to look at the recent uploads on my Flickr account.

I would be grateful for any C&C that Boards.ies might find time to make. I have not uploaded photos for individual scrutiny here, but certainly any improvements that experts think I could make will be noted and worked on.

Merry Christmas to all here!

Nope, it looks dreadful, nothing like film grain. The thing about digital noise is that the Chroma noise that gets smeared across the image is what makes it look awful. Colour noise/grain in general I've never been a big fan of. Fuji has a couple of fast (800/1600) emulsions that look dreadful aswell. Portra 800 from kodak is the first film I've used in which I've actually found the colour grain to be in some way attractive.

Try (if you're into a bit of PP) using neatimage (you can download a free version that will do everything IIRC, it'll only save to JPG) and killing the chroma noise, but keep the luminance noise. I think you'll find it looks a lot more natural and film like.

Anouilh

Many thanks. I did not know about the Neatimage program.

Have you tried Fuji Reala?
Some people find it too contrasty but it is smooth as silk and makes great Bokeh. I know that the lens is the main factor in Bokeh, but grainy Bokeh can be hard to take.

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

Many thanks. I did not know about the Neatimage program.

Have you tried Fuji Reala?
Some people find it too contrasty but it is smooth as silk and makes great Bokeh. I know that the lens is the main factor in Bokeh, but grainy Bokeh can be hard to take.

I've gone through my fair share of rolls of reala, i have a box of twenty in my freezer :-) I like it to an extent. In general when i'm shooting colour i'm trying to minimize grain (with the occasional exception , the above mentioned portra 800 being a case in point, i find its grain sort of smooth and pastel, which i like). With B&W however its a different story altogether as you can tell from my photostream...

I've got a bunh of rolls of the new ektar 100 on the way, meant to be the finest grained negative film ever. We'll see ...

Fajitas!

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I've got a bunh of rolls of the new ektar 100 on the way, meant to be the finest grained negative film ever. We'll see ...

Keep me in the know about that Ektar, was looking at picking up a few rolls.

Might be interesting throwing it through E6 too.

I'm a big fan of grain, have some 3200 in my rangefinder at the moment, and frequently f*ck with consumer films, pushing up to 6 stops out of them... Most people think it's horrible, but I quite like it...

Anouilh

Definitely eye-catching.

Reminds me of all the BW silent movies I watched as a child.

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

Keep me in the know about that Ektar, was looking at picking up a few rolls.

Might be interesting throwing it through E6 too.

I'm a big fan of grain, have some 3200 in my rangefinder at the moment, ... Most people think it's horrible, but I quite like it...

I like it very much, especially the colour.


Perhaps you could take a moment to critique this

http://photographedublin.blogspot.com/2008/12/after-dinner-table.html#links

please

Fajitas!

I'm loving the grain and square crop, but I think for a square crop to work, a recomposition is certainally needed, personally, I'm drawn to the person in the OOF area, still eating, maybe a frame from the table top itself, including the diner in the background or maybe more of your own finished dinner, but I'd either take out the candle on the RHS or include it completely - Dinner/food culture is certainally an interesting subject - Some of my own attempts are a bit cruder in composition (1) (2) but I definitely see the appeal.

Something I do find interesting - Is there ever a reason to include the grain, or is it a matter of needing fast film and being left with it in the camera afterwards? Or do you load it in the aim of wanting a noisy look? I've ended up mentioning my thesis around here more than I should, for want of escaping from it for the moment, but I'll go again. I'm essentially writing my thesis on the contemporary aesthetic appeal to getting a 'bad' photo - Not bad as in 'a rubbish photo', but looking at the faults of photography, especially with film photography - and re-introducing these into the art, ie, bringing the process, the suprise, the happy accident back into the photo as part of an experience for both the photographer and the audience...

There's some good threads around the apug forums which you might be interested in too, re: grain

ThOnda

Grain is the "brick" of the photography picture. If the grain has a function in the picture, why not. Some portraits are gorgeous with grain, some would be awful.
And yes, I love grain :-)

DaireQuinlan

Fajitas! wrote: »

Something I do find interesting - Is there ever a reason to include the grain, or is it a matter of needing fast film and being left with it in the camera afterwards? Or do you load it in the aim of wanting a noisy look? I've ended up mentioning my thesis around here more than I should, for want of escaping from it for the moment, but I'll go again. I'm essentially writing my thesis on the contemporary aesthetic appeal to getting a 'bad' photo - Not bad as in 'a rubbish photo', but looking at the faults of photography, especially with film photography - and re-introducing these into the art, ie, bringing the process, the suprise, the happy accident back into the photo as part of an experience for both the photographer and the audience...

Well, as Thonda says, ALL your film shots will have grain, its just a question of how obtrusive it is :-) I'm definately guilty of shooting occasionally just to screw stuff up, or experiment, or try out different films or chemicals. I normally have a couple of camera bodies or film backs loaded up. One (generally my F4) is normally loaded with whatever the film de jour is, either colour or B&W. Others might be loaded up with whatever I'm messing around with currently. Ireland is definately a grainy country though, I find I rarely go below 400 here except maybe during the summer. Provides for maximum versatility. I think its influenced my preference for wides aswell. Much easier to shoot in dodgy light with a 24mm than an 85 or 105.

Technically speaking, on the subject of your thesis, you might ask why people are actually shooting film at all, particularly 35mm, given that the latest crop of digital bodies, even at pro-sumer levels (d700, whatever the equivalent canon is) have film beaten completely in terms of fidelity to the original subject.

You'll be glad to know incidentally, that I weakened briefly the other day and ordered a Vivitar wide and slim from ebay for the princely sum of €25 delivered :-)

Anouilh

This discussion raises so many questions.

First, the practicalities.

Light levels are often so low, setting the digital camera to ISO 1600 is the only way to capture a clear image without using flash. I've even used it while photographing flowers in Summer in the shade.

From the aesthetic point of view, the advent of digital has brought the expectation of the "perfect" image.
Coming from film, I found digital images, compounded by the artifice a monitor emphasises, incredibly "syrupy" and lacking in texture. But shiny surfaces seem to be what the general population expects. Perhaps that is why grainy photos get a lot of critical attention, both good and bad?

I'm pressed for time these days and will come back in the new year to chat more on this subject. It is very important to me to explore the images I make and wonder how I might make a body of work that reflects my personal, everyday experiences. I've noticed that there is often reference to self-indulgence on Irish chat rooms. I think this may be a cultural issue, as I find that European forums are probably less critical about "arty" photos.

The whole idea of a "bad" photo is fascinating, and one I'll think about for some time.

Here, in the meantime, is a version of the photo I posted already. I'm going to think about why the two seem so different...

http://moderntwist2.blogspot.com/2008/12/transparency-on-table-top.html#links

ThOnda

The picture must be "a picture", full stop. It is the final product on the wall, in the book or on the screen. And it is going to be judged that way. And the decision should be yours how the picture appears. If it has grain or not.

As I said, I like grain...

DaireQuinlan

That's a great shot Thonda.

I've recently started stand developing everything in rodinal to see how it comes out. It typically ups the grain by a significant amount. This is neopan 400 shot at 1600 and stand developed. Its actually medium format (6x6 cropped to 8x10 aspect) Lord knows what it would look like in 35mm ...

Fajitas!

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Technically speaking, on the subject of your thesis, you might ask why people are actually shooting film at all, particularly 35mm, given that the latest crop of digital bodies, even at pro-sumer levels (d700, whatever the equivalent canon is) have film beaten completely in terms of fidelity to the original subject.

You'll be glad to know incidentally, that I weakened briefly the other day and ordered a Vivitar wide and slim from ebay for the princely sum of €25 delivered :-)

I have been doing... answers range from people saying "it's a real photo on film" ( As opposed to all those fake ones taken on digital :rolleyes: ) to just enjoying the process. It's interesting though. My main reasons for shooting 35mm are a) My GIII fits in my pocket. b) B&W film - That dosn't require me carrying around a 120 system. c) Cross processing d) Exposing across the whole of the film, including the sprockets - purely for the aesthetic.

Those wide and slim's are lovely! Looking forward to seeing some results!

Anouilh wrote: »

The whole idea of a "bad" photo is fascinating, and one I'll think about for some time.

Do. It applies to more than just photography - Look across the whole range - Reintroducing the sound of valves to recordings, wearing ripped jeans... etc etc.

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Its actually medium format (6x6 cropped to 8x10 aspect) Lord knows what it would look like in 35mm ...

One way to find out

Anouilh

Anouilh wrote: »

I recently had a loan of an Olympus E-1 and took some shots indoors under tungsten light with ISO 600.

This should read "ISO 800".

Are there many Olympus users here?

I really liked the E-1.

magicbastarder

i love taking portraits on delta 3200 - it's flattering on skin tones, and more forgiving on focus than, say, velvia, or especially digital.

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

This should read "ISO 800".

Are there many Olympus users here?

I really liked the E-1.

Hey, Anouilh, I was on flickr there and went to add you as a contact, to discover that you're blocking me Oh the dreadful social stigma of it ...

Anouilh

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Hey, Anouilh, I was on flickr there and went to add you as a contact, to discover that you're blocking me Oh the dreadful social stigma of it ...

Apologies.

I've added you as a contact.

Merry Christmas!

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

Apologies.

I've added you as a contact.

Merry Christmas!

Anouilh

magicbastarder wrote: »

i love taking portraits on delta 3200 - it's flattering on skin tones, and more forgiving on focus than, say, velvia, or especially digital.

I got a free roll of Ilford film with a photography magazine a few years ago. Is it hard to find in Irish shops? I'm in Dublin and don't usually see it on display.

This gives an idea of the range:

http://cameras.pricegrabber.co.uk/film-print/Ilford-Delta-3200-35mm-36EXPOSURE/m28001292.html

Fajitas!

Gunn's have it in stock most of the time. It's cheaper than that too

Conn's don't... They'll tell you it's not made anymore (BS).

mehfesto2

I really love grain too.
Not so much in some of my own shots, but it can add a lot to a pic IMO. And I find it makes *some* pics look more classic.


Here's one of my grainy ones. Still not sure what to make of the grain in it - I do like it as a picture though.

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

I got a free roll of Ilford film with a photography magazine a few years ago. Is it hard to find in Irish shops? I'm in Dublin and don't usually see it on display.

This gives an idea of the range:

http://cameras.pricegrabber.co.uk/film-print/Ilford-Delta-3200-35mm-36EXPOSURE/m28001292.html

I think the camera exchange (georges st) have it aswell. Probably more expensive than gunns though. I never buy any of my film here anymore though. 7dayshop is my normal port of call. The place that manages to sell fuji film for cheaper than fuji's own online store. sheesh.

Anouilh

I've downloaded and tried out Neat Image. It smooths things out, but is not the easiest program to understand.

Does is work by changing pixels? I would like to learn more about the technology involved.

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

I've downloaded and tried out Neat Image. It smooths things out, but is not the easiest program to understand.

Does is work by changing pixels? I would like to learn more about the technology involved.

hmm ... its been a while since I've used it.

It seperates the image into three channels, two chrominance channels and a luminance channel. Typically a lot of the objectionable noise in digital images is in the chrominance channels, so you can adjust them seperately. You can set tha amount of reduction to apply to each of the channels, and also discriminate based on frequency, ie you can remove 25% of high frequency nosie, 50% of medium and 100% of low or whatever. You can also then sharpen each of the channels individually, and also discriminate on frequency.

Best way to see what it does is mess around with it loads. Extreme settings can produce really bizarre plasticky looking results. Subtle applications of it are often the most effective. Its a tradeof between noise/grain and image detail quality for the most part.

Anouilh

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Extreme settings can produce really bizarre plasticky looking results.

Tell me about it.

Some seriously scary tweaks and my family began to look like extras in "2001 A Space Odyssey".

duffarama

Anouilh wrote: »

This should read "ISO 800".

Are there many Olympus users here?

I really liked the E-1.

There are a handful of us, Morrisseeee is another.
I've an E-410 which has a panasonic sensor, but the E-400 has a kodak sensor and is more E-1 like apparently.