Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,953   Posts: 1,557,987   Online: 1088
      

View Poll Results: do you like grain ?

Voters
115. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    34 29.57%
  • no

    11 9.57%
  • it depends

    68 59.13%
  • i never gave it much thought

    5 4.35%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Grain is part of the tools that are available. Not just something we have gotten used to.

    Just as in painting and graphic arts different media (oil, acrylic, charcoal, gouche, pastels, etc.), it helps.
    When needed. If not, it is less nice.

    So it depends.


    When i go to a museum, i do indeed notice the different media used, the textures of the canvas, board, etc., the brush strokes and knife marks, or lack of those.
    If you don't you're missing something.

  2. #12
    Andrew Horodysky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    220
    I believe that grain, especially in formats smaller than medium and large, is inherent in the medium and process. Controlled, it's used subjectively in image-making. I, personally, don't get too hung-up with it. I've just recently returned to photographing and developing (after a long hiatus), and am using the same film for 35mm I used twenty-five years ago: Tri-X (200 to 800). It's what I know and feel; and I'm far from knowing all its limitations. Any number of developers out there will give my film as many perceived structures (mostly, today, I stick to Xtol). Also, with printing, typical viewing distances are a couple feet from the image, anyway, so grain is rarely visible, unless you put your nose up to the glass (which I admit to doing, anyway). It's part of the image, and it's what makes the medium in 35mm unique. Many noted photographers took (and take) successful advantage of this -- eg. Ralph Gibson, Elaine Mayes, Eikoe Hosoe, William Klein, Max Waldman, among countless others (professional and amateur).

    I do intend to add medium format to my black & white photography (I'm looking forward to it), soon, and will look at other visual and perceived considerations when the time comes.
    Last edited by Andrew Horodysky; 06-12-2009 at 02:35 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,512
    Images
    4
    It all depends on how it is used. Look at the work of Ralph Gibson (Tri-X in Rodinal) to see how a true master uses grain to his advantage.
    "Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
    Robert Adams

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    I voted "It Depends".

    As has already been noted grain is primarily seen in prints from medium format and 35mm film cameras. Grain is not generally seen in prints form LF negatives, except with very big prints. And as I mentioned in another thread, we rarely see grain in prints from the 19th century because most of them were made by contact from LF negatives. Grain became an issue with the popularity of the miniature camera in the 1920s and 1930s. With rare exceptions the desire by photographers, even with the small cameras, has been to minimize or suppress grain. However, that is not entirely possible with 35mm film so we have to accept some grain as an artifact of the format.

    It is important to note that grain is not an absolute as it varies a lot depending on the developer, method of printing, viewing conditions, etc . For example, grain from a direct optical print could well look very different from a print of the same negative made by scanning and digital output.

    So I don't buy the concept that grain "is supposed to be there." It is most definitely "usually there" with prints from small format negatives but it is not usually there in prints from LF negatives.

    A good read on film grain can be found in a .pdf document by Tim Vitale that you can download from here, aic.stanford.edu/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf

    It may have more information than you want to know, and you may not agree with everything there, but the article is well-researched and written by an important photo conservator and it has a lot of credibility.

    Sandy King
    Last edited by sanking; 06-12-2009 at 02:58 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #15
    bobwysiwyg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI U.S.A.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    3
    Interesting article, thanks for posting the link.
    WYSIWYG - At least that's my goal.

    Portfolio-http://apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=25518

  6. #16
    bill h's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Plymouth MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    312
    Images
    221
    Grain is an inherent part of my 35mm photography. For me the image does not exist separate from the grain. When I wish to minimize grain, I use larger formats and different styles. But basically, I love the grain of film.
    -bill h

  7. #17
    Ian David's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,079
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by bill h View Post
    Grain is an inherent part of my 35mm photography. For me the image does not exist separate from the grain. When I wish to minimize grain, I use larger formats and different styles. But basically, I love the grain of film.
    -bill h
    I pretty much agree with this. Grain is a characteristic of film that can be exploited if you want to achieve certain looks. Whether or not the pioneers of photography regarded it as a deficiency is neither here nor there - approaches to photographic art are not fixed in time.

  8. #18
    Laurent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    France
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,209
    Blog Entries
    22
    Images
    137
    I'm still no able to print my negatives so I may change my mind, but at the moment id do not really think about it.

    I'm more concerned about the "mood" of a given lens (I love Tessars for this) than the garin in itself.
    Laurent

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast (Oscar Wilde)

    My APUG Blog

  9. #19
    eddym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,927
    Images
    26
    It depends.
    For landscapes, I find grain distracting. So I usually shoot medium or large formats, and medium speed, fine grained films.
    For portraits, I prefer smooth grain for some subjects, but not for all.
    For street work and my dance photography, I don't mind the grain until it gets really big, as with TMax 3200. I switched to Ilford Delta 3200 because of that (among other things).
    I have never wanted to increase nor "enhance" grain.
    Eddy McDonald
    www.fotoartes.com
    Eschew defenestration!

  10. #20
    Wade D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Jamul, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    884
    Images
    3
    It depends.
    Some subjects lend themselves well to grain and others do not. Also it is the subjective vision of the photographer that comes into play to determine whether grain is warranted or not. The freedom of expression we enjoy with the medium leads us to many interpretations.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin