Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,499   Posts: 1,543,266   Online: 977
      

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 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,275
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    47

    sharpness, grain, film size, and aesthetics

    in a thread that began a week or so ago by bettersense
    regarding tri x and plus x and how to process or use
    a tighter grained film to take advantage of soft less pronounced
    grain, things came up regarding grain,
    film size and aesthetics of photographic image making.

    there are always threads that start up with people asking how to
    get really grainy negatives, what the best way to process film is to
    get a grainy 60s or 70s look and on the other end of the scale there
    are threads that pop up with people asking how to get smooth tonality,
    sharp and grainless images.

    sandy king reminded me in the other thread that in the early days of photography,
    images were contact printed, on pt/pd or whatever light sensitive materials they used,
    there was no apparent grain in the images almost like grain doesn't exist.

    nowadays many people are involved in wet plate making and other early processes
    where imperfections are flaunted and adored almost like a branding that the image is
    a what it is, a singular image, an early photographic process "photographic wabi sabi" .
    is it the same with grain, pronounced grain, smooth grain, grain that has
    part of the image itself ( maybe the photographic image is about grain ? ) ..
    do you flaunt it to show your work is a photograph?

    flotsam suggested that grain is supposed to be there.
    should it be? if it wasn't would you make it appear if you could ?
    if you shoot a smaller than 120film format, do you try to make grain,
    or eradicate it completely by your developers/agitation techniques?
    if you shoot larger than medium format, do you because you dislike grain ?

    as for me, i don't mind grain, but sometimes i have to do what i am told
    and do without.

    what are your views ?

    thanks
    john
    Last edited by jnanian; 06-12-2009 at 11:34 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
    artwork often times sold for charity
    PM me for details

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central NC
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    444
    One of the reasons I use 5x4 is that graininess is no longer a concern. It's a minor reason to move to LF IMHO, but a reason nonetheless. But it's nice to have basically eliminated that variable.

    I actually don't mind graininess in prints. Sometimes it's quite attractive. But for much of my work it's more like noise, and in 5x4 the noise floor is way down from the image signal.
    Bruce Watson
    AchromaticArts.com

  3. #3
    bobwysiwyg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI U.S.A.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,555
    Images
    3
    I originally voted "no" which is where I'm at now in taking pics, but you never know. I would have changed it to "it depends" but I see no way to edit the poll to change my vote, so disregard my very black/white initial response.
    WYSIWYG - At least that's my goal.

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

  4. #4
    John Bragg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Penwithick, Cornwall, U.K.
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    345
    Images
    9
    My personal preference is for crisp regular grain that enhances the perceived sharpness of a print. It is all a matter of taste and I have been through the minimal grain stage many years ago and have arrived where I am now, liking the tonality and nuances of some grain in my photos. I guess I agree with Flotsam..

  5. #5
    VaryaV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,256
    Images
    26
    I think it's all in personal aesthetics and the vision of the artist.

    Nothing is able to invoke and capture a particular mood and move me as well as grain and tone.

    I love it, my father hated it....... the poetry of the print.

  6. #6
    Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Milton, DE, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,980
    Blog Entries
    29
    Images
    19
    I voted it depends. I do like the look depending on the subject matter and the feel of a photograph that is lended by obvious grain. I want to start to toy with my exposure/processing to acheive this. Just never got around to playing with it before.
    Thank you.
    CWalrath
    APUG BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE
    DE Darkroom

    "Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti

  7. #7
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,216
    Grain is the fundamental difference between analog and digital photography. Sometimes I exaggerate it. Sometimes I minimize it. The best way to exaggerate it is with a small format (Minox). The best way to minimize it is with a large format (8x10).

  8. #8
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,235
    Images
    65
    I answered "it depends."

    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    Grain is the fundamental difference between analog and digital photography.

    In my opinion, this is only loosely true. D***tal exhibits noise, an inevitable part of the technology, and that gets worse at "high ISO speeds." I think the difference is that film grain is more or less truly random, whereas digi-noise is ultimately spaced in a regular grid defined by the sensor (and some electronic legerdemain). But this is probably dubious for APUG debate, not to mention I use and enjoy both technologies and don't stay awake at night about the peculiarities of either.

    In my current phase -- back to B&W after 25 years away -- I've been excited about more or less no grain, working from film like Acros 100 in medium format, but I also find a certain likeable and interesting "edge" in the prints from a film like 400TX. I'm sure I will ultimately play with some gritty looking stuff in the future.

    DaveT

  9. #9
    Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,852
    Images
    5
    To me grain is a necessary evil which comes from working with fast films in miniature format. I'm willing to pay the price when the speed and convenience of miniature format are paramount, but I would never dream of deliberately accenting grain. If I wanted that kind of effect (and I've only wanted it once so far during my entire life) I would use a texture screen. I think that people have come to accept excessive grain because it has become so commonplace since the time when 35mm largely displaced medium and large format (for example, in reportage). We have gotten used to something which would have been regarded as a technical deficiency before the fifties and sixties.
    Charles Hohenstein

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,275
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Chazzy View Post
    We have gotten used to something which would have been regarded as a technical deficiency before the fifties and sixties.
    i wonder why it would have been considered a deficiency ?

    if i go to a museum or gallery i don't stick my nose right
    up to a painting or mixed media thing or a collage to notice all the brush strokes or glue or if it a sculpture the chisel or file marks ???

    i wonder why photographic aesthetics have been so hung up on all these things ...

    nothing is realism after all ... or is it ??
    silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
    artwork often times sold for charity
    PM me for details

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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