DISQUS

Richard · 2 years ago

I have shot quite a bit of high ISO digital stuff and personally I like the grain because it makes the image feel a bit edgier and less produced / slick. I remove the color noise but leave the luminance noise in generally.

I find that it's typically the non-photographer camera owner or someone who doesn't embrace new ideas easily, that always bashes digital in favor of film or whatever. people who have only seen bad chromatic aberation jobs from P&S cameras assume that all digital is bad. everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but at least try to have an informed opinion. If film is better than digital, why? Is it really? How so? I suspect that they would be hard-pressed to come up with an answer of substance. sometimes grain is good, sometimes it isn't. depends on the situation. there is no blanket answer as to what is better or worse. It's all about using the right tools for the job, whatever that might be.

Raoul · 2 years ago

It's all about prejudice, really. Stock agencies assume that photographers haven't done their job if there's grain in a photo, because the predominant images in everyone's stock portfolios are all crisp, vivid, and noise-free. Art galleries still have a lot of disdain for digital photographers, and so naturally they gravitate toward those who shoot on film, which is grainy by default.

Personally, I don't care whether images are noisy or not -- unless they're horribly noisy -- if they're good. I sometimes accentuate the noise in my photos on purpose, because I think it makes things more interesting. Take this photo for example. I think the very grainy look actually makes it. I certainly wouldn't like it without the grain.

Dan Mitchell · 2 years ago

Wow, it almost sounds like you read a thread at DPReview where I posted a couple of messages over the past day or two.

I have a thought experiment I like to use when people (those galleries, in your post) exclude photographs on the basis of the processes used to create them. Imagine that in the early 1800s both analog/film and digital photography technologies had somehow both become simultaneously available. Does anyone actually believe that, faced with a choice, early practitioners would actually have chosen film over digital?

My view is that great art (great technical work) can be done using a variety of approaches, digital or analog. Trying to determine the relative value of a work on the basis of which technologies (and film is just as much a technology as digital) is no more useful than arguing about whether painting or sculpture is better.

Dan

Ed Z · 2 years ago

the problem with this is that noise can always be *added*, but if a photo is noisy, it's hard to get rid of it.

I totally support the idea of using grain/noise for artistic effect, but I'd still like to have a clean ISO6400 - and then add the grain at my own discretion

same thing with b/w color- I love doing b/w photography, but I'm not going to trade my dslr for a (theoretical) dslr that only did b/w - why? b/c having options is a *good* thing. converting a color image to b/w provies a huge amount of creative contol, includng "filters", toning, etc...
why would I want to eschew that?

my point is that if you have a camera that does noise free high iso, you can have clean OR grainy images at your choice - if your camera is noisy, and you want a clean high iso image you are out of luck.

having more options is always a good thing

Rafa · 2 years ago

What a timely post! and nice pictures. What a coincidence, for the past two days I have been posting some of my "grainy" photos
Twins portrait and Pictorialist soldier on my blog after reading the blurry pictures post at The Online Photographer.

Andrew Ferguson · 2 years ago

One of the little quirks I've noticed about digital is the inability to have decent grain/noise in colour images. As you mentioned, it's much more common in black and white, but colour noise and grain still added to photos in the film days.

With digital, because of the way the sensors work, it results in really unattractive digital noise. It shows up only as red, green, or blue pixels, which looks obvious and tacky. On film, it's a very different, subtler type of grain that's more aesthetically pleasing.

Michael Brown · 2 years ago

There are times where I will shoot a certain image at a high ISO for the grain, and there are even some of us who will often use some over sharpening for the grainy look that we want.
Not many like it, ... but I have found that some absolutely love it in a large print.

http://macroartinnature.wordpress.com/2007/01/1...

Good write up Jim!

latoga · 2 years ago

I personally don't have anything against grain (when used appropriately). By reading into that comment you can tell I see it as a creative aspect that can be added or removed from an image (guess I'm fully brainwashed now...as I can add it with photoshop or remove it with noise ninja.)

Funny coincidence is I was working on an image tonight that I thought looked much better in BW with noticeable grain (http://www.latoga.com/gallery/2597691#164821221). I think this is a perfect example of when it works...

Great thoughts as always Jim!

Mark · 2 years ago

Good post Jim. I am so sick of reading about how we must have noiseless ISOs of 3200, 6400, etc, etc. Sure, it would be a nice thing to have, but so many are fixated on it that any camera or image that doesn't have it, falls short of expectations. On a related note, I actually add grain to most of my large prints made from digital originals. I think it makes them look more realistic, and also increases perceived sharpness.