In a message dated 1/24/2005 10:36:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All,
Interesting debate. I'm going to step back a little bit and touch on what grain gives an image rather than worrying about how it is created. To my eye, grain increases contrast at a microscopic level, increasing accutance and adding a "crunchy" texture to smooth areas. I think that the effect also smooths out tonal gradients at a macrosopic level. One way I like to use this effect is to lower contrast at the macroscopic level to render detail in shadows and highlights while adding the punch that comes with the high accutance and crunchy texture. Now, grain can be created in an image in many ways. First, you can use an inherently grainy film. You can also accentuate grain through careful choice of exposure and film development process (i.e., chemicals, temperature, and time). You can also add grain at the printing stage by using, for example, lith or other alternative processes. Finally, you can add or accentuate grain in digital images in many different ways via Photoshop. It seems to me that there is little go be gained in arguing about the merits of the method used to create an effect. If I see an effect I like and want to use it in my own work, does it matter what technique I use to get to my desired result? I'm much more interested in the results-- what does the effect do to the image? Does it strengthen it or merely create a distraction? Thoughts? --Mark ======== Not many. :-) I really hadn't given grain a great deal of thought before (except in thinking about paper). Don't know enough about photography or B&W. So not sure about contrast, etc. But maybe grain is sometimes more intriguing to the eye. Engages it more than a completely smooth, "cartoon" :-) image might. The eye does like having something to do when viewing an image (like following diagonals/leading lines). Was that a worth while thought? Marnie aka Doe :-)
