Re: Digital grain and dogmatism (fwd)
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 BW. 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 :-)
Re: Digital grain and dogmatism (fwd)
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 BW. 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 :-) (Post resent.)
Re: Digital grain and dogmatism (fwd)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... 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. ... I like your viewpoint, and I agree with your assessment. I've used techniques of adding noise/grain to smooth out very fine tonal transitions in printing that would otherwise cause even a high-end printer to 'stair step' the tonal levels. Some of the most beautiful nudes I've seen were done in beautiful, big grain BW too, the photographer almost literally had to torture their 6x6cm negatives to achieve it. ;-) This photo of the Golden Gate Bridge was made in such incredibly hazy conditions that in the original capture you could barely even make out the bridge. The down-rezzed web image doesn't do the A3 print justice, but the effect is exactly what I was looking to capture, the feel of that hot hazy summer day nearing sunset: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW4/30r.htm Godfrey __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Re: Digital grain and dogmatism (fwd)
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:04:36 -0800 (PST), Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This photo of the Golden Gate Bridge was made in such incredibly hazy conditions that in the original capture you could barely even make out the bridge. The down-rezzed web image doesn't do the A3 print justice, but the effect is exactly what I was looking to capture, the feel of that hot hazy summer day nearing sunset: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW4/30r.htm Nice. So, is the original capture what you see when you click on that image? Did you capture it in BW directly? j -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
Re: Digital grain and dogmatism (fwd)
On 25 Jan 2005 at 11:04, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I like your viewpoint, and I agree with your assessment. I've used techniques of adding noise/grain to smooth out very fine tonal transitions in printing that would otherwise cause even a high-end printer to 'stair step' the tonal levels. Some of the most beautiful nudes I've seen were done in beautiful, big grain BW too, the photographer almost literally had to torture their 6x6cm negatives to achieve it. ;-) This is exactly the same principle as adding dither to a digital audio signal in order to mask quantization distortion. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Digital grain and dogmatism (fwd)
Thanks, Juan. It was captured with the Panasonic FZ10 in full color ... The original is what you see when you click on the image, pre all significant processing work other than rotation and a small amount of cropping to get the verticals where I wanted them. When I first saw it on the computer, I thought it was a lost frame, then I began to explore working it. The 11x17s are astonishingly nice for such a compromized 4Mpixel small-sensor capture. Godfrey --- Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:04:36 -0800 (PST), Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This photo of the Golden Gate Bridge was made in such incredibly hazy conditions that in the original capture you could barely even make out the bridge. The down-rezzed web image doesn't do the A3 print justice, but the effect is exactly what I was looking to capture, the feel of that hot hazy summer day nearing sunset: http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW4/30r.htm Nice. So, is the original capture what you see when you click on that image? Did you capture it in BW directly? j -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Re: Digital grain and dogmatism (fwd)
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:44:35 -0800 (PST), Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was captured with the Panasonic FZ10 in full color ... The original is what you see when you click on the image, pre all significant processing work other than rotation and a small amount of cropping to get the verticals where I wanted them. It's interesting that you would go to BW before doing the rest of the adjustments. That is actually the opposite of what I would do, since I'd expect that keeping the color info until the end would give you more control on the whole process. j -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
Re: Digital grain and dogmatism (fwd)
Perhaps you misunderstand ... That original photo IS in color. It was an unbelievably hazy day. Rendering RGB to monochrome I do after I get the cropping the way i want it. It's often the largest part of my image processing work. Godfrey --- Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:44:35 -0800 (PST), Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was captured with the Panasonic FZ10 in full color ... The original is what you see when you click on the image, pre all significant processing work other than rotation and a small amount of cropping to get the verticals where I wanted them. It's interesting that you would go to BW before doing the rest of the adjustments. That is actually the opposite of what I would do, since I'd expect that keeping the color info until the end would give you more control on the whole process. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Digital grain and dogmatism (fwd)
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 Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a bit amused at the big argument around adding grain to digital images. It seems like in no time, several people jumped to say that it is a silly thing to do, ridiculous, or that it shouldn't be done. Also, if you want the look of film, shoot film. Well, NO. There is no should. Maybe I want something that looks like film in certain ways but has the convenience of digital. Maybe I like to shoot Tri X and then try to minimize the grain with Neat Image, and then shoot with the ist D and add grain in Photoshop. Nobody is about to tell anybody else what to do--the most we can do is look away. Godfrey put it well when he used the phrase whatever rocks your boat. It is art, and if the rules were so well defined then I'd be doing something else. j
