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 B&W 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
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 B&W 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)
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 B&W 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 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 > B&W 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)
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 B&W directly? j -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
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 B&W 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)
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 :-) (Post resent.)
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 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 :-)
Re: Digital grain and dogmatism
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > In a message dated 1/23/2005 11:58:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > It is art, and if the rules were so well defined then I'd be doing > something else. > > j > == > Sorry, I worded what I said a bit too strongly. Didn't mean it quite the > way > it came out. Thanks for sharing your example. > > I agree -- there are no rules in art. And I tend to view photography as an > > art form, not just a technical/mechanical thing. And if there are rules (I > can > think of one at least, the rule of thirds), well, then -- rules are made to > be > broken. Especially in art. > > OTOH, it does seem a bit retro to use a new medium (digital) to ape and old > > medium (B&W grain). Nothing wrong with it, but maybe a new medium should > bring > forth new expressions/techniques/impressions/textures -- whatever. > > Marnie Drat. I really don't know what I am talking about. :-) > Marnie, I for one think you do know what you're talking about, and that's because as far as I can see, you're saying the same thing I am. In my own posts on the subject, I tried (and hope I managed) to make clear that I was expressing my own tastes and preferences. Not a dogmatic "should" or "shouldn't" but "I personally don't see the point of ... " and "I personally do not like ... " ERNR
Re: Digital grain and dogmatism
In a message dated 1/23/2005 11:58:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is art, and if the rules were so well defined then I'd be doing something else. j == Sorry, I worded what I said a bit too strongly. Didn't mean it quite the way it came out. Thanks for sharing your example. I agree -- there are no rules in art. And I tend to view photography as an art form, not just a technical/mechanical thing. And if there are rules (I can think of one at least, the rule of thirds), well, then -- rules are made to be broken. Especially in art. OTOH, it does seem a bit retro to use a new medium (digital) to ape and old medium (B&W grain). Nothing wrong with it, but maybe a new medium should bring forth new expressions/techniques/impressions/textures -- whatever. Marnie Drat. I really don't know what I am talking about. :-)
Re: Digital Grain
it makes digital images look like film. sometimes i add digital grain to mask editing artifacts. not often though. i shoot digital because i don't want film grain. Herb... - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 11:12 AM Subject: PP: Digital Grain I was visiting the Adobe site recently looking through the actions people have uploaded (to share) for PS. Discovered a few that would add grain to digital pictures. I wondered has anyone on the list tried that? Adding grain, that is. Not necessarily those specific actions at the Adobe site that supposedly add grain.
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Water YUCK! :) Tom C. . LOL!!! ERNR (language purist, water-drinker)
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Yes, but I believe you can order them with sequins... Cotty wrote: Are pronouns black? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Because he though he was writing to a photography mailing list, and did not know he was writting an essay that was going to be graded on grammar rather than content? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Jon Glass wrote: On Dec 8, 2004, at 11:36 PM, Jon Glass wrote: I thought a purist drank "his" coffee black. (A purist also uses the proper non-gender specific pronoun in English as well). Actually, that was the joke... but as I understand English, a purist would stick to the historical understanding of the English language, and not allow his language to be "trendy" either... My mistake! I didn't realize I had used "their." That's not my normal practice Sorry I misunderstood your statement!!! (still pondering why he used "their" instead of "his"...)
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 5:41:48 PM, Graywolf wrote: G> No, no, a purist drinks his coffee black, or maybe with a we dram o' wiskey in G> it. Milk, cream, sugar, those are for infants. GRIN "Coffee should be black as hell; strong as death, and sweet as love" (attrib.: turkish?) Good light! fra
Re: Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
> > From: Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2004/12/09 Thu AM 12:22:33 GMT > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer) > > Hi, > > > Examples: > > >> proper non-gender specific pronoun > > > Purists always hyphenate correctly. If you're a purist you always > > hyphenate correctly. > > Damn! I just re-read that and I was so caught up in my own smart-arsiness > that my example didn't address the original problem. > > A purist re-reads before he hits 'Send'. > > I mean, purists re-read before they hit 'Send'. If you're a purist, > you re-read before you hit 'Send'. A purist would re-read before hitting send. - Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Are pronouns black? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
On 9/12/04, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: >Usually you can rewrite it, and often improve it, by >addressing the reader as 'you', or by putting the whole thing into the >plural. > >Examples: > >> proper non-gender specific pronoun > >Purists always hyphenate correctly. If you're a purist you always >hyphenate correctly. Is this being a Blairite? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
On Dec 8, 2004, at 11:36 PM, Jon Glass wrote: I thought a purist drank "his" coffee black. (A purist also uses the proper non-gender specific pronoun in English as well). Actually, that was the joke... but as I understand English, a purist would stick to the historical understanding of the English language, and not allow his language to be "trendy" either... My mistake! I didn't realize I had used "their." That's not my normal practice Sorry I misunderstood your statement!!! (still pondering why he used "their" instead of "his"...) -- -Jon Glass Krakow, Poland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Academic writing can sound unnatural out of context. But it's accurate, and that can be important in some cases. Mating a plural pronoun with a singular antecedent is never appropriate or accurate, and it's not a good solution to gender sensitivity. Gender in English pronouns really has nothing more to do with female/male issues than do gender specific noun endings in Spanish. That was my only point. I'm not suggesting that we should "eschew" conversational English. But the gender sensitivity issue is nonsense. And if the gd queen wants to go to parliment, well then, hell, let her go to parliment. But you probably ought to keep her away from parliament . > Yes, it makes you sound like you think the queen should have a seat in > parliment. Even the queen herself does not believe that anymore. > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > --- > > > > > Bob W wrote: > > > > > As usual it's a question of register and of what is appropriate for > > the situation. I'm not American or academic enough to know much about > > it, but in general one eschews both 'one' and 'eschew' in British > > English these days. It sounds rather pompous, unnatural and old-fashioned. > > >
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Yes, it makes you sound like you think the queen should have a seat in parliment. Even the queen herself does not believe that anymore. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Bob W wrote: As usual it's a question of register and of what is appropriate for the situation. I'm not American or academic enough to know much about it, but in general one eschews both 'one' and 'eschew' in British English these days. It sounds rather pompous, unnatural and old-fashioned.
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
In historic English "his" is the non-gender specific useage in this case... Jon Glass wrote: On Dec 8, 2004, at 6:56 PM, Peter J. Alling wrote: I thought a purist drank "his" coffee black. (A purist also uses the proper non-gender specific pronoun in English as well). Actually, that was the joke... but as I understand English, a purist would stick to the historical understanding of the English language, and not allow his language to be "trendy" either... -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Hi, Thursday, December 9, 2004, 12:33:42 AM, Paul wrote: > I'm surprised that the Brits are more willing to bend the rules of > grammar than are the Americans in regard to use of the plural pronoun > "their" with a singular antecedent. I would guess that this is only > true of informal communication. I wouldn't be surprised if the London > Times subscribes to the same policy as the NY Times. Nothing about The Times would surprise me. It is a Murdoch paper, after all. In the last 10-15 years I've only read it once - about 2 weeks ago when I bought it by accident. It didn't seem much like a guardian of traditional grammatical values. > In American > academic writing, addressing the reader as "you" is eschewed. Instead, > the pronoun "one" is preferred: As usual it's a question of register and of what is appropriate for the situation. I'm not American or academic enough to know much about it, but in general one eschews both 'one' and 'eschew' in British English these days. It sounds rather pompous, unnatural and old-fashioned. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
I'm surprised that the Brits are more willing to bend the rules of grammar than are the Americans in regard to use of the plural pronoun "their" with a singular antecedent. I would guess that this is only true of informal communication. I wouldn't be surprised if the London Times subscribes to the same policy as the NY Times. In American academic writing, addressing the reader as "you" is eschewed. Instead, the pronoun "one" is preferred: Purists always hyphenate correctly. If one is a purist, one always hyphenates correctly. On Dec 8, 2004, at 7:14 PM, Bob W wrote: Hi, I thought a purist drank "his" coffee black. (A purist also uses the proper non-gender specific pronoun in English as well). Very true. Even the New York Times, that bastion of American liberalism, uses the third person masculine pronoun when the gender is non-specific. Anything else is silly and awkward. Paul it seems to have become quite acceptable in British English to use 'their' rather than 'his' in this sort of situation. I use both, but I prefer not to paint myself into such a corner that I have to make the choice. Usually you can rewrite it, and often improve it, by addressing the reader as 'you', or by putting the whole thing into the plural. Examples: proper non-gender specific pronoun Purists always hyphenate correctly. If you're a purist you always hyphenate correctly. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Hi, > Examples: >> proper non-gender specific pronoun > Purists always hyphenate correctly. If you're a purist you always > hyphenate correctly. Damn! I just re-read that and I was so caught up in my own smart-arsiness that my example didn't address the original problem. A purist re-reads before he hits 'Send'. I mean, purists re-read before they hit 'Send'. If you're a purist, you re-read before you hit 'Send'. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Hi, >>> I thought a purist drank "his" coffee black. (A purist also uses the >>> proper non-gender specific pronoun in English as well). >>> >>> > Very true. Even the New York Times, that bastion of American > liberalism, uses the third person masculine pronoun when the gender is > non-specific. Anything else is silly and awkward. > Paul it seems to have become quite acceptable in British English to use 'their' rather than 'his' in this sort of situation. I use both, but I prefer not to paint myself into such a corner that I have to make the choice. Usually you can rewrite it, and often improve it, by addressing the reader as 'you', or by putting the whole thing into the plural. Examples: > proper non-gender specific pronoun Purists always hyphenate correctly. If you're a purist you always hyphenate correctly. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
On Dec 8, 2004, at 5:36 PM, Jon Glass wrote: I thought a purist drank "his" coffee black. (A purist also uses the proper non-gender specific pronoun in English as well). Very true. Even the New York Times, that bastion of American liberalism, uses the third person masculine pronoun when the gender is non-specific. Anything else is silly and awkward. Paul
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
On Dec 8, 2004, at 6:56 PM, Peter J. Alling wrote: I thought a purist drank "his" coffee black. (A purist also uses the proper non-gender specific pronoun in English as well). Actually, that was the joke... but as I understand English, a purist would stick to the historical understanding of the English language, and not allow his language to be "trendy" either... -- -Jon Glass Krakow, Poland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
On 8/12/04, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: >No, you're a puerile digitalist yeah, I'll go along with that. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
No, you're a puerile digitalist Shel > [Original Message] > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'm a digital purist.
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
On 7/12/04, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: >2) Who, on this list, is a purist - come to think of it, what's a >purist? I'm a digital purist. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 04:51:19 -0800, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Juan ... > > I'm not sure if I'm a "purist" but I don't care for anything fake. I make my living by making "fake" images. I suppose my skin is thicker in this regard because of that. I wouldn't do things like deleting one person from a picture, but something like adding grain seems minor, almost like running an unsharp mask or desaturating the image by some process aimed to getting a pleasant look. I suppose I consider it "minor" because it is global to the image. > For > years we've worked with grain in film, trying to reduce or eliminate it as > much as possible, or, at times, trying to enhance it, all for creative > reasons. Now we have digital, which has it's own type of "grain", and the > argument is made so often that digital is its own medium, and film is its > own, but sometimes the digi guys want their digi pics to look like film. Well, one could argue that since the camera sensor is designed for color pictures, making an image black and white is also a case of " the digi guys want(ing) their digi pics to look like film", no? > So, after years of struggling and after new technology to reduce or > eliminate film grain, here we are trying to add it back. It all seems > rather bizarre to me. > > That said, if someone wants to add grain to their digi pic, that's OK with > me. Can "good results" be had by adding noise and gaussian blur? I don't > know. Having played with it myself, and seen your recently posted example, > I'd say acceptable results can be had, results good enough for some people > in some circumstances, but thus far I don't like what I've seen. Maybe the > purist in me is looking too hard to find fault, but, at least at this > point, I want my digi prints to look digital, my Tri-X to shout Tri-X, my > 35mm work to look like 35mm work, and the photos made with the 6x6 to look > like medium format. I just want my images to look good :-) The point is that the process is arbitrary. With film you have to decide how you develop it, what paper you use, etc. With digital there's also a set of parameters, and the choice is yours. "Digital grain" is artificial, but so is sharpening, and the difference is of degree. [...] > Since we saw Salgado's exhibit together, let me ask you this: do you feel > his photographs would have been improved, and by that I mean would they > have conveyed greater impact and more passion, had they been shot with > "grainless" digital techniques, or do you think the grain may have > contributed to the intensity of the photos, giving them more impact? To > me, the grain added a certain raw dimension that helped give the photos > their great power. I don't know if a grainless print would have had the > same impact for me. I agree with you, grain did add to those images. I would like to see prints of some of his latest Pentax 645 work, to see how they compare in that regard. j -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Quoting "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jon Glass wrote: > > > > A purist is a person who drinks their coffee with only cream and > > sugar. ;-D > > I thought a purist drank "his" coffee black. (A purist also uses the > proper non-gender specific pronoun in English as well). LOL!!! ERNR (language purist, water-drinker)
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Quoting "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > If I want grain I shoot Tri-X. Hypothetically, if I were to *want* grain, I'd probably shoot TMZ. I can't, personally, think of a case in which I'd want grain. I see its presence in certain images as a necessary tradeoff for getting the images at all under technically less-than-ideal circumstances. I want pictures of what's in front of the lens, not what the film is made of. That's just my taste, of course. ERNR
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Jon Glass wrote: On Dec 8, 2004, at 4:04 AM, frank theriault wrote: 2) Who, on this list, is a purist - come to think of it, what's a purist? A purist is a person who drinks their coffee with only cream and sugar. ;-D I thought a purist drank "his" coffee black. (A purist also uses the proper non-gender specific pronoun in English as well). -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
If I want grain I shoot Tri-X. Juan Buhler wrote: On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:38:26 -0800, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Fine work, Rob. Good to see what can be done with B&W conversions and the RAW format. Between you and Juan, I may be moving closer to a DSLR all the faster. I do miss the grain though ... The other day I started playing in Photoshop with some grain. I was thinking about shooting a frame of Tri-X of a flat grey card, scanning that and extracting the grain, to use on digital images. Then I realized that good results can be obtained with some noise and gaussian blur. What do the purists in the list think about these idea of fake grain? j -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
No, no, a purist drinks his coffee black, or maybe with a we dram o' wiskey in it. Milk, cream, sugar, those are for infants. GRIN graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Jon Glass wrote: On Dec 8, 2004, at 4:04 AM, frank theriault wrote: 2) Who, on this list, is a purist - come to think of it, what's a purist? A purist is a person who drinks their coffee with only cream and sugar. ;-D
RE: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Shel To add another perspective, one could argue that to add fake film grain in PS is the same as doing anything in a darkroom. You are merely trying to add to the artistry of the picture. I'll agree with you about the grittiness of film photography but I would have to add that a big part of that is also due to the added dynamic range of film. It's ironic that we have alll this technology and then rail against it. I for one have a Canon 20D that I now use almost exclusively and add grain in PS now and again in order to get rid of that plasticky look as much as I can but love to use manual focus lenses in manual or AV mode. There are at least 6 buttons on my camera that could be jamming radio signals from Mars as far as I know. That's not to say that I yearn for the good old days, I don't. I love that the technology has outpaced my needs, I'd hate to be at the bleeding edge of it waiitng for the next major breakthrough. Very valid points though. And I really do wish that one of those buttons on my 20D was the "Tri-X exact reproduction" button. Gareth -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 7:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer) Hi Juan ... I'm not sure if I'm a "purist" but I don't care for anything fake. For years we've worked with grain in film, trying to reduce or eliminate it as much as possible, or, at times, trying to enhance it, all for creative reasons. Now we have digital, which has it's own type of "grain", and the argument is made so often that digital is its own medium, and film is its own, but sometimes the digi guys want their digi pics to look like film. So, after years of struggling and after new technology to reduce or eliminate film grain, here we are trying to add it back. It all seems rather bizarre to me. That said, if someone wants to add grain to their digi pic, that's OK with me. Can "good results" be had by adding noise and gaussian blur? I don't know. Having played with it myself, and seen your recently posted example, I'd say acceptable results can be had, results good enough for some people in some circumstances, but thus far I don't like what I've seen. Maybe the purist in me is looking too hard to find fault, but, at least at this point, I want my digi prints to look digital, my Tri-X to shout Tri-X, my 35mm work to look like 35mm work, and the photos made with the 6x6 to look like medium format. My comment to Rob saying that I missed the film grain wasn't a criticism or even a desire to have film grain in digi prints or photographs so much as it was the idea that, to my eye and sensibility, film grain adds something to certain images, especially B&W images. Some of those images don't, imo, cut it when converted from color, or when shot on chromogenic B&W. In many instances they can look pretty good, especially on web pages, which seems to be the way many (most?) people are displaying much of their work these days. Yet when printed with an inkjet or a laser printer, on paper other than silver, they are clearly different images exhibiting a totally different look and feel. Mind now, I'm not saying worse, just different. What I don't like about Rob's image (that particular one and his earlier "Shuz"), some other digital images, and the three that you recently posted, especially yours (because of the subject matter and the situation) is that they look too "clean," lacking a certain grittiness that I've come to associate with conventional B&W photography that, imo, enhances certain images, and helps convey a certain feel or perhaps even a message, contributing to the story or the impact of the photograph. Since we saw Salgado's exhibit together, let me ask you this: do you feel his photographs would have been improved, and by that I mean would they have conveyed greater impact and more passion, had they been shot with "grainless" digital techniques, or do you think the grain may have contributed to the intensity of the photos, giving them more impact? To me, the grain added a certain raw dimension that helped give the photos their great power. I don't know if a grainless print would have had the same impact for me. Shel > From: Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > Fine work, Rob. Good to see what can be done with B&W conversions and the > > RAW format. Between you and Juan, I may be moving closer to a DSLR all the > > faster. I do miss the grain though ... > > The other day I started playing in Photoshop with some grain. I was > thinking about shooting a frame of Tri-X of a flat grey card, scanning > that and extracting the
RE: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Hi Juan ... I'm not sure if I'm a "purist" but I don't care for anything fake. For years we've worked with grain in film, trying to reduce or eliminate it as much as possible, or, at times, trying to enhance it, all for creative reasons. Now we have digital, which has it's own type of "grain", and the argument is made so often that digital is its own medium, and film is its own, but sometimes the digi guys want their digi pics to look like film. So, after years of struggling and after new technology to reduce or eliminate film grain, here we are trying to add it back. It all seems rather bizarre to me. That said, if someone wants to add grain to their digi pic, that's OK with me. Can "good results" be had by adding noise and gaussian blur? I don't know. Having played with it myself, and seen your recently posted example, I'd say acceptable results can be had, results good enough for some people in some circumstances, but thus far I don't like what I've seen. Maybe the purist in me is looking too hard to find fault, but, at least at this point, I want my digi prints to look digital, my Tri-X to shout Tri-X, my 35mm work to look like 35mm work, and the photos made with the 6x6 to look like medium format. My comment to Rob saying that I missed the film grain wasn't a criticism or even a desire to have film grain in digi prints or photographs so much as it was the idea that, to my eye and sensibility, film grain adds something to certain images, especially B&W images. Some of those images don't, imo, cut it when converted from color, or when shot on chromogenic B&W. In many instances they can look pretty good, especially on web pages, which seems to be the way many (most?) people are displaying much of their work these days. Yet when printed with an inkjet or a laser printer, on paper other than silver, they are clearly different images exhibiting a totally different look and feel. Mind now, I'm not saying worse, just different. What I don't like about Rob's image (that particular one and his earlier "Shuz"), some other digital images, and the three that you recently posted, especially yours (because of the subject matter and the situation) is that they look too "clean," lacking a certain grittiness that I've come to associate with conventional B&W photography that, imo, enhances certain images, and helps convey a certain feel or perhaps even a message, contributing to the story or the impact of the photograph. Since we saw Salgado's exhibit together, let me ask you this: do you feel his photographs would have been improved, and by that I mean would they have conveyed greater impact and more passion, had they been shot with "grainless" digital techniques, or do you think the grain may have contributed to the intensity of the photos, giving them more impact? To me, the grain added a certain raw dimension that helped give the photos their great power. I don't know if a grainless print would have had the same impact for me. Shel > From: Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > Fine work, Rob. Good to see what can be done with B&W conversions and the > > RAW format. Between you and Juan, I may be moving closer to a DSLR all the > > faster. I do miss the grain though ... > > The other day I started playing in Photoshop with some grain. I was > thinking about shooting a frame of Tri-X of a flat grey card, scanning > that and extracting the grain, to use on digital images. Then I > realized that good results can be obtained with some noise and > gaussian blur. > > What do the purists in the list think about these idea of fake grain?
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
frank theriault wrote: On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:54:26 -0800, Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What do the purists in the list think about these idea of fake grain? 1) That's a loaded question (that I'll have to consider before I answer), and, 2) Who, on this list, is a purist - come to think of it, what's a purist? I think that's the next level up from a Trappist, isn't it? keith whaley cheers, frank
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
On Dec 8, 2004, at 4:04 AM, frank theriault wrote: 2) Who, on this list, is a purist - come to think of it, what's a purist? A purist is a person who drinks their coffee with only cream and sugar. ;-D -- -Jon Glass Krakow, Poland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
well, it usually goes at list price of $179 with few discounts and runs only as a Photoshop plugin. it's a very good noise reduction tool too and can remove noise very well, both film and digital. Neat Image still does a better job of removing grain. the best part of Grain Surgery is the ability to match film grain so you can blend a digital image into a film image and remove the film grain as a giveaway. Herb... - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 10:37 PM Subject: Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer) > Thanks Herb. I figured someone would chime in with more on the grain issue. How expensive is grain surgery?
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Thanks Herb. I figured someone would chime in with more on the grain issue. How expensive is grain surgery? > the very best is Grain Surgery, but it is expensive. it's also a good grain > removal tool and also can extract grain from reference images taken with > specific film to apply to other images. > > Herb... > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 10:08 PM > Subject: Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer) > > > > Hmmm. > > Foir years we struggled with low speed films like Panatomic X to try to > minimize grain. Now we're trying to find ways to put it back in . > Seriously, there are some filters that can simulate grain. I think there's > one in Kai's Power Tools. Do a google search. > >
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
the very best is Grain Surgery, but it is expensive. it's also a good grain removal tool and also can extract grain from reference images taken with specific film to apply to other images. Herb... - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 10:08 PM Subject: Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer) > Hmmm. > Foir years we struggled with low speed films like Panatomic X to try to minimize grain. Now we're trying to find ways to put it back in . Seriously, there are some filters that can simulate grain. I think there's one in Kai's Power Tools. Do a google search.
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
Hmmm. Foir years we struggled with low speed films like Panatomic X to try to minimize grain. Now we're trying to find ways to put it back in . Seriously, there are some filters that can simulate grain. I think there's one in Kai's Power Tools. Do a google search. > On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:38:26 -0800, Shel Belinkoff > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Fine work, Rob. Good to see what can be done with B&W conversions and the > > RAW format. Between you and Juan, I may be moving closer to a DSLR all the > > faster. I do miss the grain though ... > > The other day I started playing in Photoshop with some grain. I was > thinking about shooting a frame of Tri-X of a flat grey card, scanning > that and extracting the grain, to use on digital images. Then I > realized that good results can be obtained with some noise and > gaussian blur. > > What do the purists in the list think about these idea of fake grain? > > j > > > -- > Juan Buhler > http://www.jbuhler.com > blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog >
Re: Digital grain (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
On 7 Dec 2004 at 18:54, Juan Buhler wrote: > The other day I started playing in Photoshop with some grain. I was > thinking about shooting a frame of Tri-X of a flat grey card, scanning > that and extracting the grain, to use on digital images. Then I > realized that good results can be obtained with some noise and > gaussian blur. > > What do the purists in the list think about these idea of fake grain? Yep, very interesting, I've though about trying the same. I'd suggest that most people seem to have an issue with grain added to image for electronic display, I suspect that if a believable noise pattern was added in the correct fashion the prints could be quite convincing. The prints coming from my printer at this moment seem to display a slight but visible mis-registration of the colours so I'm not game to try it as yet as I suspect that an error like that would really kill a grainy mono print. Cheers, 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 (was Re: PESO My type of photographer)
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:54:26 -0800, Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What do the purists in the list think about these idea of fake grain? 1) That's a loaded question (that I'll have to consider before I answer), and, 2) Who, on this list, is a purist - come to think of it, what's a purist? cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: digital grain?
On 8 Jan 2004 at 22:20, mapson wrote: > Does the picture become more "grainy" or pixelated when shot on ISO 1600 > (or 3200) compared with ISO 200? > > Obviously we assume that the picture is exposed correctly in both cases. 200/3200 AWB http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/IMGP0605m.jpg 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?
Noise increases but pixellation doesn't. Len --- * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 From: mapson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Does the picture become more "grainy" or pixelated when shot on ISO 1600 (or 3200) compared with ISO 200? Obviously we assume that the picture is exposed correctly in both cases. _ Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
RE: Digital "grain" ?
I assume it also depends on temperature: higher temp is more noise. Frits Wüthrich > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Juan J. Buhler > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 12:37 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Digital "grain" ? > > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, alex wrote: > > > >Besides the higher resolution, my hypothetical digital camera would > > >let me change the ISO on a per-frame basis, so I'll be able to shot at > > >the lowest possible speed, thus minimizing grain. > > > > Given the sensor technology in digital cameras, isn't the > "grain" question > > only a function of the definition of the camera, i.e. you > cannot change it > > ? Or am I missing something ? > > The "grain" (digital sensor noise, actually) depends on the ISO > selected. Basically, the stronger the signal (light), the least > important noise will be in the final stored value. > > I'm not an expert on digital cameras, but that's the way it works if > I'm not mistaken. > > j - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Digital "grain" ?
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, alex wrote: > >Besides the higher resolution, my hypothetical digital camera would > >let me change the ISO on a per-frame basis, so I'll be able to shot at > >the lowest possible speed, thus minimizing grain. > > Given the sensor technology in digital cameras, isn't the "grain" question > only a function of the definition of the camera, i.e. you cannot change it > ? Or am I missing something ? The "grain" (digital sensor noise, actually) depends on the ISO selected. Basically, the stronger the signal (light), the least important noise will be in the final stored value. I'm not an expert on digital cameras, but that's the way it works if I'm not mistaken. j -- --- Juan J. Buhler | Sr. FX Animator @ PDI | Photos at http://www.jbuhler.com --- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Jean Baudrillard (WAS: Re: Digital "grain" ?)
I've struggled through an English translation of "Simulacra and Simulation";
his ideas are amazing ("the Persian Gulf war did not happen..."). I wonder
what kind of person he is day-to-day...
I can see how his philosophical inquiries relate to photography: what
happens when we make images that are better than reality? What happens when
we appreciate the simulation more than the real? Isn't that the goal of
photography? Hmmm... Must drink more wine first...
t
On 2/14/02 2:34 PM, Gianfranco Irlanda wrote:
> May I suggest 'For a Critique of the Political Economy of the
> Sign' and 'Simulacra and Simulations'?
> :-)
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Digital "grain" ?
Timothy Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In theory, software could be created that makes a photo look more authentic > than the original equipment did. I think I'll go read some Jean Baudrillard > now... May I suggest 'For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign' and 'Simulacra and Simulations'? :-) Gianfranco = Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Digital "grain" ?
I see this whole "digital grain" process as more of an effect that you'd apply after taking the image, in your "digital darkroom". In fact you could have a Photoshop filter that "simulated" the grain of a particular film. "Hmmm, I want this picture to look like it was taken with film X and developed in Y." There's probably one on the market already... Just about any attribute of the film process could be simulated in software, just as some recent digital musical instruments simulate historical, famous or expensive "analog" instruments. In theory, software could be created that makes a photo look more authentic than the original equipment did. I think I'll go read some Jean Baudrillard now... t On 2/14/02 12:59 PM, alex wrote: > Juan J. Buhler wrote : > >> Besides the higher resolution, my hypothetical digital camera would >> let me change the ISO on a per-frame basis, so I'll be able to shot at >> the lowest possible speed, thus minimizing grain. > > > > Given the sensor technology in digital cameras, isn't the "grain" question > only a function of the definition of the camera, i.e. you cannot change it > ? Or am I missing something ? > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
