Speaking of Grain and important things

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a photo taken by, and copyrighted by Bruce Davidson from 1960, when grain was a fact of life, and I love it.

.

It is an image that I saw long ago, and cannot forget.

http://www.digoliardi.net/bruce-davidson_girl_kitten.jpg

 

Very interesting story behind it here:

Bruce Davidson's best shot 'I found her by accident. She took me into a cave, then some kind of dancehall' | Art and design | The Guardian

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[philipus]

Would have looked much better if shot on an MM.

[gsgary]

Would have looked much better if shot on an MM.

 

No way, its a wonderful shot and the grain is perfect for the subject

[pico]

Would have looked much better if shot on an MM.

 

And I would probably look better if I were born tomorrow. Point is - we cannot criticize technology out of its history.

[StS]

I'm saying nothing new here, but when all we had was film, we typically tried to avoid grain at all cost. However, we should have stopped worrying, since what we had was already good enough.

 

Stefan

[chris_livsey]

Shot on Ilford HPS as was Jean-Luc Godard's Alphaville. Available 1954 to 1969 in 35mm.

 

Source for Godard:

Alphaville (Jean-Luc Godard, 1965)

By Chris Dark

University of Illinois Press, 2005

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm saying nothing new here, but when all we had was film, we typically tried to avoid grain at all cost.

 

Speak for yourself, Kemosabe.

 

At all cost did not include the modest expense of moving up to at least medium format.

 

Seriously, I understand and in the day it was interesting how miniature format photographers chased the challenge of grain-less images. It did not work for the most part because super fine grain films had an inherently compressed exposure range.

 

But I digress. I always digress.

 

 

 

Sent from my Etcha-sketch.

[dgc]

Wonderful. Just goes to show it is not about the technology (see the new Leica T threads!); it is about the photographer's perception, knowing his tools and his relationship with the subject.

 

David

[250swb]

I'm saying nothing new here, but when all we had was film, we typically tried to avoid grain at all cost.

 

Stefan

 

We?

 

I think there was a period where early slow films gave fine grain almost by default. But it didn't take long for photographers to adapt and enjoy faster film and grain and use grain for an emotive effect. There are many images in the lexicon of photographic history that wouldn't be nearly as powerful without film grain, but it is something being rapidly sidelined in the language of photography.

 

Steve

[philipus]

No way, its a wonderful shot and the grain is perfect for the subject

 

I agree completely (my comment was meant to be ironic)

[pico]

Grain on Grain

.

(Photo from Wikipedia)

[sblitz]

Wonderful photo, thanks for posting and the thread.

[StS]

Maybe the aesthetics of grain partly developed out of use, although the photographers of early high-speed films certainly saw the potential.

 

So imaginge you are a photo-reporter in the 60's, you see an interesting low-light situation, but all you have at hand is Tri-X. So you ask the wizards in the cellar to push it to 1600 (or 33 DIN back then over here) and do their best to get a still usable print for the magazine. The slightly gritty look certainly adds to the atmosphere. Half a century later, a gallery shows this print as fine art.

 

Galleries have rightfully discovered old photojournalism for the authenticity, we have got used to this grainy look to show a special atmosphere. The people, who took these images certainly knew their trade, but I doubt they were aware when they took these images, that people would re-discover them half a century later.

 

Stefan

[StS]

...and still in their current edition of the Tri-X data sheet, Kodak proudly announce:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[pico]

...and still in their current edition of the Tri-X data sheet, Kodak proudly announce:

 

Tri-X is not one film. There was Tri-X pro and Tri-X 400. Different film types. Even before Pro Tri-X has changed since the Seventies (or thereabouts).

 

Today I do not get the same look from Tri-X 400 in the same developers as I did in the Sixties and mid-Seventies (when I quit 35mm for two decades.)

 

Regarding the appearance of grain, in news photography we did not worry about grain, but some of us did like how it made some images appear more sharp, or crisp. Acutance is the word.

 

There is an excellent illustration of this in the late Barry Thornton's book, Edge of Darkness on pages 23 and 24.

[250swb]

Yes we didn't mind about grain in news images, but it went further than just making images made under trying conditions look sharp, it often made them bearable.

 

Could the pictures of Bobby Kennedy's assassination have been published without the masking veil that grain and contrast applied? Not only did grain add drama, but it transposed the image from being raw butchery caught by the camera and added a layer of separation from reality, making it just about viewable. Plenty of images from Vietnam did the same thing, a bit of blur, a bit of grain, and horrific pictures could be seen while eating breakfast because while the event of the picture was clearly registered the reality was a step away from the days tasks. Not to say this separation diluted the image, like any good story it fed the imagination rather than giving everything in one super-real horror that could be seen, absorbed, and forgotten as too horrific to store in the mind. And it is the same separation from strict reality that gives grain it's power in any other picture, it feeds the imagination.

 

Steve

[leicaphilia]

I'm saying nothing new here, but when all we had was film, we typically tried to avoid grain at all cost. However, we should have stopped worrying, since what we had was already good enough.

 

Stefan

 

In my experience (limited, of course, to ME) minimizing grain was typically a priority prior to digital. it was only with the advent of digital and the perceived sterility of digital capture that grain revealed its inherent importance to the unique look of film photography.

 

Now, it seems to be the main reason many have migrated to film, the grain itself as a unique character of the medium. As a documentarian I appreciate this new aesthetic, as it offers me greater acceptance for images shot with TX or HP5 pushed to 3200 iso for low light situations.

[pico]

In my experience (limited, of course, to ME) minimizing grain was typically a priority prior to digital.

 

Digital has no grain. It has noise which is white. Film's grain is is black, the spaces between grain clusters.

.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[xalo]

Thanks, Pico.

Grain is the mark of the object created by light. "I loved that grainy texture; she has the feeling of a statue." (Bruce Davidson, in the linked article.) That's exactly what film grain does: it reminds that we are looking at an image. (Magritte took it to the point Ceci n'est pas une pipe/This is not a pipe.)

[gsgary]

My attempt at grain on grain, 26 years out of date Tri-x 400 developed in rodinal