Adding grain/noise to pictures - right or wrong?

[martinb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do you think it's okay to add grain or noise to digital pictures? For a while I thought it was wrong, but after a while I figured out it was probably more original adding your own grain than the film manufacturers grain. Adding your own grain or noise should be as okay as adding grain from the film..

 

What do you think?

[Advertisement]

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

[stephan_w]

wrong .... why add somthing that is not on the photo and therefore give an artificial effect to your picture? Especially as "grain" has nothing to to do with "art" or "effect", it is just a technical imperfection that we (at least some of us) are used to and always wanted to eliminate.

 

Just my two cents

 

Stephan

[martinb]

Interesting Stephan. Personally I like some technical imperfections.

I should add that I usually don't add any grain to my digital pictures.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Martin, I am not adding grain to my pix, but there is a number of lurkers here who do this, particularly to b/w pix.

 

If you do a search you'll find JFI Labs (an inexpensive product that simulates abour a dozen different b/w film grains) among others.

 

In the postings, you'll see some examples, and I agree that where grain has been added the effect is pleasing. In my case, I'm still exploring b/w from raw files and haven't settled on a procedure.

[martinb]

Bill,

Thanks, but I know a lot about the processing.

What I asked for was, do you think it's right or wrong?

[AlanG]

It's right if it makes the picture better and it's wrong if it doesn't.

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If _you_ think a photograph looks better then do it. Yes I do add grain. Whether I add any or not, and how much, depends on the individual image.

[nostatic]

I'll admit that I have more experience with this type of question from a sound perspective as opposed to a visual one. In that case, the question I always ask myself is, "does the effect strengthen the message?" Of course "message" is a broad term, but if I think that some flavor will make the whole greater than the sum of the parts, then I do it. That being said, with images I do almost zero PP. And come to think of it, when I mix I similarly use very little effects. BUT, "dry" also just doesn't cut it. I can't think of a single time I've ever used a dry vocal track on a finished song. There always is some compression, light eq, and reverb. ymmv.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Bill,

Thanks, but I know a lot about the processing.

What I asked for was, do you think it's right or wrong?

 

I only partially answered you in that I am not yet doing it and am trying to define a b/w workflow.

 

It's certainly ok, as evidenced by the many postings with favorable grain additions.

 

Regards,

[elansprint72]

Why not? I used to push Tri-X as far as 1600 to get more grain.

[Jamie Roberts]

wrong .... why add somthing that is not on the photo and therefore give an artificial effect to your picture? Especially as "grain" has nothing to to do with "art" or "effect", it is just a technical imperfection that we (at least some of us) are used to and always wanted to eliminate.

{snipped}

 

My answer is that it's often the right thing to do (given Alan's caveat about making things better or worse, of course).

 

Why? Because all shots have noise anyway. But digital noise tends to print in a pretty ugly fashion; "analog" noise-- like film grain--looks a lot nicer and can even give the illusion of extra sharpness and tonal range (especially in the highlights) if added properly.

 

You can also mask ugly high ISO sensor noise (especially in the shadows) with nicer, tighter-grained "film grain" nose. The easiest way to do this is PS is to add a new median layer filled with gray, then run the "film grain" filter on it (with a very small radius, like .3). Blur to taste; play with transparency to taste, paint on the layer mask to taste.

 

Some of the more expensive actions / tools to do this actually let you change the amount of noise in the highlights, midtones and shadows. Even if you can't always "see" the noise itself, you can usually see the effect in a print when used properly.

[Iron Flatline]

It's a creative choice. Yes, it's absolutely right to add grain.

 

Heck, sometimes I choose to shoot at an extremely high ISO just to add noise. When I developed film I'd user colder water to add grain to the negative. Whether I do that in-camera, in the darkroom, or on my PC, it's a choice.

 

Then again, photography is a creative pursuit for me. Someone photographing a crime scene (for instance) should shoot as close to pristine as possible.

[earleygallery]

In art there is no right or wrong.

[ErikFive]

I add grain. I use Exposure 2. I wouldnt turn them into B&W if I couldnt add grain.

[sean_reid]

Do you think it's okay to add grain or noise to digital pictures? For a while I thought it was wrong, but after a while I figured out it was probably more original adding your own grain than the film manufacturers grain. Adding your own grain or noise should be as okay as adding grain from the film..

 

What do you think?

 

Hi Martin,

 

Adding grain doesn't pose a moral question at all. Try it if you want to. There are no rules in photography or in art generally.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[JonasYip]

Just echoing most everyone else at this point: no right or wrong.... do it if it pleases you.

 

Personally I add grain all the time, just because I like it....

[martinb]

Hi Martin,

 

Adding grain doesn't pose a moral question at all. Try it if you want to. There are no rules in photography or in art generally.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Yeah, I know Sean. Just thought it was interesting to hear what the general opinion is on the forum. I've added it several times, but mostly to hide artefacts (so far) in digital images.

[sean_reid]

Yeah, I know Sean. Just thought it was interesting to hear what the general opinion is on the forum. I've added it several times, but mostly to hide artefacts (so far) in digital images.

 

In that case, I'll just add that I personally would add digital grain to a picture in a heartbeat if I felt it needed that.

 

As James Agee wrote, photography is one the slipperiest liars there is.

 

In fact, that might be a more interesting answer to your question than I fist gave. New answer: I recommend reading, or rereading, James Agee's essay in Helen Levitt's "A Way of Seeing".

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Marquinius]

Here's my bit as it is an ongoing issue ... for the last century or so.

 

I think the diffence lays in what you want to achieve with your picture. If it is a reflection of reality, you should leave the picture as much "as is". But if it is a feeling you want to transmit, anything goes. I think there is a difference between enhancing your photo (like in adding grain) and manipulating the picture (like in adding things, transforming it, etc.)

 

In other words: I think it is (within limits!) the difference between taking a photo and making a photo. And sometimes you can take the shot and everything comes together.

[Guest stnami]

...now would you be talkin about my cereal ....with the grain prices rising, maybe I should start putting some grain in the freezer with my film and sensor