Adding grain/noise to pictures - right or wrong?

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

................better watch out for the grain police disguised as stalk munchers........ nah hang on those guys do other stuff

 

 

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.)

..................... happy to do either or neither a bit a of akka dakka

[bill]

If that's the result I want, I will.

 

The end entirely justifies the means. It's hardly a moral dilemma.

 

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[fordfanjpn]

I definitely add grain to B&W images, unless I'm shooting at high ISO, because I feel it helps remove some of the plasticy look of digital images shot at low ISO and makes a nicer looking print. I also believe that anything you want to do to make an image that pleases you is right, regardless of what anybody else may think. The only "wrong" thing to do is to let other people makes those decisions for you.

 

Bill

[stephan_w]

well, I gave the first and maybe provocative answer, and I wanted to point our why I never had the idea to use any added grain. I made several attempts to argue logically, but finally failed. Maybe it's just a matter of taste or maybe that I have rarely seen a photo that really wins by having or adding grain.

 

But maybe this is just a lack of experience, so I suggest to add some examples from those who claime that adding grain is a good idea.

[charlesphoto99]

How soon the digital generation forgets (or never knew in the first place) what process creating real photography entails. With film it was never simple as the final image just magically appearing in camera - why should it be the same with digital? There was the choice of film to begin with, then developer, then the enlarger and lens it was printed through, the type of paper, the amount of dodging, burning and toning, choice of paper developer and and so on. The same holds true for processing a digital image, maybe even more so as now our choice of film is uniform (ie a sensor is a sensor and only changes from brand or model of camera) - the only option to achieve a look is after the fact with the various software available.

 

I use a bit of Alien Skin to take the edge off the plasticky look of digital (or as my girlfriend says, the "TV" look). For me digital is a film replacement and therefore I'll do what it takes to achieve the look that works for me and my audience. Others may have a different attitude towards it. But I think those that eschew the "digital darkroom" and what it has to offer are doing themselves a disservice.

[fordfanjpn]

well, I gave the first and maybe provocative answer, and I wanted to point our why I never had the idea to use any added grain. I made several attempts to argue logically, but finally failed. Maybe it's just a matter of taste or maybe that I have rarely seen a photo that really wins by having or adding grain.

 

But maybe this is just a lack of experience, so I suggest to add some examples from those who claime that adding grain is a good idea.

 

It's only a good idea if you like what it does. If someone posts and example of an image they think is improved by adding grain, and you don't like it, that doesn't make it wrong. As you yourself stated, it's a matter of taste.

 

Bill

[fordfanjpn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use a bit of Alien Skin to take the edge off the plasticky look of digital (or as my girlfriend says, the "TV" look). For me digital is a film replacement and therefore I'll do what it takes to achieve the look that works for me and my audience. Others may have a different attitude towards it. But I think those that eschew the "digital darkroom" and what it has to offer are doing themselves a disservice.

 

I agree completely. I have always felt that it is the image that matters, not the tools used to create the image. And as you say, those who eschew the use of PP are only cheating themselves out of an opportunity to apply their own creativity to the images they make.

 

I think your girlfriend is exactly right when she refers to the digital look as the "TV look". But I think it's interesting that the M8 seems to have less of that than any other digital camera I have used. To some extent, the GRD2 is like that too.

 

Bill

[DaveSee]

How soon the digital generation forgets (or never knew in the first place) what process creating real photography entails. With film it was never simple as the final image just magically appearing in camera - why should it be the same with digital? There was the choice of film to begin with, then developer, then the enlarger and lens it was printed through, the type of paper, the amount of dodging, burning and toning, choice of paper developer and and so on. The same holds true for processing a digital image, maybe even more so as now our choice of film is uniform (ie a sensor is a sensor and only changes from brand or model of camera) - the only option to achieve a look is after the fact with the various software available.

 

I use a bit of Alien Skin to take the edge off the plasticky look of digital (or as my girlfriend says, the "TV" look). For me digital is a film replacement and therefore I'll do what it takes to achieve the look that works for me and my audience. Others may have a different attitude towards it. But I think those that eschew the "digital darkroom" and what it has to offer are doing themselves a disservice.

 

Well, if a person never knew(that a tree fell), then s/he'd have nothing to remember(that there is a sound)... so too, one may overlook what the image is(pure data) before the picture is rendered(as per software filters not fully understood).

 

Because the picture wasn't manipulated with Adobe(C1, Silkypix, LZ) software, is it less a picture and more the camera?

 

As has been posted, "Adding Grain(sic)/Noise" is akin to earlier picture making methods... AA's "The Print"(and with digital, "The Negative") are yet interesting POV on the $SUBJECT. With digital, a person cannot skip "post-proc", but to use the verb "adding" is incorrect: the data from any camera is always manipulated at a loss, despite the gain in picture effect.

 

rgds,

Dave

[stuny]

Turner was painting in a style that predicted impressionism 50 years before the first impressionist, and the critics savagesd him for it. A few of the responses above make me think of Turner's critics. As most indicate above, added grain and noise are at the artistic discretion of the photographer.

[35mmSummicron]

my thinking is adding noise/grain to a digital image is akin to sepia toning a print.

 

to the poster's argument, neither effects are original to the photograph, but they tend to steer an image in a certain aesthetic direction when added. the appropriateness of this is obviously dependent on the image/subject matter, and thus obviously also dependent on one's shooting style. (i almost NEVER sepia tone, but almost ALWAYS add noise to my digital images)

 

its all personal tastes/preferences i guess......

 

/a