Digital noise and film grain in B&W.

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am often drawn to the quality of B&W film, especially the grain quality and its distribution. However, the complications of shooting film (developing, scanning) draw me toward shooting B&W with digital. I am learning how to imbue the quality of B&W film into digital raw files, and here are my thoughts.

I do not think digital noise is a suitable replacement for the film grain found in B&W negatives.

Unlike the harsh, square pixels of digital noise, film grain is composed of organic silver halide crystals that are not uniformly shaped or sized. Also, film grain is more visible in highlights and midtones, while digital noise is more visible in shadows.

So one way to get a decent B&W look could be to remove the noise and add film grain simulation in highlights and midtones. LrC now has luminosity masks that can apply film grain specifically to highlights or midtones.

Any comments and relevant experiences?

[LocalHero1953]

I find different cameras have different digital noise ‘looks’, some attractive, some not. I found the SL2-S noise OK, but the Q2 noise ugly. 

[Eoin]

Embrace the modern B&W sensor as base palette, then take it where your creative desires want in post and printing... just like the good old days spent in the darkroom.

Life has never been so good photography wise, as now. I'd rather noiseless images over "organic" grain everyday. I can then tune it or take it in a totally unintended direction with grain effects and crushing contrast.

From my youth until starting a family, I developed and printed my own film. Time became scarce and I adopted digital and hadn't looked back at B&W until the M11M. 
Regardless of its output, the methodology and mindset in shooting a monochrome evoke the essence B&W photography without the chemicals and hours spent.  

Embrace... life is much easier😉 

[frame-it]

digital noise on a deep infrared [850nm] converted camera sensor looks delicious  

 

Edited 6 hours ago by frame-it

[hansvons]

3 hours ago, SrMi said:

I am often drawn to the quality of B&W film, especially the grain quality and its distribution. However, the complications of shooting film (developing, scanning) draw me toward shooting B&W with digital. I am learning how to imbue the quality of B&W film into digital raw files, and here are my thoughts.

I do not think digital noise is a suitable replacement for the film grain found in B&W negatives.

Unlike the harsh, square pixels of digital noise, film grain is composed of organic silver halide crystals that are not uniformly shaped or sized. Also, film grain is more visible in highlights and midtones, while digital noise is more visible in shadows.

So one way to get a decent B&W look could be to remove the noise and add film grain simulation in highlights and midtones. LrC now has luminosity masks that can apply film grain specifically to highlights or midtones.

Any comments and relevant experiences?

You are right, of course.

Film and digital media are very different media on many levels. But I like to "see" into the sensor, and that means raw, no denoising in the luminance channel, no sharpening and higher ISOs that align skin tones to middle grey in terms of exposure. Often that means ISO 400-1600, depending on the sensor. Recently, I had the joy (a blast from the past, no career move) to shoot a music video on an Alexa Mini. As we always do on the Alexa, I exposed it on ISO 800 and ISO 1600. I do the same with the SL2-S. Like @LocalHero1953, I like the SL2-S noise/texture and don't find it ugly. At some point, when the sensor gets enough light to produce a likeable image but at the same time is slightly starved from light, you can "see" into the sensor. The photos have texture. I know this sounds somewhat esoteric, but when I shoot film (all of my B&W work is on film), I can always "see" into the emulsion, and the same applies to the Alexa's sensor. When digital is fully exposed on my SL2-S at ISO 100, images appear to me soapy and slippery on the surface with ugly roll-off in the whites—if that makes sense. 

That doesn't solve the "natural" film grain issues in terms of highlights and blacks. Film images show grain in the shadows, but also in the highlights when not clipped. Digital texture looks different. There's no texture in the highlights. The question is: does that matter, and is film the measure? That said, the best way to apply proper film grain on digital images is to, well, use proper film grain on digital images. You do that by shooting a white wall defocused about three stops underexposed on film and composing the shot on the digital background via screen mode. 

[SrMi]

9 minutes ago, hansvons said:

Film images show grain in the shadows, but also in the highlights when not clipped.

Unlike in digital and positive film, negative film highlights cannot be clipped (same as digital shadows cannot be clipped). Instead of a glaring blank of digitally clipped highlights, negative highlights have delicious grain. With negatives, the grain/noise is reversed compared to digital. 

14 minutes ago, hansvons said:

That said, the best way to apply proper film grain on digital images is to, well, use proper film grain on digital images. You do that by shooting a white wall defocused about three stops underexposed on film and composing the shot on the digital background via screen mode. 

Yes. However, is the difference to the simulated grain large enough to warrant the scanning effort? 

I prefer noise/grain in the highlights to noise/grain in the shadows. With digital, the only solution is post-processing with luminance masks.

P.S.: Thanks, everyone, for sharing your thoughts.