how to create "film grain" in digital pictures?

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

{snipped}

If anybody knows a way to get rid of the banding - please tell me.

{snipped}

 

There's only two ways of minimising banding with the M8:

 

1) shoot for overexposure at ISO 1250 and 2500. You don't have any margin for error in the shadows (IOW, you don't have any reasonable ISO 5000 or 10000 capability with the M8). At ISO 640, there is some slop, since you *do* have ISO 1250 / 2500 capability.

 

2) banding can be messed with in post in a number of ways, but it's quite tricky... from dedicated plugins to PS tricks. None are too satisfactory, IMO, though some work well for monochromatic bands (and in shadows can work nicely).

 

Of course, the green banding from a specular highlight on the very edge of the frame is just a flaw in the M8. Can't do much about that one. But high ISO banding, just keep your exposure "to the right" and you shouldn't have a problem. Make your shadows into midtones if you have to and bring them back in post.

 

BTW--I'm a big fan of AlienSkin for adding grain, but I recently have been working with the NIK SilverEFEX Pro and it's really even better.

[Nitnaros]

Thanks, Jamie;

confirms my experience.

 

Yes, there is banding in my flower image; most visible above the white flower.

 

Peter

[Advertisement]

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

[ndjambrose]

This example is one of mine at ISO 2500.

 

Note the banding is quite well controlled. This is because I overexposed the image by 2.5 stops. The DNG file is a disgusting mix of exploded magenta (shot with a Noctilux hence no IR filter) and is totally unusable for a colour version. If you saw it you'd probably junk it.

 

But this is quite a good way to get very usable monochrome images at 2500. The highlights can be recovered easily, and the shadows and mid tones fall exactly where needed.

 

Dark room, dance floor with disco lights only, f1 @ 1/30.

 

 

[fordfanjpn]

Digital Black and White

 

Go to page 5 for an explanation and a free downloadable scan of Tmax 400 grain that you can add to your own images.

 

Bill

[Hartmut-2]

Hello everyone,

THANK's A LOT !!! for all your tips, thoughts and ideas. It is really overwhelming to see so many interesting answers to my question. There is now a lot of material for soem experiments and surely to reflect again some interesting thoughts as to whether it is really necessary to simulate something that is not available - because it is digital. I agree, this is not necessary and one can take a conventional camera - but I'm not a professional photographer - it is just my hobby. I do not have so many other cameras. ( just a small Nikon digicam and a Nikon F90X (= N90X) for conventional film.) The main reason to look for the M8, was to avoid so many kilos to carry , what I have to do , taking my Nikon with my defferent lenses .... many kilos ! Life is now much easier with the M8! Ok this was only one reason, the other was surely that I fulfilled myself a long lasting desire

Anyhow, I will see what I can find out with your help in regards to the functionality of Photpshop. One thing is always in my mind: one of you wrote that one should invest as well in CS3 - if one spends a lot of money for the photo ... I do not really understand why ... I do not want to modify my pictures that drastically that I see a need for removing objects or adding others etc .....the typical photoshop stuff. For black & white I can live very good with the jfi-filters for the use in Capture One - I think this is pretty good, and easy to use.

BTW. one additional question to C1. : Does one of you know, how I can include the photo paper profiles from jfi in C1 that I can select them under the correct item? What I mean is : In the "Quick tab" of Capture One, I can apply the ICC profile - I can e.g. select one simulating a yellow filter for black & white. The next element in teh Quick-tab is "Gradation" . Here I can select "extra shadow" "linear" and "contrast". I'd expect to find in this selection as well the jfi-profiles to simulate the different photo papers ... but this does not work. I find them only in the ICC profiles. Therefore I cannot combine a filter with a simulation of a paper? .... If I could select them separately this should work - right? Or are my thoughts wrong?

 

Finally I'd like to share with you a photo I took in the Mercedes Benz Museum in Stuttgart - still without some "grain" - but the only one I think which is acceptable to share here. I I see sooo many excellent photos here .. it is not so easy for a newcomer to share something what seems to be OK for this forum.

I need to resize it and then I will attach it to this thread..

Thanks again to all of you,

Kind regards,

Hartmut

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!

[ndjambrose]

... One thing is always in my mind: one of you wrote that one should invest as well in CS3 - if one spends a lot of money for the photo ... I do not really understand why ... I do not want to modify my pictures that drastically that I see a need for removing objects or adding others etc .....the typical photoshop stuff ...

 

Photoshop is named as such because it was designed as a tool for Photographers. Most people don't really know how to use it, and the common perception is that it's for cloning areas of an image or altering colour. In fact, these are its least interesting features.

 

The power of Photoshop is in its use of masks and blend modes. These are the tools that can be used to correct an image with extreme precision and subtlety. It was designed as more powerful alternative to the wet darkroom, enabling modification of luminosity and tone in an image at will. Next to my lenses, I count it as the most important photographic tool I own. It's a difficult learning curve and some people never master it. But then the same was always true of the darkroom too.

[chris_livsey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There's nothing wrong with adding 'film' grain or digital noise to digital photographs, but I feel like if you want the look of film grain you should shoot with a small-format film. A characteristic of digital capture is a grainless, almost large-format look, so why not appreciate the inherent look of the medium instead of trying to make it look like something else? .

 

This is the same problem that saw photographers using two Ms one loaded with BW one with colour. I really want to walk around with one body and have the freedom in processing to produce either a BW film look or a smooth large format look depending on what I meet as a subject when out and about. Yes in an ideal world I will set out with a film M and shoot for that but digital does give the possibility of "imitating" a number of traditional looks. Maybe not perfectly or in a purist manner but it does give versatility.

 

I don't think the medium (digital) has been with us long enough to develop it's own look, other than that over processed plastic feel, and perhaps it inherently is destined to mimic the past but only time will tell.

[russell]

I noticed the same problem with banding (or griding as I call it) as Nitnaros. With high iso (2500) in daylight or high shutter speeds I dont get it. With low light and low shutter speeds I get it.

I've heard the discussions on overexposing and I think there is something to what people say. But the banding is always(?) there once the shutter speed gets below 1/45th-ish. Going for overexposure at that point doesnt reduce the banding.

And the pattern is so regular, I wonder why they dont have a fix in the firmware for it.

[chris_livsey]

I have tried Silver EFEX now trying alien skin. This is one click on the jpeg for Tri-X no other changes.

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!

[Hartmut-2]

Yes you are correct - I do not know how to use it - otherwise I'd like it - most probably. I never learned to use the darkroom ... You might be correct: If I knew how this works I would be able as well to understand much better the features and functions of suchphotoshop tools.

 

My only chance is then to accept the challange in order to learn photoshop ----- at least teh elements version of it?

 

My biggest fear ist always that I completely destroy the "quality" of the picture not knowing exactly what the tool does because I cannot overlook the complexity of it operation ...I cannot draw the line to any comparable darkroom operation ... because I never learned it.

 

Anyhow .. a lot of challanges ahead of me !

[Hartmut-2]

BTW. I must admit that in the picture above I did exactly what I said I want not to do - I removed something. Here I removed a white information display, and a "corner " of the next car . The disply was such a typical museum acessory on which you can read the information about the car etc.. But that thing really destroyed the picture So - OK I have to agree that a photoshop like tool is sometimes helpful.

And In undertsood that I need to learn much more about it in order to use it correctly with the darkroom features.

 

WOW - I just saw the picture including some grain .... mmmhhh seems at a first glance a little bit too much ? . But I will check out all the tools and suggestions I saw in this thread. For a beginner in the "picture modification and inprovement work" all this is really helpful !

Thanks again for your support !

[chris_livsey]

WOW - I just saw the picture including some grain .... mmmhhh seems at a first glance a little bit too much ?

 

Tri-X grain is not subtle. you should see the push one and two stops results.

 

As posted this is not experienced use of photoshop. The plug in is launched with one click and converted with a second then saved. Time was say 30 secs in total. I think you need a "full" version though for these types of plug in.

[jaapv]

Yes you are correct - I do not know how to use it - otherwise I'd like it - most probably. I never learned to use the darkroom ... You might be correct: If I knew how this works I would be able as well to understand much better the features and functions of suchphotoshop tools.

 

My only chance is then to accept the challange in order to learn photoshop ----- at least teh elements version of it?

 

My biggest fear ist always that I completely destroy the "quality" of the picture not knowing exactly what the tool does because I cannot overlook the complexity of it operation ...I cannot draw the line to any comparable darkroom operation ... because I never learned it.

 

Destroying is impossible - if you keep the RAW file safe-; you can always bin the result and start anew. I repeat, the Scott Kelby books are excellent and not expensive. Scott Kelby Books

[jaapv]

Have you got a profiled monitor? I can see banding in the above image perfectly clearly.

Looking on an Eizo GC19 profiled now - there is indeed some banding. I doubt much would show in print though. In general, most banding I see is with very low-light images, and nothing like the original banding in 2006. I have the feeling there is some variation between cameras, and the RAW developer appears to make a difference too.

[Tom M7]

Hi

 

Here's another alternative. The software is Picasa2 which can be downloaded for free from Google. Here's your image with added film grain:

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!

[adan]

Nevern did get the point of adding "grain" to digital images. - Sort of like attaching a loudspeaker to my M8 to carefully reproduce (at full volume) the Ka-Whang of an SLR shutter/mirror.

 

Grain was a necessary evil with film - with digital it is no longer necessary, and is no less evil...

[Kent10D]

Adan, I agree totally (except that I don't consider grain "evil" ... it's a "characteristic").

 

If you want grain, use a medium that has grain.

Lacking that, use what you have and make the most out of it. Subject selection, composition, and exposure are likely to have a much bigger effect on images than adding grain as an afterthought ever will.

 

It's a digital camera guys! Get digital with it!

(Or dust off your M2/3/4/5/6/7).

[fordfanjpn]

Anyone who considers grain to be "evil" should read Barry Thornton's "Edge of Darkness."

 

Didn't anyone ever stop to consider that it might be too difficult (or perhaps too expensive) for some people to acquire two camera systems just to get the best of both worlds? I see nothing wrong with shooting digital but occasionally wanting to get a bit of a film look to certain shots. It's a matter of taste and personal preference, and not subject to any rules or mandates handed down by the holier-than-thou elite of any forum, this one included. If I want to shoot digital and add grain to my images in post, then that is, to put it mildly, nobody's damn business but my own!

 

OK, now that I got that off my chest (sorry for the rant, I haven't had my morning coffee yet), here's the Benz picture with an Alien Skin Exposure Tmax 100 conversion. It's just a click and save thing, no tweaking.

 

Bill

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!

[alexc]

I am using Color Efex Pro 3 from: Nik Software, Inc. | Welcome

 

Not cheap but very good. A lot of presets with a lot of controls. You can create any effect.

check the site.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[KM-25]

IMHO, you cannot create film grain in digital photographs.

 

You can get close, by using software such as Alien Skin Exposure, but it's not the same as using film. And never will be.

 

Sure you can, just put a macro lens on your favorite DSLR and take a photo of a Tri-X neg......