"Defects" vs. print size

A couple of weeks ago I get a heck of a thread going asking about how film is made. Maybe this will be another outta the ball park question.

We all sort of fixate on the granularity and perceived sharpness of negatives. Lordy, the number of Pop/Peterson's/Modern articles showing grain patterns at huge blowups that I've scoured! And probably you, too. I still see the same topics here and with offerings of teensy little negative portions blown way up. In the meantime, for a given speed of film, granularity has gone way down over the years, and I'm not even getting close to Delta/T-grain films in my question.

So, my question is, "Just how important is granularity and sharpness to you in a practical sense?" If you made nothing larger than 3 1/2 x 5, you could shoot 3200 speed films all day and no one would say, "Wow, how grainy!" (I'm not referring to tonality, just grain and sharpness.)

Speaking in terms of 35mm, just how important is this anymore? At what size and viewing distances do these ancient concerns rear their heads? If you never make a larger print than 8x10, should you just ditch the concern? 11x14? 16x20? (Probably!)

And once into MF and LF, why is it a concern at all if you aren't making billboards? (Which actually isn't very high rez due to the viewing distance. I have a friend who has a friend that had a 35mm neg used for a billboard!)

Let the opinions issue forth!

Grain is your friend. It gives your prints character, mood, aesthetic appeal, and graphic look. Why would YOU want to get rid of it? What have you got against it. Smooth grainless prints are lifeless.
Methinks you have been sucked into the quest for the mythical magic bullet by the marketing hype.

Granularity and sharpness has always been critical in my personal work.

So I used the best combination of film/developer I could which for many years was APX100 in 5x4 and APX25 in 120 processed in Rodinal. I got almost identical results with Tmax 100 in Rodinal but at 50 IS0 half the speed of APX100

With 35mm I always found that APX100 developed in Rodinal was outstanding, but I think it was also the film/developer/lens combination as I shot with a late 50's Summicron. Crawley in the very early 60's suggested developers needed to be matched to lens capability.

THe luxury of working with 5x4 is you virtually always use a tripod so film speed/developer combination is immaterial. But now I have to work hand-held on many occasions so fast film/fine grain becomes paramount.

Ian

Grain is your friend - Grain is your enemy. Your friend when you want it, your enemy when you don't.

Here's another little thing to consider. I have seen, here on APUG lately, a few threads ridiculing imaging software because it has filters to recreate the grain of film. The argument implies that the grain patterns in film give a superior looking image which is desireable in digital images. So how do you explain that against the idea that film photographers should do all in their power to reduce grain in their prints and have smooth grainless prints like digital images produce. Learn to use grain to your advantage. It's what makes film unique.

p.s. perhaps you should go digital if you want grainless images:confused:

I love grain and I embrace it. But lately I stopped worrying about it so much, it seems to become less and less important. If an image is printed well I tend to not notice.
My two favorite films lately have been Ilford Delta 3200 and Kodak Plus-X. They're at the completely opposite sides of the grain spectrum, but I make prints from both kinds of negatives with a fairly similar and coherent look. It's not really a big deal in my opinion.

I have to shoot D****** for commercial reasons, the pixels & noise at high speeds equate very well to grain. No need for an added Photoshop filter.

Lowell Huff was posting a few weeks ago about grain screens you placed over the shutter aperture on 35mm cameras to give grain !!!! Yes they were made he sold them !!!!!

Ian

I never said grain is bad.

rob champagne said:

Grain is your friend. It gives your prints character, mood, aesthetic appeal, and graphic look. Why would YOU want to get rid of it? What have you got against it. Smooth grainless prints are lifeless.
Methinks you have been sucked into the quest for the mythical magic bullet by the marketing hype.

Click to expand...

Did I? Wow, do I detect some polemics here? Chill.

I just noted the efforts for the last 150 years in wanting to decrease, minimize, or alter grain. My question is, "Is it time to put this concern aside?"

As to digital, it has its own grain in the form of noise and artifacts. However, I just saw a comparison of several films and grain and for grins the writer did the shot with a D5. Grainless. Pretty amazing, whatever you think of grain.

I'm just pointing out that film photographers busy themselves trying to get rid of what they have whilst the digital photography world is busying itself trying to put into its images what the film photographers are trying to get rid of.

Where's the sense in that? They should just swap positions and everyone would be happy wouldn't they

I think grain is very important. It's completely in my (our) heads of course .... but hey isn't it great to have a cause? Isn't it great to have challenges!
Don't give in! Yes, I admit, film has gotten to where non-photographers wonder what we are all talking about, we can have whatever we want .... large grain ... no grain (well without magnifying glasses) BUT .... we must keep up the good fight. Can you imagine if there was no hill left to climb? No challenge left? Can you imagine the cruel void where the only answer to any question here would be "its all good."?

Grain is our friend ... because its our enemy! It's our right, our constitutional right to never be content. I tell you it is. Well at least here in the US of A.
I don't know about those dang Europeans. They are probably happy. Poor sods.