grain free ?

[removed account4]

hi

please dont' take this post the wrong way
but i just don't get it, i don't get it enough
that i had a parody thread about it a year ago
why do people love grain free images ?

i have always been the kind of person that believed
that grain and black/whte photography were kind of like
peanut butter and jelly, or cream cheese and a bagel ...

why do people always want to have grain free images ?

does the grain take away from the image?
one can't get up close without the subject breaking up ?
search for the holy grail ?

don't get me wrong ... many moons ago i exposed tech pan at 200
and enlarged specks in the middle of the 35mm negative to 11x14
it was a thing of beauty !

is that the reason, for massive enlargements ?


sorry for sounding utterly clueless and like i am poking fun, i am clueless, and looking forward to understanding.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I agree. A truly grain free image appears less sharp than one that does contain some grain. It all has to do with how the human brain processes visual data. So what is the purpose? Certainly not to produce a sharper image.

 

[Dr Croubie]

I really depends what look you're going for.
High acutance / sharp grain = sharp edges, perfect for detailed scenes.
But grain in flat areas like skies or skin can be distracting and/or ugly to some.

 

[Dali]

Maybe because there is no grain in real life and people want what they see on paper...? Just a guess.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Grain is needed for acutance and sharpness. The people who want grainless photographs are clueless about vision and perception.

 

[removed account4]

The people who want grainless photographs are clueless about vision and perception.

not sure about that ...
the tiny portions of the 35mm frames i enlarged were sun-lit leaves
i could have enlarged to 20x24 but i didn't have the wall space to project onto.,
it had nothing to do with vision or perception. the images were sharp as nails.

Maybe because there is no grain in real life and people want what they see on paper...? Just a guess.

maybe this is it ...

 

[dpurdy]

It is subjective. I don't like grain. And as far as it appearing sharper with grain, I don't agree. Grain interferes with the presence of the image. In my opinion. My opinion is the only one that counts to me.

 

[Bill Burk]

Yesterday I saw banding and pixelation in the clouds... I so very much wanted to take a picture to prove what I saw really existed. It was out of this world and looked like God had taken up Photoshop and was having some trouble with it.

I'm not one who demands a grain-free look, but I know some advantages.

One advantage of a grain-free 4x5 negative printed on 11x14 is that you can defocus part of the print and it will not be noticeable.

You can crop and enlarge a section of the shot and one picture will not look like it was cropped when compared to another, because you don't see the grain changing size.

Your enlarger lens can be poor quality and nobody can tell there was a variation in sharpness.

Creamy textures are pleasing to the eye.

 

[NedL]

I've been using acros lately in my 6x9 folder, and I can't see grain in 8x10 enlargements. I really like the way this film handles skies and greens and that if I burn in a highlight there is always detail to bring out. I "get it" when people say it looks "clinical", but I'm not sure if that is only about grain or also about the darkest darks or maybe other things too. The more I use it the more I like it, but it also feels like something is missing... I'm really looking forward to trying ADOX CHS 100.

Grainless or grainy only matters to me in combination with everything else. FP4+ can make beautiful skies spreading fine smooth grain all over... without the grain it would lose what I like most!

ONE TRUE GRAIN to rule them all....

 

[Malinku]

it seems the motto of photography is for the most Part. Grain free is the way to be. it just seems to be what is currently wanted in the pro photo world.

for me I love experimenting and see what comes of it. I do like nice "grainless" films but I found my 8x10s of delta 3200 shot at 1600 to have my favorite look.

grain is a necessary part of film and you either go with the films flow or you spend your life on a mission to elemate grain. Is how I view it.

 

[removed account4]

thanks

 

[bdial]

Sometimes I like it, sometimes not. For the not times I try to use a bigger camera.

One of the cool things about Ilford SPX is that it has grain reminiscent of 60's/70's Tri-X.
Ironically I avoided Tri-X back then because of its grain.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

It's a matter of preference. Some folks like lots of chunky grain, others like moderate tight grain, still others like barely perceptible tiny soft grain, etc. I like grain so small you can't see it but I also like lots of acutance. To me, separation of adjacent details, or microcontrast, is more important than grain size... to a point. No one is wrong... but I'm more right.

 

[markbarendt]

I agree. A truly grain free image appears less sharp than one that does contain some grain. It all has to do with how the human brain processes visual data. So what is the purpose? Certainly not to produce a sharper image.

I first heard that concept when read Ctien's book and I believe the effect to be real.

As I remember he suggested that it could make a slightly blurry or mis-focused shot seem more focused as it gave the eye something sharp to latch onto.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's a matter of preference. Some folks like lots of chunky grain, others like moderate tight grain, still others like barely perceptible tiny soft grain, etc. I like grain so small you can't see it but I also like lots of acutance. To me, separation of adjacent details, or microcontrast, is more important than grain size... to a point. No one is wrong... but I'm more right.

Of course you are right. The others can disagree with you but they would still be just plain wrong.

 

[markbarendt]

Grain interferes with the presence of the image. In my opinion. My opinion is the only one that counts to me.

I have struggled with this too, still do.

I enjoy shooting HP5 but in 35mm the grain sometimes seems to get a bit overwhelming of the smaller details when printed 11x14. For me Delta 400 or TMax 400 solves most of that issue and FP4 almost never disappoints in the print. Still and yet the last 100' roll of 35mm I bought was HP5.

Viewers of the HP5 prints from 35mm typically don't seem to care.

I gotta say though that in comparison prints from 6x7 FP4 or even more so anything in 4x5 amaze me with detail.

I don't know that I "need" grain nor that I even mind grain in most shots. What I don't care for is when grain becomes a subject that competes with the composition.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't know that I "need" grain nor that I even mind grain in most shots. What I don't care for is when grain becomes a subject that competes with the composition.

Which begs the question why people want to make large grainy photographs.

 

[markbarendt]

Which begs the question why people want to make large grainy photographs.

Well HP5 can be darn handy in a small camera with a fast lens and shutter when standing on the deck of a boat in the open ocean or at a bicycle race. Maybe all those grainy shots that need to be printed big are caught in situations like that.

 

[removed account4]

i can understand if looking at an image up close and it appears grainy and broken up
it might interfere with the image, but a bigger than a 4x6 or small contact print, if one isn't up close
the image might not appear to have grain at all. like with a 20x24 image that displays grain. up close you see it
but a few steps back it nearly disappears...
obviously it is personal taste why people do what they do ...

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Grain can actually be quite effective in a photo. I remember seeing the portrait of a man. His face was ruggedly handsome and the grain only added to that effect. The fast film had been developed in hot Dektol to further increase the granularity. The photographers name escapes me but he is well known.

Not all images have to be razor sharp. At one time the style of photography called pictorialism was very popular. Then there are the soft focus portraits by Julia Margaret Cameron that were much appreciated by Imogen Cunningham.

 

[markbarendt]

i can understand if looking at an image up close and it appears grainy and broken up
it might interfere with the image, but a bigger than a 4x6 or small contact print, if one isn't up close
the image might not appear to have grain at all. like with a 20x24 image that displays grain. up close you see it
but a few steps back it nearly disappears...
obviously it is personal taste why people do what they do ...

I have one 35mm HP5 negative of a neat storefront that was shot early in my film experience, that was shot at and processed for 1600 per Ilford's instructions.

It was a really nice composition and technically printed nicely but at 11x14, even stepping back, the grain was prominent, it was fighting for top billing over all the fun details in the composition. I almost quit using HP5 in 35mm outright after that shot, did switch to Delta, started using FP4 and Delta 100 not long after.

That shot was the spark (well final straw) that inspired me to do things differently.

I do still use HP5 in 35mm, but I'm more careful with the subject matter and I have to get pushed (ok nudged) into that corner because FP4 isn't fast enough.