How much grain do you like?
Grain
-
A
- Thread starter Markok765
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Polaroid Goodies!
- Started by Howl23
-
For Sale FS: Linhof 4x5 Technika Sliding Back for Roll Film Holders
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Linhof 77mm 3/8" to 1/4" Tripod Adapter Plates
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Sekonic Digi-Spot L-488 Meter
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Free Leather Case for Pentax Spotmatic F Camera (real leather)
- Started by Kodachromeguy
Forum statistics
It depends on the subject matter and what message is being conveyed.
OP
OP
Just take the poll!
Markok765 said:
I did. Look at the results...
Couldn't say it better myself - my thoughts exactly.t_nunn said:
I suppose this leaves the question of what one shoots - and in that case, I think I tend to take photos that I want to see in a more gritty rendition most of the time, and thus I say I am one who likes grain.
gnashings said:
It also fails to take into account those who ONLY shoot color.
OP
OP
Is there grain in color? i think it just has some annoying colored dots which resemble grain.roteague said:
BTW,i saw someones signature saying: my photos are without all that distracting color. so true.
Marko
Markok765 said:
Well, color is much more difficult to master....
OP
OP
Depends,in color you have to think about colors, and how they relate to each other also the color temp. in B&W you think about lighting, texture and tonality, opinions?roteague said:
Sometimes I want grain, sometimes I don't. Unfortunately there isn't a 'depends' option. If I do then I'll shoot HP5+ at ISO3200 and develop it in Rodinal 1+25. If I don't then I'll use PanF, FP4+ or Delta 100 and develop in Ilfotec DD-X.
OP
OP
You could just check off what u likeAndy K said:
I like all three options.
OP
OP
So do i. why does it say ur offline when ur online?Andy K said:
Need another box for "All of the Above" or just "Yes"
Grain is just a means to be expressive. When used correctly, a grainy print can be as attractive as an 8x10 contact print.
This is the toolbox, that we, APUGGERS have !
M
This is the toolbox, that we, APUGGERS have !
M
t_nunn said:
I'm with t_nunn. Depends on what you want your final image to look like.
Some subjects suit lots of grain, others, as little as possible. I chose all 3 options. But in fairness of your poll, I tend to go with Pan F and FP4.
Just be sure to eat whole grains, and don't plane against the grain.
I'm with travis on this one too, BUT if I had no choice but to choose just one option, which it seems this is what the poll is about, it would have to be 'normal'.
Regards, Art.
Regards, Art.
Markok765 said:
Pour moi? Toujour fine. Toujour.
Larry
Another choice should be added, "Variable - an aesthetic choice".
I have used every "graininess" one can imagine at one time or another - depending on what "works". Delta 3200 in Rodinal? Of course ... when appropriate -and *I* get to decide when it is appropriate. Actually, that can be considered "mild" in some quarters. I, and others, have used grain far larger than than that - grain screen overlays ...
Possibly, we should ditch the use of the term "grain" - after all. it is a texture, and all kinds of textures can be useful in the pursuit of "what works". The texture called (watch me butcher the spelling here) "craquelure" - the random "cracking" seen on old oil paintings - can be a significant element of the aesthetics of the work.
There is/ was a company specializing in "grain screens" of various textures - to be placed over the paper in printing - for that very purpose.
Textures - all textures - are, simply, more "tools in the box".
I have used every "graininess" one can imagine at one time or another - depending on what "works". Delta 3200 in Rodinal? Of course ... when appropriate -and *I* get to decide when it is appropriate. Actually, that can be considered "mild" in some quarters. I, and others, have used grain far larger than than that - grain screen overlays ...
Possibly, we should ditch the use of the term "grain" - after all. it is a texture, and all kinds of textures can be useful in the pursuit of "what works". The texture called (watch me butcher the spelling here) "craquelure" - the random "cracking" seen on old oil paintings - can be a significant element of the aesthetics of the work.
There is/ was a company specializing in "grain screens" of various textures - to be placed over the paper in printing - for that very purpose.
Textures - all textures - are, simply, more "tools in the box".
I prefer not to have grain "show" in most of my prints, this comes from shooting fine grained films in general and liking the look it yields. There are times when it is an aid to portray textures and contrast, a necessary part of the print. For me, the best grain is just enough to give the feeling of texture, but not enough to see as a part of the image during the first look. While this may seem to be a contradiction, it is as close as I can come to an explanation.
One thing I like about shooting Efke 25 is its ability to convey a razor sharp edge, while retaining the smooth look in tonality and creaminess of texture it gives a shot. It is sort of like a scoop of vanilla ice cream. If the ice cream is too cold, it makes a rough texture when scraped from the container. If it is too warm, it is just a soft blob without substance. Somewhere between a hard scrape and a soft blob with enough texture to show the small particles of vanilla, edges and shadows. This is just right (of course, a small amount of chocolate sauce always helps when showing off the specular highlights).
Perhaps I should try a shot like this? Perhaps a photo challenge? Nope, would probably just eat the image before taking the shot. tim
One thing I like about shooting Efke 25 is its ability to convey a razor sharp edge, while retaining the smooth look in tonality and creaminess of texture it gives a shot. It is sort of like a scoop of vanilla ice cream. If the ice cream is too cold, it makes a rough texture when scraped from the container. If it is too warm, it is just a soft blob without substance. Somewhere between a hard scrape and a soft blob with enough texture to show the small particles of vanilla, edges and shadows. This is just right (of course, a small amount of chocolate sauce always helps when showing off the specular highlights).
Perhaps I should try a shot like this? Perhaps a photo challenge? Nope, would probably just eat the image before taking the shot. tim
None, no grain, unfortunately Ilford can't put Pan F on sheet film, my favorite is Panatomic X from Kodak next Agfa Pan 25. Interesting that the Kings of fine grain are discontinued. The poll stand up so far to the question of fine grain. Ilford should take a look at that and rethink the fine grain film line up. I will continue to pay almost double for Rollei Pan 25 than Ilford Pan F. Ilford needs to review why Kodak was number one for so long and get down to speed. People have been asking for slow speed films and a Super XX like film for at least a couple of years but Ilford just keeps putting out the same stuff adding some sizes and pretends to listen to it a customer base. I am the one of many who are not seeing what we have been asking for and have been asked to shut up.
Curt
Curt
Sharpness requires grain.
I used to play with techpan and the images never really looked sharp. Grain shape and size need to carefully be chosen for the degree of enlargement desired. I shoot a lot of 4x5 for enlarging to 11x14. I shoot a lot of TRI-X for this and develop in p'cat. For this kind of enlargement, I get razor sharp prints with almost no detectable grain. TRI-X has the nicest grain shape - a lot of little points.
For 6x6 enlarged to 16x20, I would not use this combination. I would prefer FP4 in MYTOL. Ilford grains have a kind of paisley shape that interlocks giving them an almost grainless appearance. I do not prefer the shape of their grain but for big enlargements, they are quite effective.
I just finished a project using a lot of Delta 3200 in Microphen. 6x6 to 8x10 enlargements have a little grit but not at all distracting. They look very sharp! As far as the poll goes - asking which grain - I prefer grainless and sharp. They are mutually exclusive though. There must be some grain for sharpness. So I guess I would pick the middle choice. I would never limit my creative arsenal to one kind of grain effect though.
I used to play with techpan and the images never really looked sharp. Grain shape and size need to carefully be chosen for the degree of enlargement desired. I shoot a lot of 4x5 for enlarging to 11x14. I shoot a lot of TRI-X for this and develop in p'cat. For this kind of enlargement, I get razor sharp prints with almost no detectable grain. TRI-X has the nicest grain shape - a lot of little points.
For 6x6 enlarged to 16x20, I would not use this combination. I would prefer FP4 in MYTOL. Ilford grains have a kind of paisley shape that interlocks giving them an almost grainless appearance. I do not prefer the shape of their grain but for big enlargements, they are quite effective.
I just finished a project using a lot of Delta 3200 in Microphen. 6x6 to 8x10 enlargements have a little grit but not at all distracting. They look very sharp! As far as the poll goes - asking which grain - I prefer grainless and sharp. They are mutually exclusive though. There must be some grain for sharpness. So I guess I would pick the middle choice. I would never limit my creative arsenal to one kind of grain effect though.
I have watched this question bounce around for nearly 60 years, and the replys are alway the same, I would like to see a new concept or explanation,
but am still waiting. My opinion on my own photographs is if the grain is visible in a finished print, that print is a failure. I hate the stuff and have fought it all my life, but it has been a loosing battle from the beginning. I see nothing creative about grain.
My opininon is about my own work, I care very little about how grain is handled or thought of by others, I just accept that it is a necessary evil built into Tri X by Kodak in a conspiracy against me personally!
Charlie.................................
but am still waiting. My opinion on my own photographs is if the grain is visible in a finished print, that print is a failure. I hate the stuff and have fought it all my life, but it has been a loosing battle from the beginning. I see nothing creative about grain.
My opininon is about my own work, I care very little about how grain is handled or thought of by others, I just accept that it is a necessary evil built into Tri X by Kodak in a conspiracy against me personally!
Charlie.................................
I love an optically razor sharp image with a tight, present grain.
Gimme 35mm Tri-X and D-76 and some 8x10 or 11x14 paper.
Gimme 35mm Tri-X and D-76 and some 8x10 or 11x14 paper.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |