Origin of the "grain" quote?

[removed-user-1]

Hi all, I only joined APUG in January. Having once tried to explain the concept of "soft focus" to a d*****l "expert," without success, I am intrigued by the quote (which I find very appropriate for this forum!):

"That is called grain. It is supposed to be there." -Flotsam

I'd like to read the original discussion that gave rise to this quote, if it is out there on the boards somewhere.

 

[Mark Antony]

I think its in his signature, not sure it was in a thread-unless someone knows differently?
Anyhow its a great quote and the perfect answer to those d**i evangelists whose primary concern seems to be ultra-sharp dull flat grainless pics of dog/cat/ducks taken with their 8k wondercams.

 

[Marco B]

See this thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Marco

 

[Michael W]

Can't find what page it was on, but in the 1970s publication 'The Super 8 Book', Lenny Lipton wrote "If you love film then you must love grain".

 

[ann]

that quote is from one of the members here on apug. see macro' s thread about the details

 

[Prest_400]

Can't find what page it was on, but in the 1970s publication 'The Super 8 Book', Lenny Lipton wrote "If you love film then you must love grain".

Oh, grain. Wonderful. I dropped D* when I seen the results that I got the first time. Fine grain on ultramax plus a nice portrait. I was astonished at the print, it looked magical, the grain, the dimension... not flat like D* images.
So imagine, haven't looked digital since then.

I didn't think much about the quote, just knew that it was from an APUGer. Have some sadness after looking that thread, but well, life is life. I think that the quote is a good memorial to him.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Flotsam is still missed at APUG.

Steve

 

[removed account4]

Flotsam is still missed at APUG.

Steve

he sure is ..
and a handful of others

 

[Karl_CTPhoto]

Not to belittle the person who first uttered that quote, but a lot of the people that still shoot film do *not* shoot it because of grain; we hate grain.

I shoot film because it looks better and grain happens to look better than JPEG jaggies and pixelation.

I've noticed that not many people here shoot color, which honestly has a much bigger advantage than the, mostly older B&W stocks do. With the exception of TMY-2, there has been hardly any improvement at all on B&W films in the past several decades.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer fine grain. I avoid large grain if at all possible. But grain is necessary for sharpness and the photograph looks better with some grain. Sometimes grain adds the the mood in low light level photographs.

Steve

 

[CBG]

.... we hate grain ... not many people here shoot color ... there has been hardly any improvement at all on B&W films in the past several decades.

My first reaction when I read your post was to urge that perhaps you might want to consult with a few other folks before you speak for them, and consult a few technically expert sources about the general progress of the science.

But maybe I should calm down and just say that you don't speak for me. I love grain. I shoot color and B&W. And, I'd say the last few decades have brought impressive progress in B&W technology.

 

[jim appleyard]

How sad about Neal. I did not know of his passing. I never met him, but I always enjoyed what he wrote here on APUG.

 

[Mark Antony]

With the exception of TMY-2, there has been hardly any improvement at all on B&W films in the past several decades.

thats a VERY myopic view and factually false

 

[Sirius Glass]

With the exception of TMY-2, there has been hardly any improvement at all on B&W films in the past several decades.

thats a VERY myopic view and factually false

I agree with Mark. It is also inaccurate and just plain wrong.

Steve

 

[Chazzy]

Frankly, I'm a little tired of the Flotsam quote and preferred the previous one about the smell of fixer in the morning. Saying that grain is supposed to be there is a little like saying that farts are inevitable. The statement is true, but they're nothing to be proud of, and there's no reasonable rationale for seeking more farts, just because they're only human. Grain is just a price we have to pay in photography. Nothing to be particularly upset about, but nothing to trumpet either.

 

[jd callow]

Flotsam is still missed at APUG.

Steve

One of my all time favourite APUGers and a man I would have loved to have met. I hope his friends and family know how much he is/was appreciated by many here on APUG.

I believe Neal originally made the statement in a thread where he was recounting a conversation with a young digital photographer who had asked what the that 'stuff' was in a print.

and fwiw I will never grow tired of that quote, just as i loved Dr Bob's quote before it. I love grain. I look for it in prints. It is one of the subtle beauties of a print enlarged from film that it changes character as you move closer or further away.

 

[jim appleyard]

.... farts are inevitable. The statement is true, but they're nothing to be proud of,

If you were my friend Ed, you'd be proud. He turned it into an art form and could practically play a symphony; always out of tune, of course

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you were my friend Ed, you'd be proud. He turned it into a skill and could practically play a symphony; always out of tune of course

So he had GAS too!

Steve

 

[jim appleyard]

Yeah, he could light up a small country.

 

[clayne]

Not to belittle the person who first uttered that quote, but a lot of the people that still shoot film do *not* shoot it because of grain; we hate grain.

Correction: You hate grain.

With the exception of TMY-2, there has been hardly any improvement at all on B&W films in the past several decades.

But apparently there has been an improvement in the quality of weed.

 

[Karl_CTPhoto]

I can assure you I'm not high.

I wasn't speaking for anyone on this site. I am speaking for those of us that use film professionally.

Clients hate grain; therefore, so do we.

We want the best color, highest resolution, and smoothest imagery possible.

I don't speak for anyone on here except others who are, similarly, trying to make a living in this increasingly competitive field.


So does anyone on here shoot color or are you all predominantly a bunch of part-time hobbyist B&W photographers who do other stuff, like network design, or engineering, for you day jobs?


As for the person who told me that I am wrong about TMY-2 being the only improvement made since the mid to late '70s, I heard that from my KODAK rep. Would be happy to put you in touch with him if you don't believe me.

I've heard things said otherwise, but empirical testing negates them.

If you want to count Polycontrast IV RC, Kodak made little to no improvements when they tested it in early '04, and then it got discontinued anyway.

Forget the magazine, but someone in the article speculated that the differences were only due to Kodak's moving its B&W facility out of Rochester.

Feel free to disagree with me, but everything I say I have either verified myself or have on good authority.

Ilford films have made little to any improvement as well. I'd say they've only marginally improved their Delta films since the same time.

I'll stake my reputation on taking a negative I have from Deltas from the '80s scanned and compared to a Delta negative I shoot today, no one on here will be able to tell the difference, even at 250% magnification.

 

[Karl_CTPhoto]

I agree with Mark. It is also inaccurate and just plain wrong.

Steve

So because you and Mark say I am wrong, Sirius, without any examples to the contrary, that just makes it so?

This is an interesting place. . .

I'd be much more willing to take your views seriously if you gave me a reason to do so.

 

[sanking]

Correction: You hate grain.



But apparently there has been an improvement in the quality of weed.

Correction to the original. As Karl stated, most people don't like grain. Some do, and you are apparently one of them, but don't get mixed up and start to believe that you speak for the world.

Karl is wrong about improvements in film. In addition to TMY-2, which is big improvement in terms of grain compared to old TMY, the Portra color films have also been improved in terms of grain, at least to scan better. TRI- 320 has also been improved a lot in grain size in the last decade.

Sandy King

 

[JBrunner]

Lets not bicker and argue about who killed who. There is enough room for both print sniffers and Rodinal garglers.

The thing to keep in mind is that there are all manner of photographers on APUG, with all kinds of preferences, and end purposes. Hobbyists, artists, and many kinds of commercial shooters. Speak for yourselves, be kind, and respect others.

 

[Sirius Glass]

So because you and Mark say I am wrong, Sirius, without any examples to the contrary, that just makes it so?

This is an interesting place. . .

I'd be much more willing to take your views seriously if you gave me a reason to do so.

Just facts. Take a look at all the improvements in Kodak film in the ten years. For example, in color the Portra films. In black & white the T-Max films and the film improvements with the 2-electron emulsions.

You need to do some research. Start with the past threads on this site. Then check out what is going on at Kodak and Ilford.

I already raised my children, you will have to become on age of your own.

Steve