sharpness, grain, film size, and aesthetics

[WGibsonPhotography]

To me grain is a necessary evil which comes from working with fast films in miniature format.... I think that people have come to accept excessive grain because it has become so commonplace since the time when 35mm largely displaced medium and large format (for example, in reportage). We have gotten used to something which would have been regarded as a technical deficiency before the fifties and sixties.

Is grain still a deficiency if a grainy picture is the look I'm going for?


I voted "it depends." For color, I like the fine grained look. I'm not sure why, though. For me, I think the grain interferes with the smoothness of the colors. I'm really not sure how to explain it :/ I guess I just dont like looking at specks of color. I'd rather see continuous color with no "specks." (I have a headache, and that's the best way for me to explain it right now).

For black and white, I like grain. HP5+ and Delta 3200 in Rodinal are my combinations of choice

 

[keithwms]

Definitely depends for me. For most images I think grain is essential and really contributes, while for others it is a distraction.

For colour photography I usually do not like grain, whereas for b&w I often miss it if it's not there. I am not quite sure why this is so but I suppose it is because I generally push enlargement much more with colour (slides) and just don't care for how c41 grain enlarges. Looks too much like digital colour noise to my eye.

My preferred grain structure is that found in fp4+, hp5+ and the like. I haven't formed a productive relationship with the t grains. I am also somewhat underwhelmed by what the pyros do for grain. I mean, is it there or isn't it??! I need something definitive in my b&w.

 

[brian steinberger]

It does depend for me as well. As already stated, for landscapes finer grain the better, but for most of my other subjects I don't mind the grain. I shoot almost exclusively MF with Neopan 400 and find the grain very attractive in prints up to 11x14. This works well for me, and also the speed advantage is nice as I handhold most of my work. I like to see some grain in a print, it really makes it sing to me.

 

[aparat]

I like grain in BW film. It is a part of BW aesthetics for me. However, my experience is rather limited because I have never exposed a negative larger than 6x6 and do not make prints larger than 11x14.

 

[Prest_400]

For landscapes, I usually don't like grain. The finer, the better.
But for indoors typically low contrast scenes, for portraiture, I love some visible fine grain.
I agree with aparat, a bit of grain in B&W adds something to the picture.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

There are images for which grain is appropriate, and others for which it is not. There are images where grain adds structure, and there are images where it detracts. It's a matter of choosing the right tool for the job.

 

[VaryaV]

John - thanks for starting this thread. I am thoroughly "jacked" about everyone's input, ideas, and results. I have done a lot of D3200 at 1600 at 3200 but no further. Over the weekend I rated 2 D3200 rolls at 1000. Souped DDX for 6400. Contact printed them but have yet to enlarge to really see what I got. I am hoping to get real gritty results for this noir/crime series of my toys I am doing. I am still testing to see what process I want and what combo says it for me.

Thomas - I am inspired to try the Rodinal 1+25 semi-stand, too. Have never tried it before. Fabulous grain and range you got.

This is great feedback, everyone and thanks........ CHEERS.

 

[WGibsonPhotography]

I...just don't care for how c41 grain enlarges. Looks too much like digital colour noise to my eye.

I think that might have been the words I was going for when I posted

 

[Sirius Glass]

... and just don't care for how c41 grain enlarges. Looks too much like digital colour noise to my eye.

Visit me when you are in the area and I will show you some 24" x 36" C-41 prints from 35mm. If you come up really close you will see C-41 that looks like grain and not digital color noise.

Drop by, I will serve drinks.

Steve

 

[removed account4]

its been 4.5 years
any new answers to the same old riddle ?

 

[Sirius Glass]

No one showed up for drinks.

 

[removed account4]

i've been thinking of this thread a lot lately ...


these days, i wish there was a way i could use a developer
and film to have selective grain. ...
to develop the film in such a way to
have parts of the image grainy, and some of the image
not so grainy. i've been thinking of somehow concocting
a developer paste ( or ? ) like was in the old polaroid pods
and smearing it on part of the film and regular developer on the other
parts of the film and seeing what happens. i know i could also
develop the negative 2x, using rubber cement to shield from one of the developers ..
( used to do this for selective toning all the time )
unfortunately i think what will happen is there will be a drastic
change in where one developer was and the other wasn't
like a line, instead of a gradual merging.
i know there are ways of introducing grain and texture in the printing
of an image, but i am tired without a lot of time to devote to printing
so i would rather have this in the photographic negative ...

 

[astroclimb]

jnanian....sometimes I actually DO stick my nose right up to a painting or....(ok, I do stay far enough back to not set off the alarms or freak the museum attendant)....in order to see how the painter achieved the look they did. It is fascinating to me how technique affects art and vice versa. But perhaps I'm in the minority....

 

[removed account4]

hi astroclimb

your technique sounds great, as long as the alarms don't go off
i had a friend who i used to own an art gallery with a bunch of years ago. he painted with acrylics
and he did it in such a way that they looked like oil paintings. i have one of his paintings on the wall
and i always have my nose to it like you describe. its kind of like cake frosting. i always wonder how he did that ...

but with photography photographers ( for the most part ) examine the minute details instead of the big picture.
to each their own ( as long as they don't make the alarms go off ! )

john

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The most beautiful grain I've ever seen was Tri-X 400 (35mm) in PMK Pyro. Pretty exceptional.

Unfortunately, I couldn't make the negatives print the way I wanted them to on variable contrast paper (probably because of the stain), so I gave it up. With graded paper it was the bees knees.

I embrace grain, and I also don't care too much about it. In my opinion, tonality is a much more interesting visual statement, and something that screams at you from across a room. Grain is, well, the make-up of the image. Like our dear friend Flotsam said, it is supposed to be there.

 

[flavio81]

I embrace grain, and I also don't care too much about it. In my opinion, tonality is a much more interesting visual statement, and something that screams at you from across a room. Grain is, well, the make-up of the image. Like our dear friend Flotsam said, it is supposed to be there.

I think i also agree. I embrace good tonality and sharpness. If the result is sharp, then the grain will not bother, and might increase the impact of the image. But there is grain and grain. I like tight grain, like the one in Tmax 400 for example.

 

[removed account4]

hi thomas

i enjoy grain too, but think it would be fun to be able to
be able to paint with the grain much like one paints with light.
i do this with liquid emulsion on paper sometimes, different developers
masking techniques brushes bla blah blah .. but with film i think
it would be more fun to make a unique transparency ( positive, negative it doesn't matter )
something unique that has relief, grain texture and nuance, much like some prints have ..
but as the 1st generation image ...

by all means enjoy the grain, that is what is there for ...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

hi thomas

i enjoy grain too, but think it would be fun to be able to
be able to paint with the grain much like one paints with light.
i do this with liquid emulsion on paper sometimes, different developers
masking techniques brushes bla blah blah .. but with film i think
it would be more fun to make a unique transparency ( positive, negative it doesn't matter )
something unique that has relief, grain texture and nuance, much like some prints have ..
but as the 1st generation image ...

by all means enjoy the grain, that is what is there for ...

Can you make an in camera carbon print?

 

[removed account4]

Can you make an in camera carbon print?

maybe

 

[NedL]

I use mostly FP4 and Tri-X. Last week I made an 8x10 straight print from a 6x9 acros negative. It looks fine, but something was odd about it and I've had it sitting here in my room all week looking at it occasionally. I've had some trouble thinking about what I want it to look like and even if I like it but it is growing on me and I've decided to work on it more.

But the whole time I was printing it something was missing or "didn't seem right". I can't see any grain, and I knew that all along, but it really does change the whole "feel" of the print. It's hard to explain but when I look at the print, it almost makes me uncomfortable, like subliminally there is something wrong or disturbing about it! We get used to working with materials, I guess..

 

[jgcull]

I do. The thing I grumble most about when looking at certain of my prints is when they look "too clean". I like some grit to them... in fact I've been having this very conversation with myself this week, intending to give increased agitation to my next rolls from the Hasselblad.

 

[jimmyklane]

is it the same with grain, pronounced grain, smooth grain, grain that has
part of the image itself ( maybe the photographic image is about grain ? ) ..
do you flaunt it to show your work is a photograph?

flotsam suggested that grain is supposed to be there.
should it be? if it wasn't would you make it appear if you could ?
if you shoot a smaller than 120film format, do you try to make grain,
or eradicate it completely by your developers/agitation techniques?
if you shoot larger than medium format, do you because you dislike grain ?

as for me, i don't mind grain, but sometimes i have to do what i am told
and do without.

what are your views ?

thanks
john

When I shoot 35mm, I find that the grain can "take over" an image...and if it's not the right image (something that looks good gritty and 'dirty') then you've lost some of the original artistic intent. I've tried shooting slow film (PanF+, Delta 100) and developing for very fine grain, but I've come the (perhaps mistaken?) conclusion that when I shoot 35mm I'm going to have obvious and occasionally obtrusive grain....grain that looks like the image is made out of the grain like a pointillism canvas.

on the other hand, I simply LOVE the grain I get with HP5+ on 120....most of my experience is with 645, and I just developed my first roll of 6x7 last night (came out perfect!!! )....when I scan those in (sometimes I use my DSLR to digitize as well) I get a grain that almost always complements my original intent. It doesn't get in the way, but rather gives the illusion of even greater detail and sharpness!

One of the (lesser) reasons I went back to film was for the grain. Photoshop's "Add Noise" looks fake to my eyes, but for several years it was all I had. With the right image, and proper development and processing, film grain adds an undefinable, yet palpable, sense of reality and quality to a fine art image/print. When you consider street photography, grain is an integral part of the genre....if only because of its history and historic/iconic images!

-Jim