What is 'grainy' to you?

[Thomas Bertilsson]

When someone describes the outcome of a print, whether scanned film and digitally printed, digital negative, or a direct enlargement as 'grainy', I can only relate to my own opinion of what 'grainy' is. It is a largely subjective concept.

I am interested in how you perceive it, without any quantum physics calculated interpretation attached. What is 'grainy' to you?

I'll have a stab at it. For the longest time I have used fine grain developers. Edwal 12 and replenished Xtol. Both yield a virtually grain free 8x10, barely perceptible grain in an 11x14, and noticeable, but not intrusive, in a 16x20 - all with 1" border, from 35mm TMax 100 or Acros. With 'barely perceptible' I mean that you have to get your face right up against the surface of the print to see it, preferably with a magnifying glass.
So last night I looked at some 35mm frames of APX 400, film kindly given to me by a generous soul. I processed the film in Rodinal 1+25, and agitated for 5s every 30s by fully inverting the tank, and for the full first minute. I expected grain galore, because typically my understanding of APX 400 has been that it has pronounced grain, isn't very sharp, and has an unappealing tonality.
Focusing on grain for this conversation, I was dumbfounded when I looked at the scan I made. This weekend I will print the same negative to get an even better idea of what the results truly are, but my first impression is largely impressive.
So I processed some TMax 400 in Rodinal, and some Acros, and I'm almost disappointed by how fine the grain is.

So I have started to think of grain as 'texture'. Grain is supposed to be in a print, right? It's what physically makes up the image on the negative. There could be no picture without it.

Attached is a neg scan that is about 90% of the 35mm frame, of APX 400, shot at 400, developed in Rodinal at 1+25. Can you see the grain? Well, you can see an approximation of what the grain will look like, and it will be a bit more pronounced because of grain aliasing, due to limitations of my V700 scanner.
Does the grain bother me? Not in the least. So I can't justify calling the picture 'grainy'.

Next up is an argument that I love to make. If a print is grainy - so what? Why does it matter? If the subject matter is appealing enough, the print values are strong and convincing, and there is enough sharpness behind the grain to make up an image that is clear - why does it matter that there is grain? That's a question, not an argument, and I would like to know your answer to it.

- Thomas

 

[holmburgers]

I guess grain is the "sign post" at the border of realizing you're looking at something other than the object that was photographed. If that makes sense...

Kind of like when you're listening to a record, and a scratchy portion reminds you that the band isn't right there playing for you.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I guess grain is the "sign post" at the border of realizing you're looking at something other than the object that was photographed. If that makes sense...

Kind of like when you're listening to a record, and a scratchy portion reminds you that the band isn't right there playing for you.

Interesting reply, Chris.

Is it, to you, possible to see 'through' the grain under any particular circumstance?

 

[Luseboy]

There is a certain beauty to grain, but it is one of those things that i believe people will choose to have it there or to not have it there. Some people love grain, some hate it. Some love it, but choose not to have it in their photography, and some hate it but enjoy the use of fast films too much to do anything about it. Personally, i do not like having grain in my images. I primarily use slow films (my favorite film right now is pan f+, which is a 50 iso film, virtually grainless). I haven't used anything faster than 125 for a while now. Personally, i find that grain does not support my style of work. It's not that i don't like grain, i think it looks great in a lot of work, but it just does not suit my work, so i try to not have it. I do know a guy who was very into pushing tri-x 400 to 1600 (if i remember correctly), in 35mm format, and make fairly large (11x14) prints of it. He loved the grain, and really emphasized it in his photography. I think it worked for his style. But it doesn't for mine, so i use slow films. Although with large and medium format i do acctually go up to iso 400, but with 35mm, i usually like to stick with about iso 100.
that's just what works for me, nothing wrong with grain for many other's work, and they are entitled to use whatever they want, whatever feels right!
-Austin

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There is a certain beauty to grain, but it is one of those things that i believe people will choose to have it there or to not have it there. Some people love grain, some hate it. Some love it, but choose not to have it in their photography, and some hate it but enjoy the use of fast films too much to do anything about it. Personally, i do not like having grain in my images. I primarily use slow films (my favorite film right now is pan f+, which is a 50 iso film, virtually grainless). I haven't used anything faster than 125 for a while now. Personally, i find that grain does not support my style of work. It's not that i don't like grain, i think it looks great in a lot of work, but it just does not suit my work, so i try to not have it. I do know a guy who was very into pushing tri-x 400 to 1600 (if i remember correctly), in 35mm format, and make fairly large (11x14) prints of it. He loved the grain, and really emphasized it in his photography. I think it worked for his style. But it doesn't for mine, so i use slow films. Although with large and medium format i do acctually go up to iso 400, but with 35mm, i usually like to stick with about iso 100.
that's just what works for me, nothing wrong with grain for many other's work, and they are entitled to use whatever they want, whatever feels right!
-Austin

That's a 100% fair reply, Austin. Thank you for chiming in.

If you don't mind, let me ask you the following: What is it about grain that you don't think works with your pictures? How does it get in the way? Is it subject matter related?

 

[bwrules]

For me grain size is only a problem if it does not resolve the detail I want to see. Otherwise, what's the problem? I think people are way too obsessed with the fine grain size. The odds are most pictures you take won't suffer from the loss of detail even with the Delta 3200. For many subjects fine detail isn't that important. Remember that grain was huge back in the day, yet people managed to take great, even iconic pictures.

 

[jp498]

I think grain is a basic part of a traditional B&W photo, like grit is a basic part of sandpaper.
You look at one, you scrub the other to understand it.

I don't want all my pix looking like 60 grit rough stuff though. So I err on the fine side, sort like if I could only purchase 150 grit sandpaper. If I want bigger grain with small grained TMY2, I'll back up and crop and enlarge bigger. Or I'll shoot a traditional film and develop in caffenol-C.

Contact printed or minimally enlarged grain is like finest stuff for wet sanding a car's paint job. In a photo, this attention to detail is nice smooth clean looking eyelashes in a portrait.

Other times, a different texture is called for, like grainier sandpaper is good for sanding a rough piece of wood, like using grainy film to replace skin pores for texture.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Grain is not evil. For example, if a photograph is slightly out of focus grain will make it look sharper than it actually is.

 

[2F/2F]

Grainy is when I can actually see the grain. More grainy is when I can see more grain than that. Really grainy comes next. Then super grainy. Level five is super dooper grainy. (Expletive adjectives may be inserted into any of the phrases levels 3 - 5.) I don't mind any of them if used well.

 

[holmburgers]

Interesting reply, Chris.

Is it, to you, possible to see 'through' the grain under any particular circumstance?

I don't know actually... it definitely serves to abstract the picture I think. For instance, I was looking at a book of Bruce Gilden photographs; the book was huge and one photograph would span both pages, the grain was enormous, and after looking at these for a while they started to look really weird, almost otherworldly. They stopped seeming like photographs and became "depictions" or something.

So whereas you ear can become used to a scratchy record, or a low-fidelity phone call, our eye seems to be more sensitize to deviations from reality. I think that's why foley artists have been successfuly fooling us for years in movies, whereas special effects & CG are often very uncanny.

But for the above reason, I think grain can be very useful.

 

[bwrules]

I agree. Large grain is an abstraction device, and is often desired. You probably want it as much as possible together with motion and camera shake blur.

 

[Dave in Kansas]

I would not call your picture grainy. Not at all. It's my understanding that Rodinal at higher concentrations like 1+25 tends to produce more grain than at higher dilutions, such as 1+100 so I don't know how you did that.

I generally prefer not to see grain my own pictures, although a number of mine have it, but it's something I have to live with. In certain subject material such as street photography, (which I current don't do) it can look just fine.

Dave

 

[2F/2F]

I love the way grain looks a lot of the time. I wouldn't say that I "see through it." I don't want to! It is just part of the picture to me.

 

[mark]

Grain hater here. That is why I moved to larger and larger fomats. Grain distracts from picture no matter what it is.
1-Grain makes the image look muddy. As seen in the example. The more pronounced the grain the muddier the image.
2-Grain detracts from the image by putting something into the image area besides the subject. no, I cannot see past it.

YMMV
3-In my opinion the more pronounced the grain the more the photographer does not know the limits of their materials.
4-IMO grain is more often used as a crutch to increase the "art" label of a lifeless image.

 

[MattKing]

I think many people form their opinions about grain when they first start doing their own printing. If, like me, that means opinions formed 35+ years ago while dealing with 35mm higher speed (ASA 400) film, it is not surprising that my perception of what is "grainy" is different than someone who started out with, e.g., T-Max 100 developed in X-Tol.

 

[bwrules]

YMMV
3-In my opinion the more pronounced the grain the more the photographer does not know the limits of their materials.
4-IMO grain is more often used as a crutch to increase the "art" label of a lifeless image.

I can't disagree more. First photography is _ultimately_ about pictures, not materials. Some just live with grain, or actually like it. Many of grainy pictures are far from "lifeless." Take a look at Robert Frank's and William Klein's work. Not to mention Michael Ackerman.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Grainy = success.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Grain hater here. That is why I moved to larger and larger fomats. Grain distracts from picture no matter what it is.
1-Grain makes the image look muddy. As seen in the example. The more pronounced the grain the muddier the image.
2-Grain detracts from the image by putting something into the image area besides the subject. no, I cannot see past it.

YMMV
3-In my opinion the more pronounced the grain the more the photographer does not know the limits of their materials.
4-IMO grain is more often used as a crutch to increase the "art" label of a lifeless image.

I appreciate your response. We all like different things, and with the below I am not criticizing. I am responding and discussing.

May I place you in the hot seat and ask you a question?

Can you appreciate the fact that you may be missing an awful lot of pictures that are brilliant in composition, mood, subject matter, meaning, message, culture, history, gesture, light, sharpness, emotional impact, etc just because you can't stand looking at the grain?
The underlying question being - why is grain so important in the photograph that it detracts from all these other important aspects of making a picture?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Grainy = success.

Hi Steve, thanks for your response.

What about the grain makes it successful?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think many people form their opinions about grain when they first start doing their own printing. If, like me, that means opinions formed 35+ years ago while dealing with 35mm higher speed (ASA 400) film, it is not surprising that my perception of what is "grainy" is different than someone who started out with, e.g., T-Max 100 developed in X-Tol.

That's interesting. A perspective of time, having lived with the improvement of the materials we use. Good point.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

As a reply to the whole thread: I feel that when my prints are sufficiently sharp, and that the grain is sufficiently sharp that it is resolved, I can look past it. But when the grain isn't sharp, it becomes an obstruction.

How do others feel about that statement?

 

[mark]

why is grain so important in the photograph that it detracts from all these other important aspects of making a picture?

Today with films like Delta 100, and T-max, there is no need for the grain to be noticable until sizes above 11x14 from a 35mm negative. If a faster film is needed then why would you enlarge it to the point of distraction. A successful image does not depend on BIG print. Nothing demands to be printed big. So why print to the point that the grain is a distraction. And for me the grain is a distraction if it is visible.

I have had the pleasure of seeing many many photographs from unknown as well as known photographers. I am pretty confident that I can see what the photographer intended. Many many times I have lamented that the photographer would have had a powerful image if they had printed it smaller so the grain would not have taken away from the effect.

Back in the good ol days of analog TVs did any one in the house accept a snowy picture or did they adjust the antenna until the snow went away? Did the family say, "oh what an artistic program, it is all snowy."? Of course not.

So my question to you is, what does having the grain present add to the image?

 

[2F/2F]

"So my question to you is, what does having the grain present add to the image?"

Texture, grit, artificiality, two-dimensionality, abstraction if it is heavy enough, a certain mood, etc.

Photography is not about making images to pre-established technical criteria. It is about making images that convey what you want to convey. Use of grain and elimination/minimization of it are both perfectly useful and valid techniques that can each serve a variety of concepts both well or poorly.

I am cringing at all the assertions that most of those who choose to use grain do it to add a cheap sense of "artsiness" to pictures. I disagree. Sure, there will always be bozos who use certain aspects of the craft superficially. But the same could be said about the extremely commonplace technique of minimizing grain. E.g. some will try to minimize grain simply to add a sense of professional artistry and craft to their work, or because they have always been told to do so. It is just as superficial and thoughtless as blindly using grain for "artsy" effect. Neither involve deep thought about how the technical elements of the image affect the concept. Technique is not used to serve concept in these cases. Technique is the arbitrary goal, often with nothing else there but that. They are both equally as gimmicky to many people. I know many people who use medium or large format simply to achieve some lofty technical end that doesn't suit their work at all, either in look or in the way that the speed of the camera used contributes to what one shoots. I find myself thinking, "Your images are too clean, and you are botching the ideal timing and taking a cumbersome approach for what you are trying to do with your work. Shoot a smaller, looser, faster camera, and utilize its aesthetic, and your results will improve tenfold."

 

[Kevin Kehler]

I generally prefer no grain, using Pan F @ 25 and trying to have less grain but that is because often my subject matter (abandoned farmhouses being a primary target) has a great deal of texture and the grain seems to distract from the texture. As well, too much grain in a sky seems to destroy the gradual tonality of it. However, there is an oil refinery in my town and when I take pictures of it (from the road, I am not allowed to photograph beyond the gates), I want a lot of grain because the grittiness of the film matches the raw industrial look I am trying to produce. Same with most of my street photographs: when I am trying to produce "raw" images, grain is acceptable; when I produce refined images, I want less grain. When I see grainy images, I think hand-held; less grain means tripod mounted. For me, grain is another factor like contrast or shadow placement for getting the image as I saw it.

That said, I can't stand T-Max or Delta films as they look too perfect for me. I like the classic grain structure of FP4+ and Tri-X.

 

[MaximusM3]

Grain is your friend, long live grain! In fact, just developed a roll of Tri-X @ 200ISO and fried it in Rodinal 1:25 for 11 minutes. Love it, always!

Here is a quick scan: