What is 'grainy' to you?

[clay]

Personally, I like grain, but I am particular about it. I like really sharp, well defined grain, and dislike mushy grain. And you can get either one with the same film depending on the developer you choose to use. One of the interesting things to me about grain is that it can give the impression of sharpness in an image even when the lens may not be the best. I find it fascinating that when I look closely at a 16x20 print made from a 4x5 negative side-by-side with a 16x20 print made from a 35mm negative that the grain can often make the the 35mm print appear sharper, even though it is clearly a psychological effect. The eye fastens on the clearly defined grain as being an indicator of acuity rather than fine detail in the image itself.

 

[vpwphoto]

My favorite grain is D-76 and Tri-x perhaps pushed a stop. Also P3200 pushed two stops in T-Max developer.
..... Rodinol and Tri-x too.

--- all enlarged to 6x9" full frame prints.

 

[Mark Fisher]

Is this the correct one, Mark?

Link

Yep......that is the right link,

This is a really interesting and civilized discussion. Makes me glad to be part of APUG.......

 

[sly]

In the past I've shot alot of TMax 3200 and Delta 3200, in 35mm. I was routinely shooting indoors, with available light, in situations where a flash would have been intrusive. I've got many photos from those days that I'm proud of, grain and all.
Now I seldom shoot 35mm. I've got an 8x10 and my favorite camera is my Crown Graphic, and my lightweight casual camera is usually my MF Yashica.

I have to agree with Thomas that grain is only one facet of an image. It's how everything works together that is important.

One thing no one has mentioned yet, but I miss about those 35mm 3200 prints - dust wasn't much of an issue, as those grainy prints were so easy to spot!

 

[MaximusM3]

I'm spending my 10,000th post on your photo, buddy. That is a beautiful portrait! And that grain adds some nice texture!

Thanks, T!
Grain: if there wasn't any, didn't like it, or look for it in my images...I'd shoot digital :w00t:
Kidding aside, there are times when grain detracts from an image and that, for me, falls in some of the landscape departments or where fine detail needs to be faithfully rendered. Aside from that, I always feel that it adds a sense of romance, third dimension, reality to an image. Yes, it is true that sometimes an otherwise boring image can acquire life with grain but that's perfectly okay in my book. It's about using the tools and tricks we have to turn the simple and mundane into, possibly, something artful and pleasing to the eye, for ourselves and others who may enjoy it.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Hmm... well basically in my eyes, with my own work, for some reason i find the tonal separation to be... well, inconsistent and blotchy. I like a smooth transition between tones. To me, a beautiful print is about it being smooth, even, with nice tone, and a nice changing of tone. With grain in my own prints, i just feel un excited, and kind of a little taken back. However i only feel this with my own work, perhaps because when judging my own work, i have a much more specific view on things, and i have an image in my head that i'm trying to replicate. I will admit that with other people's work, i do get more wowed with less grain generally. But grain can often be very pretty. I guess it comes down to how i imagine my images. I'm what you call a romanticist, and as such, i tend to try to have a "dreamy" look to my prints, This is why i tend to use sloppy borders, and satin finish papers, when i have that available. For me, grain does not fit in with my view of "dreamy". Now that's not to say that i don't think that other people will consider grain as being dreamy, but for me, it does not fit in. This opinion only affects my own work, and i'm not totally sure why this is, but i believe it has something to do with the fact that i am super meticulous about my work, and when looking at others work, i am more interested in seeing what they think is beauty, what they see in their head, what they decide is what represents them. For me, grain does not represent me, or my personality, so i don't think it has a place in my work. I don't know if this covers what you were asking well enough or not. Let me know if it doesn't, and i will further articulate

Thanks for articulating your point with more detailed description. Man, it's so difficult sometimes to understand what others mean by 'it didn't work for me', or 'I didn't like the results'... I understand what you mean now.

As photographers we are our own worst critics, for better or worse. I can understand your notion of not wanting too much grain in your prints.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I agree that it won't make or break a picture, but I believe that the absence or presence of grain can definitely add to (or detract from, theoretically) the quality of a photograph. Perhaps it's because grainy photos tended to be the ones where quality was sacrificed in order to at least capture a shot; a moment on film being better than one that was never recorded.

I developed some HP5+ for a friend I'm trying to convert to shooting film. I told him that it could be shot at 3200. He did so, and also ignored all low-light warnings to boot. The result is a very thin negative at 3200, with the film scans looking like a high-contrast 12,800. He loves the grittiness that these frames exhibit.

As a final note, the lack of grain was one of the reasons I abandoned digital photography. Everything looked too plastic, sterile, and inorganic.

To each their own, yes? I find it interesting what people like sometimes...

Grain is important whether we like it or not, because at the end of the day it's what makes up the picture in our negatives. We are bound to it.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

This has a lot to do with my direction right now. I started tunnel-visioning on sharp, grain-free, high accutance. There's definitely a place for that (I still lean that way for landscapes printed large), but there's a ton of character to be had going in other directions. Sometimes I see alt soft-focus portraits and think to myself, that's so far from where I've been going but still such a cool place to be.

As long as we never lose sight of what's important about the picture, it's all good.

I try to put my own view in perspective a little bit by thinking about what gets in the way for me. One thing, unlike you, that I can't stand is soft focus lenses. That just destroys the picture for me in a zillionth of a second. And I imagine grain can do the same for others...

But again, as long as we carry forward what we think is important about the picture, I applaud every effort.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

this is a hard thing to say, lets just say you know it when you see it, its a very subjective and depends heavily if that grain works for that image and paper combo or not...

Do I understand you correctly when I say that each picture calls for its own particular treatment?

Sometimes I think that's true too, but I also like to be able to produce an entire series of pictures with the same treatment. Otherwise I sometimes find it difficult to jump from picture to picture in the series and feel a continuation of a theme, and am forced to reset my frame of reference with each picture, which makes it unintuitive.

For example, what do you think of a photographer like Ralph Gibson? 35mm Tri-X over exposed and over-developed in Rodinal. Every single frame. Do you look at his work and think to yourself that he should have treated each frame differently?

I'm interested in hearing more about your philosophy.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I expect to see grain in greatly enlarged (8x10 and larger) 35mm images, especially mine, because I use Tri-X film almost exclusively. (I usually print 35mm to no larger than 5x7".)If the grain is excessive, I know my process is out of control. I rarely use slower 35mm film. If I want less grain, I go to medium format and 100 IS0 film. The camera goes on a tripod. Little or no grain in enlargements up to 11x14, especially from modern t-grain or similar emulsions.

I don't mind grain if the image is strong or if the content is more important than the image quality. I expect to see it in low-light, "pushed" film settings like night football games from a couple of decades back. It's just part of what it took to make the picture. That said, I prefer to make pictures that show little or no grain. My personal work is all on medium and large formats these days, so it's not really an issue.

Peter Gomena

Thanks for sharing your account, Peter. I love looking at, and making small prints too. Usually when I give pictures away, or sell them, they end up medium sized, so in a way, printing bigger than that from 35mm was almost forced upon me. And I was completely blown away with the results, as soon as I started using the Leitz Focomat enlarger. The Leitz is just one example of a really good 35mm setup, but that was the major revelation that enabled me to go much larger from the tiny neg without thinking that I was getting an inferior print.
With that said, a well done 5x7" jewel is as pleasant to look at as an equally impressive 16x20", in my opinion.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There's more to graininess than just the actual film and developer combination. Exposing the film more than it is necessary to obtain good shadow detail will increase graininess and lower the resolution.
The old 35mm magazines from around the 1950's-1960's always recommended using the minimum exposure required to get good shadow detail and the shortest possible developing time to produce a full tonal range on grade 3 paper instead of the usual grade 2, because that would provide the finest grain, with optimum sharpness and resolution.

I agree that technique can get us a very long way, and is often a little bit underestimated. All of the work certainly isn't done for us by those that make film and chemistry. Learning how to apply it to get the very most out of our materials is what makes the difference between good and great, in terms of print quality. No doubt about it.
I am currently printing older negatives, and they are a bit of a pantheon of different manufacture and model. Lots of different developers too. A lot of those negatives were far from ideally processed, and I find it infinitely more difficult to get a good print from them than it is with one of my newer negatives. And that is in terms of grain, sharpness, tonality, and most of all a 'balance' to the print that brings the best from the light that was available.

Technique is decidedly important. I would argue more important than our materials. By far.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Is this a discussion about whether we like grain or what is our threshold for "it's grainy" ?

For me (if you want a quantitative answer), FP4 at 8x enlargement (8x10" from 35mm) is getting annoyingly grainy and HP5 is entirely too crunchy. Delta3200 grain I generally don't like at all because (at least in stock D76) it has a horrible mushiness to it that negatively affects image sharpness. Delta3200 grain is pretty in Rodinal but a bit too much except at fairly small enlargements.

Most of the time, I like the (near-)grainless look, e.g. Pan-F, Acros or Efke-25 shot in 6x7 and enlarged to 12x16 or maybe 16x20, but that's a matter of the subjects that I typically shoot, where a clean, bright look suits best. I like to see just the tiniest touch of fine but very sharp grain - not so much that it detracts from the image, but just enough that the image has more apparent sharpness from all the high spatial frequency of the grain. It helps that Pan-F grain is just a bit finer than my lens resolution.

For some images where you want a dark/dirty/cheap/noir look, certainly heavy grain is appropriate and can improve the image. I don't do a lot of that myself but appreciate it in others' images - even when I'm shooting urbex style shots with abandoned ruins/graffiti/etc, I'll typically go for a fine-grained look. At most, I'll put some TMY2 in Rodinal, which results in IMHO a beautiful tonal curve and visible but tight, sharp grain.

I agree that the thread morphed from being about what 'grainy' constitutes, to also being about what our tolerance for grain is. It was a bit of an ulterior motive of mine at the get-go, so I'm glad it turned that way. But I feel that perhaps it was a bit deceptive, so I hope that hasn't turned anyone off.

Thanks for sharing your account! Most generous of you.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Hi Thomas, really great discussions you're prompting.


The grain is successful if it is visible, I like my pictures to show grain and if they do it's a success. I like to see grain in the areas that transition from dark to light. I like to see what might be described as fine sand on white paper. I exaggerate this as I print hard so that blacks are impenetrable and whites are pure white. I think the online jargon is blown highlights and blocked up shadows. I don't care about these areas, what interests me is what's in between and that transition between the two should show grain. I dislike grain free photos that look like shades of dolphin skin.

I wish that I could do something similar to this in colour where pure black and white are replaced by two extremely dense and saturated blocks of colour with an interesting and grainy transition between the two featuring a third colour. But alas the world is going grain free or at least grain suppressed. The trend is accelerated in colour where all the interesting 'texture' films are long gone. Colour films are now as grain free as my eyesight. I wonder if I could print a colour neg through a sandwiched clear piece of Neopan 1600. Might be worth a stab to see if it will colour balance...

Hi Steve,

Thanks for chiming in. Interesting notion about color work, and your idea of a sandwich Neopan 1600 negative to create color print grain confuses me a tad. Wouldn't you get zero grain in a clear piece of film? Since none of the silver is developed, and all of the silver is therefore fixed out, you are left with gelatin, basically... How does that give you the texture you want?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Personally, I like grain, but I am particular about it. I like really sharp, well defined grain, and dislike mushy grain. And you can get either one with the same film depending on the developer you choose to use. One of the interesting things to me about grain is that it can give the impression of sharpness in an image even when the lens may not be the best. I find it fascinating that when I look closely at a 16x20 print made from a 4x5 negative side-by-side with a 16x20 print made from a 35mm negative that the grain can often make the the 35mm print appear sharper, even though it is clearly a psychological effect. The eye fastens on the clearly defined grain as being an indicator of acuity rather than fine detail in the image itself.

Hi Clay,

The more I get into 35mm enlarging, the more I agree with your notion of a sharp grain. Whether it's fine grain from TMax 100, or coarser grain from Delta 3200, I like it sharp.

It's also interesting what you say about the illusion of sharpness, derived from grain. Since often times truth IS perception, it's a most valuable piece of knowledge to possess.

- Thomas

 

[perkeleellinen]

Wouldn't you get zero grain in a clear piece of film?

Hmm, maybe it wouldn't work then. I haven't tried it but with fast B&W films I'm sure I can see some sort of grain / texture in the clear leader. I suppose I ought to put a piece in the enlarger and see what it is.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Do I understand you correctly when I say that each picture calls for its own particular treatment?

Sometimes I think that's true too, but I also like to be able to produce an entire series of pictures with the same treatment. Otherwise I sometimes find it difficult to jump from picture to picture in the series and feel a continuation of a theme, and am forced to reset my frame of reference with each picture, which makes it unintuitive.

For example, what do you think of a photographer like Ralph Gibson? 35mm Tri-X over exposed and over-developed in Rodinal. Every single frame. Do you look at his work and think to yourself that he should have treated each frame differently?

I'm interested in hearing more about your philosophy.

To standardize your grain size, is it any different than to standardize the texture and material of a painters canvas? At that point does it add anything to the images at hand? Or does it so far remove itself that it becomes background noise?

Then at this point, the image itself, its content, its composition has to stand alone, be it glass like smooth or gravel rough grain.

All in all should you let grain define your image, or the content itself?

And to play devils advocate as well:

As photographers using the medium, we do not have the painters brush and knife, therefore the use of grain, and how we dictate its size and shape, is one of many tools which can add texture, shape, emotion, and feel to the content. Without it, would an image be less?

Truth is, it can go either way. in the end, it doesn't matter much, much doesn't. Just keep shooting and make it what you will.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Thomas,
I always over-develop my film, most of the time in Rodinal.
For my pinhole the illusion of sharpness is given by the grain. Without it it wouldn't work.
Grain is inherent to film and for me it's not an enemy.
Sharp grain is good.
See a Lith print. What makes it interesting is among other things his texture. Grain is the same, texture.
Best,
G.

 

[zsas]

I generally shoot wide open and thus have to use a low ISO film, consequently my photos are usually less grainy by virtue. That is my style per se and grain being absent from my photos is an afterthought because my approach dictates my output and the absence of grain from my photos does not mean I like it or not, it is just the laws of physics. Shooting film is very black and white (pun intended) and film grain is going to appear based on style. I would not shoot for grain or no grain, I would shoot for a desired output and the grain comes along for the ride. Others might have a different approach and that is completely understandable because film is just so fun!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

To standardize your grain size, is it any different than to standardize the texture and material of a painters canvas? At that point does it add anything to the images at hand? Or does it so far remove itself that it becomes background noise?

Then at this point, the image itself, its content, its composition has to stand alone, be it glass like smooth or gravel rough grain.

All in all should you let grain define your image, or the content itself?

And to play devils advocate as well:

As photographers using the medium, we do not have the painters brush and knife, therefore the use of grain, and how we dictate its size and shape, is one of many tools which can add texture, shape, emotion, and feel to the content. Without it, would an image be less?

Truth is, it can go either way. in the end, it doesn't matter much, much doesn't. Just keep shooting and make it what you will.

No, I don't think an image is inherently made more or less important with variation in grain. Not at all. So I think we agree.

Grain is, to me, an accent. It's not necessarily important, but it can look nice with some really sharp crisp grain! And it can look worse with some unresolved and dull grain. If you're able to tune the grain for different pictures, then more power to you. That's a good thing, if you believe it enhances the picture.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas,
I always over-develop my film, most of the time in Rodinal.
For my pinhole the illusion of sharpness is given by the grain. Without it it wouldn't work.
Grain is inherent to film and for me it's not an enemy.
Sharp grain is good.
See a Lith print. What makes it interesting is among other things his texture. Grain is the same, texture.
Best,
G.

Hey G.

I am glad that we agree on so many things! I shoot pinhole too, and use grain to make an illusion of sharpness, and I also like to call it texture, as opposed to grain.

Thanks for sharing.

- Thomas

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I generally shoot wide open and thus have to use a low ISO film, consequently my photos are usually less grainy by virtue. That is my style per se and grain being absent from my photos is an afterthought because my approach dictates my output and the absence of grain from my photos does not mean I like it or not, it is just the laws of physics. Shooting film is very black and white (pun intended) and film grain is going to appear based on style. I would not shoot for grain or no grain, I would shoot for a desired output and the grain comes along for the ride. Others might have a different approach and that is completely understandable because film is just so fun!

Definitely a very logical explanation of how you see it.

Just to clarify, I happily print 120 Acros negatives where it's difficult to find grain in the grain focuser. 4x5 too. And I happily print 35mm Delta 3200. Grain is definitely not anywhere near a deciding factor. Like you say, depending on the situation our choice can be anything from 8x10 Efke 25 to 35mm Delta 3200.

 

[bwrules]

There is enough detail in his face to show a slight facial expression. It's also smudged a little by the motion blur, and it's probably not completely in focus. Has it been finer-grainer, it could work better.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There is enough detail in his face to show a slight facial expression. It's also smudged a little by the motion blur, and it's probably not completely in focus. Has it been finer-grainer, it could work better.

That goes to show how tastes between different people vary.

My contribution to your rationale above is that you should have used a faster film, so that you would have avoided motion blur, and then let the grain be what it is.

 

[polyglot]

I would agree that some grain and shallow DOF is preferable to (unwanted) motion blur.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I like grain sometimes!

Jeff