Why is grain sometimes beautiful, sometimes dull, sometimes ugly?

ame01999 · Oct 16, 2024

I've just been flipping through Phaidon's Photo Book as well as analog-originating photos on Instagram, and in so many monochrome examples, the grain lends a beautiful quality—not just adding sharpness, definition, and artificial detail at moderate levels, but creating interesting textures even where some fine-art photographers might term it "obtrusive."

One of my old photo teachers always shot (classic) Tri-X, in sun or shadow, indoors or out, on medium format Hasselblad. His photos looked banal to me: none of the smooth, luscious gradation you'd typically get with medium format on 100-speed films, just grainy and dull. (I wish I remember which developer he favored).

Sebastião Salgado to my knowledge largely shot classic Tri-X, pushed two stops, with overwhelming grain, but most of the time it looks beautiful, even if it's gritty-beautiful.

Whereas beginning photographers following the instructions of their HP5 packaging likely under-expose and overdevelop their photos of wide-contrast subjects, leading to generally ugly pictures with low resolution and clumpy grain.

Finally, how does post-development contrast affect grain? Increased development, as far as I know, leads to larger grain, with more clumping, and thus less resolution. Barry Thornton points out in his Edge of Darkness that if you really want dramatic grain, you can instead develop for a flat negative, and then print with a 5+ contrast filter.

cerber0s · Oct 16, 2024

I can only answer your first question, and only from a personal perspective: Grain, contrast, and tone all complement the depicted scene. Without an aesthetically pleasing composition, grain means nothing. Some photos are made better by grain, some are made worse.

loccdor · Oct 16, 2024

What I came to realize is that sometimes we think we're evaluating one aspect of a photo when we're really looking at another.

It's because all the aspects of the photo interact. Grain doesn't really do anything by itself. Changing the contrast curve of the photo also changes the contrast of the grain. Scanning/printing the photo at a different resolving power changes how the grain looks. Grain looks different when it's over a very homogenous area of the picture versus one with lots of contrasty detail. Or when shot with a contrasty lens vs a softer one.

But beyond that, sometimes we really just love the subject of the photograph, and that causes us to fall in love with all the other parts of it: the camera, the lens, the film, the development.

Regarding increasing contrast in post, I do that on most of my images - perhaps your photo teacher didn't like that look. We all have different tastes and probably we all even see at different contrast levels. I manipulate the contrast until the image "sings" to my eyes, it's an actual feeling that I get when I'm tuned into what I'm doing, very similar to the exciting, tingly feeling we get when we look through a camera and see a really good image is there.

DREW WILEY · Oct 16, 2024

I admire the distinctly gritty look of a lot of older journalistic work dependent on Triassic-X. But I don't want that same look in many of my own prints, and rarely shoot even modern Tri-X in any format. The presence of conspicuous grain in an image is just one more potential esthetic tool to exploit or not. Do what works for your own visual interest. What were classified as "fine-grained" films in the 1940's would now be classified as buckshot or shrapnel. If we want extremely fine-grained medium speed films, we have them.

I only shoot HP5 in 8x10, and develop it exclusively in PMK pyro, which lends a lovely unique "watercolor grain" effect - internally blended but with very strong edge acutance, almost etched looking - that is, at the sweet spot of enlargement up to 3X - more than that, and it starts looking mushy. Other developers have a different effect. Experiment.

AnselMortensen · Oct 16, 2024

An excellent question!

xkaes · Oct 16, 2024

cerber0s said:
Some photos are made better by grain, some are made worse.

Since this is true for me as well, it's helpful to carry more than one film.

I'll also add that acutance and grain are not the same thing. Some photos are made better by acutance, some are made worse.

MattKing · Oct 16, 2024

Grain plays an important role in something that we perceive - the partly objective and partly subjective phenomena of apparent "sharpness".
Apparent "sharpness" is a function of acutance - edge/micro contrast - macro contrast and a few other factors.
If there is apparent grain, the image often appears "sharper" because the grain adds edges that we can perceive.
Ironically, particularly fine-grain film often yields images that have less apparent sharpness.
This is because we perceive the edges of larger detail and well defined texture more easily and readily than we perceive tones or very fine detail.
Add grain and you often add apparent sharpness - which is often referred to as "bite".
People often confuse resolution with "sharpness". It is very often the case that more apparent "sharpness", which comes at least partially from grain, is accompanied by less resolution.
Understanding all of the foregoing helps one decide when employing grain helps, when employing grain adds beauty, and when grain is likely to obstruct.

Vaughn · Oct 17, 2024

I agree with Drew and Matt. One works with the qualities of the equipment, film, and processing (such as grain structure) as elements of the composition or image. Generally, I do not include humans or human artifacts in images. Humans, being natural story tellers, might get distracted creating their own stories from the human elements, and away from the stories I am telling with the light. Likewise, the use of grain should be considered as part of the story one is making.

This is because we perceive the edges of larger detail and well defined texture more easily and readily than we perceive tones or very fine detail.

Sharpness usually is an important part of my carbon prints. As contacts, there will be no grain to see. However the raised relief gives a very well defined image-related texture to the surface of the print, increasing the sense of acutance. Sharp negatives create crisp raised portions (the blacks) that create a higher the sense of acutance, even behind glass.

halfaman · Oct 17, 2024

I remember Franco Fontana with his color portraits and landscapes with gritty and obstrusive grain. Worked wonderfully somehow adding texture to flat elements like blue skies.

Keith Tapscott. · Oct 17, 2024

ame01999 said:
Sebastião Salgado to my knowledge largely shot classic Tri-X, pushed two stops, with overwhelming grain, but most of the time it looks beautiful, even if it's gritty-beautiful.

I thought that Salgado exposed Tri-X at ISO/ASA 200. Perhaps I am mistaken.

snusmumriken · Oct 17, 2024

I have written a long and wise contribution to this thread, which I have now also deleted. Hoping this meets with everyone’s approval.

MattKing · Oct 17, 2024

snusmumriken said:
I have written a long and wise contribution to this thread, which I have now also deleted. Hoping this meets with everyone’s approval.

I for one am extremely curious to know what you deleted .

Chuck1 · Oct 17, 2024

Second

Sirius Glass · Oct 17, 2024

It depends on the composition whether small grain or large grain enhances or diminishes the viewing enjoyment.

MarkS · Oct 18, 2024

Grain is only one factor in the visual effectiveness of any photo-
and it's *entirely* subjective.

snusmumriken · Oct 18, 2024

MattKing said:
I for one am extremely curious to know what you deleted .

Seemed like real insight as I wrote it, but on re-reading it was just conjecture, and not worth your time.

dalahorse · Oct 22, 2024

For many years early on, I was obsessed with super fine grain and slow speed film. But I actually made some really nice 11x14" prints made with medium speed 35mm film with no apparent grain. There are so many factors to consider, starting with the subject.

Barry Thronton wrote a book called "Edge of Darkness" which explores this subject in depth. It dissects the relationships between the subject, contrast, grain, sharpness, developer, dilution, and development. I highly recommend it!

BHuij · Oct 24, 2024

Very thought-provoking question.

When I develop 35mm HP5+ in HC-110, I get a noticeable grain, but it's smooth and I think rather pleasant with the right subject. It lends itself well to soft nature photos, especially ones that aren't emphasizing the texture of anything in the frame. Example photo

When I develop 35mm FP4+ in Rodinal, I get a very harsh, salt-and-pepper grain that I find really off-putting. I realize that's subjective, and perhaps there are subjects that would compliment this type of grain better, but as a nature photographer, it completely turned me off from this film/developer combo in 35mm (I still use it in 120 and 4x5 where the grain is essentially a non-issue). Example photo

For 35mm these days, I often find myself shooting Delta 100 and developing in Instant Mytol (basically DIY XTOL). The grain is extremely fine, and I can achieve enlargements of 11x14 without seeing the negative start to break down unless I'm really looking for it. This is my preferred combo if I'm shooting on a tripod anyway, and am not trying to use grain as an aesthetic tool -- the grain basically just gets out of the way. Example photo

I also am more inclined these days to use Instant Mytol with my HP5+ negatives in 35mm. The grain there is more noticeable than on Delta 100, and also doesn't have much "character." It's more just a tradeoff for the convenience of having a 400 speed film.

Why is grain sometimes beautiful, sometimes dull, sometimes ugly?

ame01999

cerber0s

loccdor

DREW WILEY

AnselMortensen

xkaes

MattKing

Moderator

Vaughn

halfaman

Keith Tapscott.

snusmumriken

MattKing

Moderator

Chuck1

Sirius Glass

MarkS

snusmumriken

dalahorse

BHuij

Why is grain sometimes beautiful, sometimes dull, sometimes ugly?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency