Film grain in digital shots

[Nh3]

Whats your opinion of those who add film grain through photoshop plug-ins and other software to their digital shots during post processing?

Especially in the case of B&W images.

Edit:

Normal conversion to B&W with photoshop cs3:

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d69/nh3nh4/_DSC0040.jpg

Converted to B&W using TRIX 400 pushed 1 stop plugin:

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d69/nh3nh4/_DSC00401.jpg

[JBee]

I am using DxO Film Pack as a plugin and am happy with it.
You can even turn a coloured picture into a B&W with the typical interpretation of colours from different films. You could also mix them. Meaning use the colour rendering from a TMAX 400 and the grain from Fuji Acros 100.
Jari

[nikonhswebmaster]

Whats your opinion of those who add film grain through photoshop plug-ins and other software to their digital shots during post processing?

Especially in the case of B&W images.

Pretty silly stuff.

[Nh3]

Pretty silly stuff.

I saw some of the digital images which had been post-processed with TRIX look-alike plug-in in photoshop and to me they looked pretty convincing.

[varjag]

There is also a watercolor filter in photoshop to make your picture look like watercolor.

[sunsworth]

I use the Alien Skin Exposure 2 for all my b&w conversions - and most of my photographs from the M8 end up as b&w. I find it works very well, not just for the grain, but for b&w conversions in general even if you don't want to add grain.

[mhv]

Quixotic and pointless.

[Nh3]

Updated my original post with two pictures as an example.

The more I look at it the more it appears that this is a good idea.

[c.poulton]

Quixotic and pointless.

Exactly! If you want the look and feel of film, use the real thing, use film!

[nikonhswebmaster]

Quixotic and pointless.

Being Charlie Brown by nature I said "silly."

[tbarker13]

I think it's a fine idea. Do it all the time.
It is one many tools available to photographers who work with digital files. I also use curves, levels, layers, etc.

[nikonhswebmaster]

I think it's a fine idea. Do it all the time.
It is one many tools available to photographers who work with digital files. I also use curves, levels, layers, etc.

I guess my question is why add grain to digital image? What does it add?

This is not a slam at what you are doing, just curiosity about adding noise to a digital image.

For commercial use it would make perfect sense to me (including other artistic filters like conte crayon etc). I guess I would have to see the work, and why.

Do you do it for a conceptual reason, to fool the viewer into seeing the image as film?

[JonasYip]

For my purposes it's neither silly nor pointless, as it's just another tool in the toolbox. For example, I was recently preparing a set of 80-some pictures for a book that's coming out in conjunction with an exhibit. The photos were taken over many years in various formats, from 645 transparency to 35mm print film to D1x to RD-1. For the purposes of this book it was best for the photos to have a consistent feel... so I played a lot with things like grain to get the appropriate look. That is, it wasn't about messing with an image just to mess with it, but rather to tune it to fit with a collection.

That said, I'm happy to mess with an image just to mess with it too.... à chacun son goût.

j

[nikonhswebmaster]

For my purposes it's neither silly nor pointless, as it's just another tool in the toolbox. For example, I was recently preparing a set of 80-some pictures for a book that's coming out in conjunction with an exhibit. The photos were taken over many years in various formats, from 645 transparency to 35mm print film to D1x to RD-1. For the purposes of this book it was best for the photos to have a consistent feel... so I played a lot with things like grain to get the appropriate look. That is, it wasn't about messing with an image just to mess with it, but rather to tune it to fit with a collection.

That said, I'm happy to mess with an image just to mess with it too.... à chacun son goût.

j

I have to say, I sort of understand, but it would have to be a book, not about the photos, but a book where the photos were used as illustration.

But I don't work as a graphic designer, and I am not sure that is what the OP was thinking of.

[jan normandale]

It's like Ted Turner's idea to "color-ize" classic BW movies. Bad idea.

[nikonhswebmaster]

I don't see a problem doing anything with a photo you want to, including adding grain. There's nothing sacrosanct about grain, absent or added. There is nothing "pure" about photography. We've been messing with images since the beginning of photographic time.

Well no, there are no Photo Police, now that you mention it. If you have a reason that makes sense esthetically (or just to you) you can do whatever you want.

I only find it odd if the person is simply trying to imitate film, because they are unhappy with digital images.

Otherwise it's your stuff.

[varjag]

What Fred says.

There are people now who understand aesthetic of digital and are not shy of it, see e.g. Peter Van Agtmael (http://www.petervanagtmael.com/main.php) work.

[varjag]

Shoot digital, get the look of film.
Except you don't, or maybe you do if you convince yourself hard enough :)

[Pherdinand]

my pushed tri-x 400 doesn't look like that...only if i screw up the scanning.

[jan normandale]

my pushed tri-x 400 doesn't look like that...only if i screw up the scanning.

Pherdinand, you screw up your scanning? I never do. But I can't tell my good scans from my bad ones ;D

[Faintandfuzzy]

NH,

What did you use for the second Tri-X pushed conversion for Photoshop?

[M. Valdemar]

I like taking digital files and sometimes making them look like something else. It's just a "look" I like, nothing to do with digital or film purism or anything.

This is was taken in very low light in Camden Stables, London, with an R-D1:

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/1009/tunnelbwzp7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I like this R-D1 "tube" shot but something similar has been done so many times it's a cliche:

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/5636/tube1zr7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[tbarker13]

I guess my question is why add grain to digital image? What does it add?

This is not a slam at what you are doing, just curiosity about adding noise to a digital image.

For commercial use it would make perfect sense to me (including other artistic filters like conte crayon etc). I guess I would have to see the work, and why.

Do you do it for a conceptual reason, to fool the viewer into seeing the image as film?

I'll say right off the bat that I think it is a touch offensive to suggest the practice is designed to "fool" anyone into thinking anything.
I don't believe photography is about the camera used to take a photo, but about the image produced. The vast majority of viewers never stop to ask themselves if a picture was taken with a digital camera or a film camera.

I seldom shoot below iso 640, in part because I like a little bit of noise/grain in the images. (the exception for me would be in landscape photography where I prefer less grain/noise). So I'm not so much adding grain, as reshaping the noise that's already there.
I like the B&W film emulators simply because I like the way the images look.

[nikonhswebmaster]

I'll say right off the bat that I think it is a touch offensive to suggest the practice is designed to "fool" anyone into thinking anything.

Sometimes I dispair over the thin skins at the RFF, it makes it so hard to talk sometimes!

To "fool the eye" (trompe-l'oeil) is an old and accepted artistic concept, dating back to the Romans.

The whole purpose of much of photography is to fool the eye into believing that the flat paper is indeed three dimensions.

If adding grain is not to trick the eye, then what is its purpose?

[TheHub]

Whats your opinion of those who add film grain through photoshop plug-ins and other software to their digital shots during post processing?

:o I hope I don't hurt your feelings, but I find it pathetic. Get a film camera and some B&W film. For the cost of PS one can buy a mountain of film and developing.

Nice photo, however (the top one.)

[Faintandfuzzy]

:o I hope I don't hurt your feelings, but I find it pathetic. Get a film camera and some B&W film. For the cost of PS one can buy a mountain of film and developing.

Nice photo, however (the top one.)

What exactly is pathetic about creating a certain look that you like? Are we simply allowed to print a straight shot from the film or digital camera? Are we allowed to selectively blur the image, tone it, dodge, burn, or sharpen it? Why is it that if we choose to add a final look that involves adding noise that the image or the thought behind it becomes pathetic?

I prefer the look of the second image….but that’s just me. I don’t consider either to be pathetic.

[Nh3]

NH,

What did you use for the second Tri-X pushed conversion for Photoshop?

http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/

They have a demo version as well if you wish to try.


To those who're skeptical about this, I say give it a try and compare it with your film scans.

[sunsworth]

[url]To those who're skeptical about this, I say give it a try and compare it with your film scans.

And if you try and don't like don't buy.

No one is holding a gun to anyone's head saying "you must do it this way". Then again...

[sam_m]

Well no, there are no Photo Police, now that you mention it. If you have a reason that makes sense esthetically (or just to you) you can do whatever you want.

I only find it odd if the person is simply trying to imitate film, because they are unhappy with digital images.

Otherwise it's your stuff.

why add grain to digital? why shoot in colour? or b&w? why use a cold light enlarger or a condenser? i take photographs because I enjoy the whole process, the camera itself, whether rf, slr, digi, film, new or old, finding the images out there in the world, composing, tripping the shutter, reviewing, processing, printing - i enjoy the whole process. I take pictures for me, and I don't need a reason.

(sorry to get so defensive)

[nikonhswebmaster]

why add grain to digital? why shoot in colour? or b&w? why use a cold light enlarger or a condenser? i take photographs because I enjoy the whole process, the camera itself, whether rf, slr, digi, film, new or old, finding the images out there in the world, composing, tripping the shutter, reviewing, processing, printing - i enjoy the whole process. I take pictures for me, and I don't need a reason.

(sorry to get so defensive)

Everyone is different, I don't personally relish the process at all, if I could use 24x34 inch Polaroids I would.

[tbarker13]

Sometimes I dispair over the thin skins at the RFF, it makes it so hard to talk sometimes!

To "fool the eye" (trompe-l'oeil) is an old and accepted artistic concept, dating back to the Romans.

The whole purpose of much of photography is to fool the eye into believing that the flat paper is indeed three dimensions.

If adding grain is not to trick the eye, then what is its purpose?

Well if this was your intent with the comment, then I don't find it offensive. But such a concept seems to apply to virtually all of photography, and not just to the use of a plug-in or program to emulate film.
Again, I use it because I like the end result. Nothing more, nothing less.

[myoptic3]

Well, of course you cannot add grain to a digital file, but you can add noise. The second B&W shot definitely looks better than the first! But it still looks pretty bad.

Maybe because the focus seems to be off. The guy in the background is sharp, but not so the central subject.

[gdi]

There is a practical reason to add noise to digital files. When upscaling the files for print a bit of noise can hide the digital artifacts and make the print more pleasing.

But it simply doesn't work for film emulation.

[mllanos1111]

My two cents: Whatever works for you is fine. The finished image is what counts, it's either a great image or it's not, how you arrived at it doesn't matter to me.

[nikonhswebmaster]

Well, of course you cannot add grain to a digital file, but you can add noise. The second B&W shot definitely looks better than the first! But it still looks pretty bad.


Well to me that is the issue. So many have forgotten what film grain actually looks like, in fact may have only seen film grain in the form of a scan, not in a magnifier under an enlarger.

Real grain is not very much like the noise added to look like grain (as much as I like Alien Skin, where long ago I was a beta tester).

Tri-X grain under a magnifier in the darkroom is very distinctive, for instance. I looked at it a lot, since I , of course, focussed by looking at the grain, not the image.

If one is going to apply "grain" to a photo, it is important that the "grain" be dead sharp. Any softness to the "grain" makes it look very unnatural.

http://www.2spi.com/catalog/photo/images/09765ab.gif

[jan normandale]

Currently HDR is a big deal , actually for a while now. There are digital plug ins for Velvia , Kodak Gold etc etc. I guess the thing that mystifies me is what is the point. I just figure if you shoot digital then shoot digital it's legitimate in my opinion. But 'treating' a digital image to become a faux velvia is like buying a $10 'Rolodex' watch off a street vendor's cart. It ain't the real deal it's a $10 watch. And the trouble with that is you know it's a fake.

[nikonhswebmaster]

Currently HDR is a big deal , actually for a while now. There are digital plug ins for Velvia , Kodak Gold etc etc. I guess the thing that mystifies me is what is the point. I just figure if you shoot digital then shoot digital it's legitimate in my opinion. But 'treating' a digital image to become a faux velvia is like buying a $10 'Rolodex' watch off a street vendor's cart. It ain't the real deal it's a $10 watch. And the trouble with that is you know it's a fake.

Well I have to admit, if you KNOW it's fake, then it takes on a new meaning. I like the idea of anything fake, or to fool.

So making obvious grain or even scratches does make sense to me. Just like owning a fake Rolex is fun (I have owned many of them from NYC streets, they cost $10 and last a week).

[nikonhswebmaster]

I'm seen plenty of grain under a focusing magnifier over the years. And I know what that looks like. But 99.99% of the people in the world who will look at our photos have never seen grain under a focusing magnifier. They don't know what it looks like. And few will ever see our images cranked up in Photoshop to look at the grain Exposure 2 adds.

The audience only sees the magic, not the technique. :)

So true, but my guess is only that 1% counts. If I do something like add grain, I want to acknowledge it, in the work.

I don't deny magic. I make duotones, lower saturation, etc. Not sure why adding film grain rubs me wrong, it just does :p

[Nh3]

I don't think anyone will put our humble images under a microscope to check the grain.

In my case I have a very good reason on why I will be adding some noise/grain from now on to 'some' of my pictures and if I was asked my answer would be 'I post processed that way in photoshop'.

Grain and noise are a by product of film or the sensor capturing the light, and adding it or removing noise from a picture is simply an artistic decision and it has nothing to do with 'fooling' people or emulating film... And even if the photographer tries to emulate film there is nothing wrong with that.

I was not sure how the response was to this technique but after reading the replies to this thread I'm encouraged and suddenly another creative window as been opened to me.

[Nh3]

Well, of course you cannot add grain to a digital file, but you can add noise. The second B&W shot definitely looks better than the first! But it still looks pretty bad.

Maybe because the focus seems to be off. The guy in the background is sharp, but not so the central subject.

lol how I love amateur photographers.

This photo was used as an example to show the grain in the woman's hands, it not part of anyone's portfolio. Don't wear your critique hat every time you see a picture on the internet.

[jan normandale]

Fred, Nh3... then have at it! The flip side of this is it's just photography. Have fun. I'm outta here with a Fuji 6x9 ttyl

[mabelsound]

The whole question of "authenticity" is the wrong question. Every visual gesture in a photo can now be thought to have multiple layers of reference and meaning...all photography is thoroughly "meta." This is a good thing. It means that anyone can make precisely the image they want, regardless of their social or professional standing. The only thing now that holds you back is being any good, not who your agent is, what gallery represents you, what magazines you've been in, or where you went to school.

People can and should do whatever they want with their film or digital photos. Then they should delete the EXIF data, or print, and let their work speak for itself.

Film emulation plugins are as legit as using a different developer, or dodging and burning. They're a technique for achieving a certain effect. That they were made to "fake" film stocks is irrelevant.

[ZeissFan]

Not for me. I know that people like to manipulate photos, but it's not my thing.

[mabelsound]

Every photo is manipulated. Every photo.

Absolutely. A photo is, by its very nature, a manipulation of reality.

[nikonhswebmaster]

Every photo is manipulated. Every photo.

Not all of mine, I took a lot of Polaroid in the past. The only manipulation was taking it out of the back of the camera.

For the purpose of the OP, we are talking post-exposure here, not how the photo was taken.

[Pherdinand]

This is how magnified GRAIN looks like.
delta3200:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=54192&d=1199887804

neopan1600:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=54193&d=1199888268

[Nh3]

Not for me. I know that people like to manipulate photos, but it's not my thing.

The subject authenticity and what was in the frame remains the same so the image is not manipulated in anyway to alter "subject authenticity", the 'look' of the image has been touched to conform with the vision or the expectation of the photographer.


I think the only reason some people might want to dismiss this technique is the implication that, "do we really need to shoot film anymore?" but that's a controversial subject that i don't wish to discuss.

[mabelsound]

I guess my point is, what's the difference? You chose to use Polaroid, which clearly makes your photos look different than had you used conventional film. I just don't see any difference where it is in the process that you choose to manipulate reality.

At the risk of just saying "what he said" over and over, I agree. You manipulate when you point your camera and choose to include certain things in the frame and exclude certain things. Or when you use one camera or another, or one film or another. B&W is a manipulation in that it simplifies the way we really see the world.

The more technology advances, the truer this becomes, because it's less and less easy to pretend you're representing reality "accurately." You're representing it, for sure, but through the filter of aesthetic choice.

And now, using, say, Neopan 1600 is a choice we make not merely to be able to shoot in low light. We make that choice because we've seen lots of grainy photos and like the way they look, and want our photos to look that way too. Photography is now old enough so that every technological option is not merely a means of solving a problem, but a reference to the history of photography. Seen in this context, it hardly matters whether your grainy photo is the result of shooting ultrasensitive film in low light, or of shooting with a DSLR and applying a plugin. Ultimately, in fact, the DSLR is more "natural" an approach here than the high-ISO film, because it is the most advanced and available tool for capturing a detailed image under those conditions.

Being "natural" isn't what any of us is really interested in, though, I don't think. We're interested in good pictures, which we can get in many different ways.

[nikonhswebmaster]

I guess my point is, what's the difference? You chose to use Polaroid, which clearly makes your photos look different than had you used conventional film. I just don't see any difference where it is in the process that you choose to manipulate reality.

Well there is no discussion then, if you don't see a difference you don't. :o

[nikonhswebmaster]

Being "natural" isn't what any of us is really interested in, though, I don't think. We're interested in good pictures, which we can get in many different ways.

While there seems to be a thread here that Photoshop or Alien Skin does not have a recognizable look, to photoshop or not to Photoshop, is on my mind all the time.

I generally use Photoshop to "fix" images. I shoot a lot of close ups, so hairs sneak in, dust, etc in my photos. I adjust color saturation and sharpness. But I so far reject adding to my photos, that which was not there in the original, e.g. light, lens flare, and noise.

My reason is to avoid what has happened to Fonts and layout in Graphic design, designs take on a Quark or inDesign "look." It is very easy to find yourself giving photos a very recognizable Photoshop look, so that your work looks like a cookie-cutter copy of other work.

Just a concern... thus my notion about grain, which for me is just another Photoshop filter.

I do use grain to cover "corrections," where grain existed previously in adjacent areas.

[tbarker13]

Agreed. There is a huge difference between the introduction/reshaping of noise and the outright manipulation of images (things like removing an unwanted object or person through cloning tools).

When using a film camera, you have to decide upfront which film you want to use to best convey your vision. You'll follow that up with processing choices, which will again alter the final product.
You could shoot the same scene with two different films each processed a different way, yielding two very different final images.

Why should it be any different with digital? When doing a raw conversion, why limit yourself to the standard baseline conversion?
That would be akin to saying all Tri-X must be developed in a 1:50 dilution of Rodinal at 75 degrees.

[Encinalense]

Great discussion!

I'm interested in the way it has become, in part, preoccupied with authenticity; I didn't understand that concept to have anything to do with the original question, but it is very much in the background. (and slightly out of focus:D). It struck me, reading this, that one of the concerns regarding authenticity, here, is being expressed as a desire to differentiate between simulation and dissimulation -- some of the responses seem to want to identify the practice of digital post-processing as a kind of simulation, which, according to some philosophical and theological traditions, is an act of deception, an abuse of good faith on the part of the photographer (granted, most of these historical discussions (the Wikipedia entry on "Dissimulation" links to a few) pertain to the self, not to the production of expressive material).

Dissimulation, on the other hand, seems potentially to bother people more, because what it leaves unspoken can lead to a misunderstanding or a misreading located in the viewer.

What's the difference? Well, none if the concern is a fixed, aesthetic one -- if as mabelsound and leicasnapper argue every decision we make about images (film type, speed, color filters, traditional processing, digital post-processing) are basically parallel kinds of decisions. In this regard, every photographer is a kind of simulator, and everyone understands this.

But it's that concern, I think, that everyone does not understand it -- that concern that audiences might reasonably expect that what they think is photography simply is the result of light and film and chemicals -- that leads to the reading of dpp as a kind of dissimulation (should those images actually wind up in a gallery, for example).

Here's where I'll express an opinion: I think this second concern -- expressed by those, in other words, most opposed to mabelsound's assertions -- comes from the old tradition of defending photography as a 'legitimate' expressive and artistic process involving decision and action on the part of the artist. When someone here referred to digital plugins as "another tool in my kit," he or she struck a chord: can proprietary "tools" -- especially if you're not a programmer who understands them -- be a legitimate part of expressive photography? But this leads inevitably to: can proprietary chemical formulations and film -- especially if you're not a chemist who understands them -- be a legitimate part of expressive photography? Sure, right?

I'm not at all interested in Photoshop or its plugins, personally, because I so much enjoy the physical stuff (and when I do venture into the virtual, I prefer the -- admittedly limited, by contrast -- GIMP for its openness). But on the issue of authenticity, I'm with mabelsound.

If you've actually read all of this, accept my apologies for taking so much space and time simply to say: "I agree with that one!"

[mabelsound]

Those are excellent additions to the discussion, and it's true, not every viewer is going to understand photography in the way that a geek like me would. Personally, I am similar to nikonhswebmaster in my approach--I actually do very little processing other than dust removal, exposure and blacks, contrast, perhaps a bit of selective luminance/hue/saturation at certain wavelengths. But I really support, conceptually, the freedom to do far more than that.

I think any art form, in its infancy, depends upon technical insider knowledge, which separates the real artist from the would-be artist, and creates a scale by which "authenticity" can be judged. And as the means for making this art becomes more available, the form gets more egalitarian, and those notions start to blur. I feel as though this is where photography is right now--same with music recording, where there are copious plugins that emulate the sonic effects of analog tape, or the sound of old analog or mechanical effects. Anyone can make a great sounding record now--the technological barrier has been broken. All that's left to distinguish an artist is talent, style, and hard work.

Literature crossed this threshold a long, long, long time ago and has done OK since...

[varjag]

There is really one simple thing: people miss something (for whatever reason) in digital images compared to film, and try to reproduce it. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened and we'd never seen this fake film plugin industry rolling.

Maybe they are simply too lazy to mess with film (or to give it positive spin, have not enough time), or like to have their digital superiority argument going while still craving for classic BW look. Anyway, I'm not sure how much sincere are all the high art justifications.

[tbarker13]

I don't think I do anything with digital images that I couldn't do with film negatives. I used photoshop to crop, dodge, burn and adjust contrast.
The introduction/manipulation of grain/noise during raw processing fits well within the scope of my thinking.

Grain is not a part of life. We don't have sunny days, cloudy days and grainy days. Grain is introduced to photos through the processing of the film on which images are captured.
I see no difference - from a philosophical standpoint - in manipulating the grain of a roll of film during processing and in manipulating the noise of a digital file during raw processing.
I just don't see that as threatening the authenticity of the image being presented.
Regardless of how it gets there, grain is something we add to the pictures we create.

[tbarker13]

There is really one simple thing: people miss something (for whatever reason) in digital images compared to film, and try to reproduce it. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened and we'd never seen this fake film plugin industry rolling.

Maybe they are simply too lazy to mess with film (or to give it positive spin, have not enough time), or like to have their digital superiority argument going while still craving for classic BW look. Anyway, I'm not sure how much sincere are all the high art justifications.

Or maybe it just gives film purists one more thing to worry about in the never ending debate of film v. digital.:)

[varjag]

Or maybe it just gives film purists one more thing to worry about in the never ending debate of film v. digital.:)
Back in 2003-2004 I was writing my own film look plugins, taking into account spectral sensitivity, introducing grain pattern layers, etc. - stuff us geeks like to do. Thing about this, you can often get look similar to film, but too much depends on specific image: you have different range of tones and color palette in your digital image from what was at the actual scene. The dynamic range is also narrower than BW film latitude, so it is akin to attempts of converting color slide to BW. That's why it's much easier to produce a "pushed film" look than normal or subdued contrast you can have for instance with Tri-X at EI 200.

So after a while I questioned myself why am going through all this and just switched to film. Still the conversion path is very popular, and usually the less folks shot real BW film the more they willing to persuade you that conversions work as well as real thing.

[amateriat]

I'm seen plenty of grain under a focusing magnifier over the years. And I know what that looks like. But 99.99% of the people in the world who will look at our photos have never seen grain under a focusing magnifier. They don't know what it looks like. And few will ever see our images cranked up in Photoshop to look at the grain Exposure 2 adds.

The audience only sees the magic, not the technique. :)
Ah, but the first member of the audience to lay eyes on my "finished" images is me, and I do care about both process and this thing we call "authenticity." I regard my photography as my "second memory" of sorts, my true "photographic memory". Photographic "truth" can be a steep and slippery slope, but human memory on its own can be steeper and far more slippery. Therefore, I deal with my photography as a form of record-keeping...yes, including the fancy-ass fine-art stuff. And my post-shoot tools, principally PS, are largely transcription tools. Tweaking works for me; intensive surgery doesn't so much.

And this brings me to a possibly controversial POV: when it comes to the final image, the print that gets hung somewhere, the more I've had to hammer away at the image to make it "work" in print form, the less-satisfied I am overall. It's not that I don't expect to do any kind of work on the image after the shoot, but if I have to go overboard to make the final print satisfying to my eye, I feel I've somehow blown it from behind the camera. (This is one reason why I shoot film 90% of the time: I know the film I shoot awfully well, whereas with any given digital camera I'm working with at a given moment, how in Hades should I know?)


I think any art form, in its infancy, depends upon technical insider knowledge, which separates the real artist from the would-be artist, and creates a scale by which "authenticity" can be judged. And as the means for making this art becomes more available, the form gets more egalitarian, and those notions start to blur. I feel as though this is where photography is right now--same with music recording, where there are copious plugins that emulate the sonic effects of analog tape, or the sound of old analog or mechanical effects. Anyone can make a great sounding record now--the technological barrier has been broken. All that's left to distinguish an artist is talent, style, and hard work.
I sort of grok your point here, but it puts me in mind of Glenn Gould, who not only eschewed live performance for the studio, but believed in using all the studio bells-and-whistles then at his disposal (he was an early adopter of digital recording, BTW), including editing from several "imperfect" takes to create one "perfect" take. Other pianists regard performing a work as something of a high-wire act where you either get it right in one take or call it a day and try again tomorrow. I hew much closer to the latter philosophy, but I don't let that get in the way of enjoying listening to Gould make his way through Haydn. :)

(Or the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper, for that matter.)


- Barrett

[mabelsound]

It's true, in all art forms, it is very difficult to find the correct balance between the very human roughness that spontaneity brings to a specific work, and the refinements that hard work can bring to it--possibly at the expense of perceived naturalness. I brought up literature earlier because that's my professional area--literature began as a performance art and has evolved into perhaps the farthest of the arts from performance. It is understood to be the process of constant reworking. Personally, I like this, but I understand how exciting, say, a great trumpet solo can be, as well.

With music, I'm more in the perfect-take camp (though I personally am generally incapable of achieving that, as a musician); with literature, the refinement camp. Photos fall somewhere in the middle for me, but to each his own.

[myoptic3]

Thank you for the quote Nh3! Us amateur posers (poseur?) have to stick together.

But still, if you want to illustrate something, shouldn't it be in focus? It's a moot point. I still think it looks pretty bad. Not the shot. The gal is nice. But the effect.

It also looks bad if you run a grainy film image thru noise removal software. I've tried it, and basically came up w/ a copy of a digital file, which was weird.

I am not knocking the attempt to come up w/ a good image, and have run a lot of digital files thru Tri-X plug ins and such in an attempt to cut out the expense and inconvenience of 35mm film. Finally gave up. All I got was strange looking digital files.

Digital is what it is. Same w/ film. So I put up w/ the downsides of film and appreciate it's unique look. The film cameras are sure a lot more fun to use too.

[mhv]

Every photo is manipulated. Every photo.

So? Is every manipulation therefore a good one?

[jan normandale]

I'm back from shooting some 6x9. When someone looks at this stuff, they know if it was manipulated or not. With digital alien skin, someone looks at xif data and they can tell it's digital.

I'm a film guy and I get a photograph. Do all you want with digital processing but remember it's not photography it's digital image manipulation and post processing. It's not film nor photography, it's a digital image from a sensor.

[tbarker13]

I'm back from shooting some 6x9. When someone looks at this stuff, they know if it was manipulated or not. With digital alien skin, someone looks at xif data and they can tell it's digital.

I'm a film guy and I get a photograph. Do all you want with digital processing but remember it's not photography it's digital image manipulation and post processing. It's not film nor photography, it's a digital image from a sensor.

I'm sorry but this is almost laughable. Perhaps it was meant as a joke.
I can just imagine some tintype photographer back in the late 1800s making a similar statement about modern film: "If you're not shooting on plates, it's not really photography."
As you note in your signature. "It's all about light."
It doesn't matter where you capture it - whether it is on a piece of film, a digital sensor or a metal plate.

[sam_m]

Do all you want with digital processing but remember it's not photography it's digital image manipulation and post processing. It's not film nor photography, it's a digital image from a sensor.

Come again?

[nikonhswebmaster]

Well I can see this is going not to a conclusion but endless posturing.

All any of us can know if what we like. I admit to sometimes being drawn to heavily manipulated photoshop work (there is a good tread on it now, http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=61014) and I fully see what tbarker13's position is, both in his work and here.

But in the end it is all personal, I like very little evidence of photoshop, to me the trick is to go there, and not leave much evidence. Adding grain or softness (as in the thread cited) is not an inherently wrong approach, but I do know it is a slippery slope.

And I say that knowing it is a place I could easily be drawn into with my own work. (I mean you don't think there is actually a tank on the street outside my window do you?)

[tbarker13]

(I mean you don't think there is actually a tank on the street outside my window do you?)

That's funny. I couldn't figure out what you meant until I looked closer at your avatar.
I wonder how much debate we'd all have on the subject of just how far the boundaries should be pushed. Personally, I think the great evil of digital photography is the ease with which people can add or subtract substantial elements. It undermines the credibility of virtually all photography.

I was out shooting a couple years ago with some folks at an area art school. We were shooting landscapes at a wetlands park. One scene in particular was marred by the presence of a telephone pole in the distance. The solution, according to the leader of the day's shoot, was to clone it out with photoshop. This same fellow was quite skilled at adding new skies, clouds, etc. into his landscape shots.
I think this crosses a line unless you label your photos in a way that lets the viewer know the scene never really existed, that it was something you invented.

I suspect most of us have some sort of boundary we never cross, though i know there are those who have no qualms about intense manipulation.

[mabelsound]

I was out shooting a couple years ago with some folks at an area art school. We were shooting landscapes at a wetlands park. One scene in particular was marred by the presence of a telephone pole in the distance. The solution, according to the leader of the day's shoot, was to clone it out with photoshop. This same fellow was quite skilled at adding new skies, clouds, etc. into his landscape shots.
I think this crosses a line unless you label your photos in a way that lets the viewer know the scene never really existed, that it was something you invented.

It seems to me the only boundary that crosses is one of taste. This guy would appear to be a spectacularly unimaginative artist, or one with a very narrow sense of what is interesting and beautiful. I mean, I don't really care how manipulated a picture is, as long as it's interesting...I suppose some people still assume that what they're looking at in a photo is "the truth"--at least in a photo album or on a news program--but in an art gallery I'm expecting artifice and in fact that's what I'm there for.

I can see somebody not liking, say, Jeff Wall or Gregory Crewdson, but I feel as though these artists are merely bring to the surface those qualities of a picture that are latent in all photographs. They're embracing the artifice.

And really, if you're not embracing the artifice even just a tiny bit, then you end up backing yourself into a corner where the only "authentic" photo ever taken is this:

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2006-07/world-first-photograph-nicephore-niepce.jpg

[Pherdinand]

well,even that is unrealistic, mabelsound, since the exposure of it took so long (six hours i seem to remember...or eight?) that the light completely changed during the exposure and all the shadows moved from left to right! So in the end the sides of the towers facing each other are both sunlit :)

There's no point of arguing here, since the OP asked about what do we think about the idea, and obviously we have differing oppinions, which should be perfectly fine.

[tbarker13]

"
What credibility does photography actually have?
....
Do you think generations of viewers used to seamless CGI in movies is bothered by photo manipulation?

I guess this is where my professional life bleeds over into my hobby. I've been a newspaper reporter for nearly 2 decades, though I actually studied photojournalism in college.
You're right, of course. The very act of telling a story - either with words or photos - applies a sort of filter to the event. It's unavoidable.
But I see a vast difference between choosing a viewing angle, focal length, etc. versus actually fabricating/removing an element of the scene.

A few years ago, a photographer for the LA Times was fired (http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28082) after it was learned he'd used photoshop to merge a pair of images to create a better composition. He clearly crossed a line.

As to your points, you may very well be right. Maybe photography has no credibility and maybe people - as a whole - don't care. If so, that makes me sad.

[andrealed]

There is really one simple thing: people miss something (for whatever reason) in digital images compared to film, and try to reproduce it. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened and we'd never seen this fake film plugin industry rolling.

You are right: from a different point of view: think about the first motor cars, they were lookalike of carriages (think about he fenders, the lamps etc.) they were designed to look as the "original" thing, but they were different. People miss something...they were missing the carriage's look.
The same for form factor of digital cameras, the vast majority of point and shoot digicam now are finderless, they use the lcd for aiming. And I find rather cumbersome to keep my arm straight, just the opposite for avoiding shake...digicams finderless SHOULD have a different form factor, they MUST have a flip out LCD, or they should look like TLR with a lcd instead that the screen. But I think, in a few years digicams will look different from a Barnack (think to D-lux), because they will be "free" to look as digicam.
The same for photographs, in a few years, we will not miss anymore the "artistic" look of real B&W (grain, trix... ad so on....) We will be free to see color, smooth, plastic, artsy photographs, and we will like them.
And we (or should I say..our sons) will not miss anything.
Except me, maybe....

[CK Dexter Haven]

I guess my question is why add grain to digital image? What does it add?

Do you do it for a conceptual reason, to fool the viewer into seeing the image as film?

Grain adds 'density' and 'dirt' to a digital image. I tend to find digital to be too clean. Some people say "sterile." If you look at a film scan at 100% and an equivalent digital frame at the same magnification, the digital file looks cleaner. The film has specks and dots and 'stuff' in it that isn't the actual scene. But, film is the language we've grown up with, so adding something to get closer to that language makes sense to me.

All of the books i own were shot on film. Every exhibition i've seen was shot on film. It's what i'm used to. And, when i see a digital image, there's something, usually, that seems to be 'missing.'

I use Alien Skin Exposure, but also TrueGrain for B+W.

Those who call it "silly" or "pointless" must think the same of toning prints, i suppose. Or, dodging and burning. Or, contrast filtration.... Someone who's truly interested in making images should use whatever tools and techniques that allow him to realize a preconceived vision.

I may sometimes like for my pictures to look like they were made in 1955, but i don't need to pretend that i live in 1955.

[dazedgonebye]

This is all, again, a matter of taste. The only absolutes are in the positions people tend to take.

I haven't seen much in the way of added on grain that I like. Digital excels at crisp and clean (some say sterile). Film has more character.
That's just how i see it.
My wife wears make-up, but I think she looks best when I can't tell she's wearing make-up. For my taste, if you're going to use magic, it's best that I can't see the man behind the curtain.
Heck, some people even object to tortured/mixed analogies.

[CK Dexter Haven]

I'm back from shooting some 6x9. When someone looks at this stuff, they know if it was manipulated or not. With digital alien skin, someone looks at xif data and they can tell it's digital.

I'm a film guy and I get a photograph. Do all you want with digital processing but remember it's not photography it's digital image manipulation and post processing. It's not film nor photography, it's a digital image from a sensor.

So NOT true.
Only you know how "authentic" your images are. And, so, unless it's for journalistic/recordkeeping purposes, it's a matter of narcissism only to suggest that it's not manipulated. In my mind, it's only important that i not SEE the manipulations. I don't like 'created scenes' that look like created scenes. What i do appreciate, though, is an interesting image. It doesn't matter to me if Ansel Adams moved a moon or burned out a bush. As long as i don't see the 'falseness,' i accept the photograph for what it is.

With EXIF data, it is a simple task to strip it from a photograph. And, Alien Skin, or any other plug-in, leaves no EXIF signature, even if the EXIF is left intact. You won't know if a picture was shot 'straight' on digital or if it was heavily composited and manipulated.

And, if retouching, and plugins are done well, no one will know. The problem is that EVERYONE has a computer and Photoshop, and so EVERYONE tries to do something with an image, and you have lots of examples of bad work out there for everyone to see. But, this doesn't have to be the case. There are also lots of Leicas out there, and lots of bad photos shot with them. But, no one condemns the camera, do they?

My bottom line is this: I have a favored portrait subject in Brazil. I've shot him three or four times. I've used a Contax 35mm with film, a Canon 35mm with film, a Hasselblad with film, a Leica with film, and a Canon 5D digital. Out of all of those exposures, i 'like' maybe 5-10. There are a couple of those that i do not remember whether they were shot with the Hassy or the 5D, after i finished with them. They were shot a few years ago, and i just don't remember. I could go back and look for the original negatives or the original digital file to find out. But, i don't want to know at this point. That just signifies to me that it doesn't have to matter.

One needs to remember history, as well. Before photography, painting was the 'true' art form. Photography was a 'cheap' and easy, false medium. But, no painting was ever "unmanipulated." That wasn't the criteria. And, now, photographers with memories that don't reach far enough are insisting that whatever THEY do is the only authentic form.

At what point do you evaluate the merits of the image, rather than boast about the method? Is an interesting digital image worth less than a banal film image? Does shooting it on a cumbersome view camera make it more interesting to look at? Most of the best photographers currently shoot digital for at least some of their output. Are we supposed to believe that those digital pictures are not as VALID as, say, MY worst Hasselblad+Tri-X exposure?

[CK Dexter Haven]

This is all, again, a matter of taste. The only absolutes are in the positions people tend to take.

I haven't seen much in the way of added on grain that I like. Digital excels at crisp and clean (some say sterile). Film has more character.
That's just how i see it.
My wife wears make-up, but I think she looks best when I can't tell she's wearing make-up. For my taste, if you're going to use magic, it's best that I can't see the man behind the curtain.
Heck, some people even object to tortured/mixed analogies.


The only possible exception is about not seeing added on grain that you like. I would just suggest that a lot of what is seen commercially in magazines has added grain. And, that it's just done tastefully enough that it's not noticeable. And, magazine screen reproduction further obscures it.

I love what you say about makeup. I, too, just don't want to be conscious of it, even if i know it's there.

Film does have more character. Can't get around that, unfortunately. A lot of that character is in the imprecision of it. With digital, the tendency is to white balance everything so that the light is neutral. I prefer to leave digital images in the color temperature as captured. What's amazing about pictures, say, from David Alan Harvey in Divided Soul, is how the emulsion reacts to the different kinds of light. It goes extremely blue, or orange, or yellow.... That's the 'atmosphere.' The human eye doesn't perceive it that way, and i think that's what makes it more beautiful to me. I don't want a photograph to show me reality. That's too normal....

Someone, eventually, may point out that i'm contradicting myself, by defending digital, and then praising film. I prefer the look of film. I prefer the convenience, workflow, predictability/repeatability, security of digital. Both are capable of beauty and of suckiness.

[nikonhswebmaster]

I guess this is where my professional life bleeds over into my hobby. I've been a newspaper reporter for nearly 2 decades, though I actually studied photojournalism in college.
You're right, of course. The very act of telling a story - either with words or photos - applies a sort of filter to the event. It's unavoidable.
But I see a vast difference between choosing a viewing angle, focal length, etc. versus actually fabricating/removing an element of the scene.

A few years ago, a photographer for the LA Times was fired (http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28082) after it was learned he'd used photoshop to merge a pair of images to create a better composition. He clearly crossed a line.

As to your points, you may very well be right. Maybe photography has no credibility and maybe people - as a whole - don't care. If so, that makes me sad.

I see nothing wrong with adding grain to a photo, as long as you are not under the impression that "we" won't notice. The effect may be a softening of the image, which I see you may find an important element.

My current Avatar has a halftone added, to make it look like it appeared in a newspaper. Clearly there are no tanks that I have noticed in front of my building.

The problem with PS filters for those of us who have worked with PS for years is that the filters are all so heavy handed, and while they may work well for a photo in vogue, you should be aware that they may not be suitable for News, or Nature Photography, since unlike burning and dodging, they are an added element, not a modification of an existing element, and unless you use them very sparingly your photos can easily begin to look like magazine illustrations (of course you might want that look).

For art work filters are certainly no issue, as long as the user realizes they are so very transparent.

There are photographers working who use Photoshop and other techniques in such a way that no one seems to be able to figure out exactly what they are doing, that might be my goal... or then again I might put grain from Photoshop right in the viewer's face. In art all is fair.

So the answer to the original question is, sure you can add grain, just be aware what exactly you are doing.

[jan normandale]

@ thbarker, sam m, c k dexter haven you guys are so earnest!

I'm just engaging in hyperbole due to the reincarnated canard of digital vs film.

I use both so I've no ability to support or deprecate either. I use them both for different purposes. Based on the OP, what I don't understand is why people choose a medium then they "want it to look like something else" If you want the character of a crappy camera like a Diana I don't see the point in pulling out a Leica M8 and adding software emulated processing to an image.

BTW I'm not waiting for an emulation for Polaroid SX70 film... but I'd bet someone is on this right now.

[tbarker13]

My photoshop skills are quite limited.
I can resize, crop and adjust white/black point.
I know what a curve is, though for the life of me, I can't really figure out how to use them.
I can do a little dodging and burning and sharpening (though very little of it)

I actually don't have a photo-shop plug-in to add grain. I use Capture One for my raw conversions. I have the B&W toolkit from JFI labs, which adds a few more B&W conversion options (tri-x is one). The program doesn't actually add grain, but rather it attempts to reshape the noise that is there. Personally, I don't think the Capture one conversions look like Tri-X. But I have to convert my raw files to jpgs and tiffs one way or another. And this way seems to work pretty well.
So far, I don't think I'm at risk of destroying the integrity of my photos.

[tbarker13]

@ thbarker, sam m, c k dexter haven you guys are so earnest!

I'm just engaging in hyperbole due to the reincarnated canard of digital vs film.



Ahh hyperbole. Sorry for not catching it. I think I read that post when I was up way too late.