# Grains of Wisdom



## chuasam (May 18, 2016)

People here seem to be so afraid of raising their ISO sensitivity for fear of grain.

Grain isn't always something bad. 
Put up photos with lots of grain and noise and let's embrace your camera's sensitive side.


----------



## gsgary (May 18, 2016)

That's not grain that's just noise, how about some real grain


----------



## chuasam (May 18, 2016)

gsgary said:


> That's not grain that's just noise, how about some real grain


Haha that would involve using that thing called film


----------



## gsgary (May 18, 2016)

chuasam said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > That's not grain that's just noise, how about some real grain
> ...


You can't beat film

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever (May 18, 2016)

I've been experimenting with it. Fun. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## tirediron (May 18, 2016)

Grain (film) can be appealing.  On the other hand noise (digital) I dislike very much.


----------



## chuasam (May 18, 2016)

gsgary said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Experimenting between SilverEfex 2, AlienSkin Exposure 7 and various lightroom presets. Eventually I will.


----------



## gsgary (May 18, 2016)

chuasam said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...


Don't think so

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## KC1 (May 18, 2016)

I like the effect in small doses. I prefer digital noise to film grain however, my dislike of film grain is from the days of using film and having shots ruined by grain.


----------



## gsgary (May 18, 2016)

KC1 said:


> I like the effect in small doses. I prefer digital noise to film grain however, my dislike of film grain is from the days of using film and having shots ruined by grain.


When wet printing you don't see as much grain, to me digital noise look awful very plasticy 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## manaheim (May 18, 2016)

Aren't you the tyranny of sharpness guy?
I'm seeing a trend.


----------



## KC1 (May 18, 2016)

I think the idea is to not box your creativity in with silly rules and guidelines and not be afraid to make pictures you like.
All the guidelines and rules that are well written say at the end, 





> These guidelines are just a starting point. Remember, for every rule there is an exception. Don't be afraid to step outside the box if it makes for a better photo.


I always chuckle when someone makes a comment that a certain photo that someone took does not comply with all the rules and therefore isn't good photography.
I like a lot of photos that are not made 'by the book' and find a lot of the ones that conform to be boring and overly predictable.


----------



## chuasam (May 18, 2016)

gsgary said:


> KC1 said:
> 
> 
> > I like the effect in small doses. I prefer digital noise to film grain however, my dislike of film grain is from the days of using film and having shots ruined by grain.
> ...


I see grain as a modern form of pointilism in art.


----------



## chuasam (May 18, 2016)

manaheim said:


> Aren't you the tyranny of sharpness guy?
> I'm seeing a trend.


Yeah unsharp and grainy trend


----------



## KC1 (May 18, 2016)

chuasam said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > KC1 said:
> ...


And pixelation as a form of modern Aboriginal (dot) art.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (May 18, 2016)

Isn't this thread breaking forum rules. ''* No digital vs. film/traditional arguments or debates are allowed. We have separate forums where the virtues of both mediums are discussed. No provoking comments will be tolerated.''


----------



## manaheim (May 18, 2016)

Grain and noise are put in place by mechanical devices as a response to limitations of the medium.
Pointilism and aboriginal art are the product of the human experience.
They are VASTLY different things.


----------



## chuasam (May 18, 2016)

manaheim said:


> Grain and noise are put in place by mechanical devices as a response to limitations of the medium.
> Pointilism and aboriginal art are the product of the human experience.
> They are VASTLY different things.


ah but those "Grain/Noise" you see were deliberately introduced in post using SilverEfex or AlienSkin Exposure 7.0
the grain you seen in my images have nothing to do with the limitation of my camera


----------



## limr (May 18, 2016)

How about we get back to the pictures (which I believe was the point of the thread, no?)




Geese by limrodrigues, on Flickr


I often don't like grain with color film, but sometimes it works:




Buick v1r by limrodrigues, on Flickr


Expired TriX:




Day 132 - Rooster by limrodrigues, on Flickr


Grainy AND not super sharp 




Cluttered by limrodrigues, on Flickr


----------



## KC1 (May 18, 2016)

manaheim said:


> Grain and noise are put in place by mechanical devices as a response to limitations of the medium.
> Pointilism and aboriginal art are the product of the human experience.
> They are VASTLY different things.


Unless you intentionally use it to create art.
Paint, ink, paper, cameras, software, brushes, are all just tools for an artist to create art, it's all the same thing to me.


----------



## manaheim (May 19, 2016)

chuasam said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Grain and noise are put in place by mechanical devices as a response to limitations of the medium.
> ...



Did you put it in by hand? Dot by dot?

No.

You let some computer program do it.  Maybe you moved some sliders around.

It's not the same thing, and any argument to the contrary is intellectually dishonest at best.


----------



## 407370 (May 19, 2016)

manaheim said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...


My camera is set to ISO 100 and I have never found a reason to change it. If I want to noise up an image I can do it in post or use other camera settings to achieve the look I want. Here is one that has been processed up the wazoo and as a side effect of the processing noise has been produced in buckets. 



 
I can hear the gritting of teeth at the noise, blown out highlights, HDR cartoon look  etc. These are the tools available to me and I use them when I want to. 
Over processing just seems to be a point of view that less and less people adhere to.


----------



## chuasam (May 19, 2016)

manaheim said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...


Next up, you're gonna tell me that photography isn't a real art because I didn't paint each brush stroke and all I did was push a button.


----------



## table1349 (May 19, 2016)

chuasam said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...


That’s Just, Like, Your Opinion, Man: An Argument that Art is Objective | The Artifice


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 19, 2016)

Seems like trying to justify a lack of good workmanship as much as anything. This describes what pointillism is - 'based on colour theory' and 'use of complementary colors' - not the same thing as digital noise.
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/glossary/pointilism

Of course an image that's out of focus or has film grain can work; those effects may work and be used occasionally, not all the time. There are known elements of composition in art that are the usual guidelines followed because they work. If a technique or an effect is used it needs to be done with purpose, for a reason, for it to work.


----------



## jcdeboever (May 19, 2016)

limr said:


> How about we get back to the pictures (which I believe was the point of the thread, no?)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Such a great style you have. It's clear as a grainy day. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## gsgary (May 19, 2016)

limr said:


> How about we get back to the pictures (which I believe was the point of the thread, no?)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Only trouble  he does not want our film shots he what digital shots that looks nothing like film grain


----------



## limr (May 19, 2016)

gsgary said:


> Only trouble  he does not want our film shots he what digital shots that looks nothing like film grain



Meh, he's getting film grain from me anyway


----------



## gsgary (May 19, 2016)

limr said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Only trouble  he does not want our film shots he what digital shots that looks nothing like film grain
> ...



You will be able to post some soon now you have down graded to a digital Pentax


----------



## jcdeboever (May 19, 2016)

gsgary said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Oouuuch, below the belt...lol

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## gsgary (May 19, 2016)

Grain by the bucket full, first try with Kodak Double X


----------



## limr (May 19, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



'Sokay  The K-r is going back to KEH and whenever I get the K-50, I only plan on using it for stuff that I don't care about. Or possibly for scanning film


----------



## chuasam (May 19, 2016)

limr said:


> How about we get back to the pictures (which I believe was the point of the thread, no?)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We are being oppressed by art Elitism hahah 
Nice photos by the way, great use of grain


----------



## manaheim (May 19, 2016)

chuasam said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



Why what an exceptional example of a straw man argument you have there.  Thanks for sharing that. Haven't seen one in a week or so.

It's ok, man. I get your deal. I've got you all dialed in now. You're going to continue to post these nonsense threads that boil down to "Hi. I'm edgy and amazing because I buck the norm!"  You don't really have any particular reason to buck that norm, but by golly yer' gonna defend it because no one else can tell you what art is!

Whatever.  You continue to do your thing.

As for me, I'm out.


----------



## chuasam (May 19, 2016)

Fine. Never challenge conventions,  obey the crowd. Take boring pictures then. See if I care.


----------



## manaheim (May 19, 2016)

haha... awesome.  You're like the internet version of a little wind-up toy.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 20, 2016)

Sure, challenge conventions, push limits, but why not do it well? Look at the photo of the woman reacting to the frog - great idea, but what about the framing? about 1/4 of the photo is ceiling - why? what does that add to the picture? How much better might it have been framed lower to eliminate that, maybe frame a little tighter, and bring the attention more to the subject?

I think even if you're going to use specialized techniques it's likely they'll work better if the basics are done well, like how shots are framed and composed. If someone wants to use blur or tilt I think it can go from being effective to being a distraction if not done well.


----------



## KC1 (May 21, 2016)

manaheim said:


> haha... awesome.  You're like the internet version of a little wind-up toy.


That's a rather rude thing to say about a person even if you disagree, at least do in in a respectful way without name calling.


----------



## Moly (May 21, 2016)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion without having others try to force theirs on them. Put me down as a person that has no issues with grain (or noise). I far loved HP5 over XP1 when it first came out.


----------



## Borad (May 21, 2016)

I was playing with the fire escape in this thread and I liked the noise I added in Irfan View. I processed it after adding it, I think with the oil paint effect to soften the specks, and I manually lightened some of the specks because they were too dark. I didn't post it at the time because it's more artistic than photographic and the one "disagree" vote I got was from such an artistic attempt.


----------



## chuasam (May 22, 2016)

KC1 said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > haha... awesome.  You're like the internet version of a little wind-up toy.
> ...


some people need to resort to ad hominem to feel better.


----------



## manaheim (May 22, 2016)

Pulling out the "ad hominem" thing is a very common tactic for internet trolling, particularly when deflecting an argument or trying to obfuscate their own attacks, such as your diminishment of my photography skills and ability to grow, because I'm not agreeing with your position or falling for your strawman arguments.

Your behavior continues to follow the typical trolling patterns.  Call it what you will. I'm just highlighting what I see.


----------



## table1349 (May 22, 2016)

Don't get much grainer than this......


----------



## Overread (May 22, 2016)

That's criminally grainy! 


As for my view I like some film grain but I don't hold that all film grain is equal nor desirable. Indeed in part some film grain I feel is only worthy because it gives a sense of age; of history to the photo. The grain being a product of its day and of its processing and history. A kind of view that grain is an undesirable that we have striven to remove from photos and thus aged photos with grain are showing their "age". 

Other film grain is pleasing to see; its comforting and nostalgic of the film era even on fresh photos produced recently. 


In general digital noise I try to remove; my only experiences with it are when I've had to use high ISO for shots and even then I've tried to remove it as best I can afterward. I don't want noise; I don't want a dotty matrix eating up the detail and clarity in a photograph I produce unless it has that nostalgic feel








Probably the only time I've playfully used it deliberately - and that was a combo of noise in the shot and a noisey/grainy filter.


----------



## chuasam (May 22, 2016)

Overread said:


> That's criminally grainy!
> 
> 
> As for my view I like some film grain but I don't hold that all film grain is equal nor desirable. Indeed in part some film grain I feel is only worthy because it gives a sense of age; of history to the photo. The grain being a product of its day and of its processing and history. A kind of view that grain is an undesirable that we have striven to remove from photos and thus aged photos with grain are showing their "age".
> ...


crickey! for a moment I thought that you had photographed a dinosaur.
and upon further paleontological thought, perhaps you just might have.
When I first started photography, my favourite film as Arcos 100 because of the extremely fine gain. I even tried some ISO 25 film just to see what it would look like.
In a way, I miss the realness of film grain but at the same time, film doesn't jive with my work flow. 
Using digital manipulation, I can attain 99% of the film look with 0% of the cost. Sure that is a bit of a cop out in terms of artistry but much of my photography has boiled down into a cost/benefit equation.
Eventually, I no longer had a working film camera when my F100 kinda broke spontaneously *LOL*


----------



## KC1 (May 22, 2016)

You got so much noise you actually created a moire pattern. lol


----------



## limr (May 22, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:


> Sure, challenge conventions, push limits, but why not do it well? *Look at the photo of the woman reacting to the frog *- great idea, but what about the framing? about 1/4 of the photo is ceiling - why? what does that add to the picture? How much better might it have been framed lower to eliminate that, maybe frame a little tighter, and bring the attention more to the subject?



Okay, this has been bugging me, to the point that I went through this thread about ten times to see if I was just crazy or not paying attention: what picture of a woman reacting to a frog? What am I missing?


----------



## KC1 (May 23, 2016)

limr said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, challenge conventions, push limits, but why not do it well? *Look at the photo of the woman reacting to the frog *- great idea, but what about the framing? about 1/4 of the photo is ceiling - why? what does that add to the picture? How much better might it have been framed lower to eliminate that, maybe frame a little tighter, and bring the attention more to the subject?
> ...


I think that photo is in another thread, the tyranny of sharpness. But if so, it's a dinosaur, not a frog.
here


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 23, 2016)

It was, I guess by the time I got thru all this I forgot what plastic toy critter was in front of her. It was green at least...


----------



## table1349 (May 23, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:


> It was, I guess by the time I got thru all this I forgot what plastic toy critter was in front of her. It was green at least...


----------



## limr (May 23, 2016)

Ah, another thread! Okay, I have closure now, thanks


----------



## chuasam (May 23, 2016)

KC1 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > vintagesnaps said:
> ...


it's my dinosaur *LOL*


----------



## limr (May 23, 2016)

chuasam said:


> it's my dinosaur *LOL*
> View attachment 122061



Gojira!!


----------



## chuasam (May 26, 2016)

Overread said:


> That's criminally grainy!
> 
> 
> As for my view I like some film grain but I don't hold that all film grain is equal nor desirable. Indeed in part some film grain I feel is only worthy because it gives a sense of age; of history to the photo. The grain being a product of its day and of its processing and history. A kind of view that grain is an undesirable that we have striven to remove from photos and thus aged photos with grain are showing their "age".
> ...


Kinda reminds of this giant image created out of ASCII text.
There's so much grain pattern that if I stare hard enough, I will see a 3D boat *LOL*
Just make sure Manaheim likes the photo because he goes around locking threads if he doesn't agree with the pictures.


----------



## manaheim (May 26, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > That's criminally grainy!
> ...



Just so everyone here understands...

Despite what you may think, chuasam, calling out a moderator and essentially picking a fight (now on two threads in a row), is a bannable offense.  I've reported the behavior to the moderation team and I'm certain we'll be discussing how to handle this.

Let me be clear. I think your behavior on this forum is intended solely to cause trouble. If I were the sole moderator of this forum, you'd have been gone a while back, but TPF is- frankly- a kindler gentler place than that. However, not always, and not forever. My suggestion is you adjust your ways.

I further suggest that NO ONE take up this portion of the conversation and continue to run with it. If you have an issue with the behavior of ANY person on the forum, you have two options: the ignore button, and the report button.  Unfortunately you cannot ignore moderators, but you can absolutely report them.

*These are the only acceptable ways to respond to a thread for which you have a significant issue.*

I will NOT lock the thread now, but if I see one more scrap of this nonsense, I will.

That is all.


----------



## limr (May 26, 2016)

Well then, it's time to get back to grainy pictures, isn't it? That was the point of the thread, no?

Here are a few more with film grain.




Where I&#x27;ve come by limrodrigues, on Flickr




Helmets by limrodrigues, on Flickr




78 and 12 on Lime Rock by limrodrigues, on Flickr




In the car by limrodrigues, on Flickr


----------



## chuasam (May 26, 2016)

manaheim said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...


Ok, which is the chief moderator that I might properly file a complaint?
Also, does the rule of only posting photos that you have taken (or at least own the copyright) also extend to your avatar?


----------



## table1349 (May 26, 2016)




----------



## Overread (May 26, 2016)

chuasam said:


> That is all.


Ok, which is the chief moderator that I might properly file a complaint?
Also, does the rule of only posting photos that you have taken (or at least own the copyright) also extend to your avatar?[/QUOTE]

1) You can report a post and the entire mod team will be able to read and react to it. If you want to specifically discuss the matter with a moderator you can contact either:
Terri - our forum admin www.thephotoforum.com/members/terri.584/
FFarl - our general go-to contact for Forum Foundry admin (they are the company that owns TPF)  ffarl

2) The rule on photos is enforced to ensure that photos posted to the site are owned by those who post them. On a site dedicated to photography this is an important aspect. It is also done to respect copyrights. However its a rule we don't generally enforce on avatars and images that might be considered "meme" or otherwise widely distributed on the internet. However these are exceptions allowed at moderator discretion


----------



## gsgary (May 26, 2016)

manaheim said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...


Get a life, you can't beat a bit of trouble now and again

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## chuasam (May 26, 2016)

Overread said:


> 1) You can report a post and the entire mod team will be able to read and react to it. If you want to specifically discuss the matter with a moderator you can contact either:
> Terri - our forum admin www.thephotoforum.com/members/terri.584/
> FFarl - our general go-to contact for Forum Foundry admin (they are the company that owns TPF)  ffarl
> 
> 2) The rule on photos is enforced to ensure that photos posted to the site are owned by those who post them. On a site dedicated to photography this is an important aspect. It is also done to respect copyrights. However its a rule we don't generally enforce on avatars and images that might be considered "meme" or otherwise widely distributed on the internet. However these are exceptions allowed at moderator discretion



Thanks Alex,
Sorry to have to bother you like that.


----------



## LARZRARZ (May 27, 2016)

I agree, way too often I witness fellow photographers unwilling to shoot above ISO 250 for fear of noise. Noise (or other perceived flaws) aren't going to ruin an image; an image being a bad image is what will ruin an image. Many times noise will go unnoticed, or it will enhance the mood. Or it could detract from it, you just never know, and unfortunately too many photographers are too scared to experiment and find out whether it will work out or not.


----------



## chuasam (May 27, 2016)

If I plan to retouch, I rarely shoot above 200, quite often restrict to 64. Adding in realistic matching noise after cleaning up is a pain. 

If no retouching is planned, I quite often hit 6400.


----------



## LARZRARZ (May 27, 2016)

chuasam said:


> If I plan to retouch, I rarely shoot above 200, quite often restrict to 64. Adding in realistic matching noise after cleaning up is a pain.
> 
> If no retouching is planned, I quite often hit 6400.


There is certainly less to retouch when those fine details are just a little bit obscured.


----------

