grain

greenspun.com : LUSENET : People Photography : One Thread

(In the real photo, the grain is razor sharp. I hate the way the web turns grain into mush.)

How do others here feel about grain in portraits? How do you use grain to effect? Or do you avoid it as much as possible?

My single favorite film is Delta 3200, usually exposed at EI 3200, so I generally thing of grain as my friend. I'll mouth off later in more detail, but I'd like to see others' perspectives first.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), October 06, 2000

Answers

I love grain. I love this photo, too. I've been playing with grain lately. Probably backlash from too much Technical Pan for a couple of years. I've only fooled around a little with D3200, but what I want to do soon is start shooting Tri-X in HC110 at like 1:50 or something, EI'ing at 1600...

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), October 06, 2000.

I'm a grain-fan, too.

I like Tri-X, I like the look it gives. Most of my friends think I'm odd, they prefer razor sharp. But my friends aren't too keen on b/w photography, either. I think I need new friends .

I bought a roll of Delta 3200 recently, I need to dig it out and give it a try.

BTW, nice shot! I bet the print is awesome.

-- Brian Reeves (brianr@alpha1.net), October 06, 2000.


I like Delta 3200 a lot. However, I like it when the grain is a bit soft. Right now I only usually get to shoot it at weddings, but here's a shot I did last year:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=88661&size=lg

Meanwhile, how do you get that purplish tone? (Which I quite like, by the way.)

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), October 06, 2000.


Most of my black and white stuff is done in low light, so I had to learn to live with grain- I've done all I can to minimize it in pushed or fast film, but but more often than not it puts a Nixon-esqe 5 o'clock shadow on a face when I'm trying to boost the contrast a little. I think everyone likes it when it's behaving itself--- by the way bluejean cloth, especially on jackets, is my favorite B&W fabric to shoot.... it makes everyone look good-

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), October 06, 2000.

Grain works for me in everything but nature macros :) Actually one of the (only) setbacks of going digital is the inability to create natural-looking grain. I4ll probably be the only one to say this, but I don4t think this portrait comes close to your usual high standards, mostly because of the model, I4m afraid - that goofy "I4m too sexy for my shirt" look is just too artificial.

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), October 07, 2000.


Thanks to everyone so far for your comments (about grain and the photo).

One of the things I really like about grain is the added layer of complexity it can give by adding texture to an image, though, ironically, I've never been fond of texture screens or PhotoShop noise. I suppose the film grain adds something that really acts as an integral part of the image, where post-exposure manipulations simply add something additional to the shot (sort of like the difference you get in creating guitar feedback by overloading a tube amp versus running the signal through some kind of electronic processing).

Now forgive me for getting into some technical observations that address your questions or relate to things y'all have said. For maintaining shadow detail at high speeds, Delta 3200 (D3200) and Kodak P3200 (TMZ) really are head-and-shoulders above anything else I've tried. The shadow detail of D3200 at EI 6400 is comparable to shadow detail I get from HP5+ at EI 1600 (and better than TMax 400 at that speed). [I think the TMZ has very slightly finer grain, but the tonality of Delta 3200 is much more appealing (and it's available in 120 size).]

If you're pushing a 400-speed film to 1600 or more, a high contrast scene will give you empty shadows. For boosting grain when shooting under controlled, low-contrast conditions, the slower films work fine. But if you're shooting at bars or night-time streets scenes and you want to maintain shadow detail that can be printed without drastic measures in the darkroom, though, D3200 (or TMZ) really is the film to use.

John K., toning Ilford MultiGrade IV in weak selenium toner for several minutes will provide a slight shift toward a purplish, eggplant tone. The effect is probably a little exaggerated in the scan, but it's is noticeable in the print.

Christel, I've gone back and forth about just how much I like this particular print. But, as you can see, it works well for a number of people. And I 've never really thought that -everyone- had to like all my photos. . . : )

Just for fun, here's another of my grainy faces. And no matter what others think, this one is unambiguously one of my favorites.



-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), October 07, 2000.


This last image is really beautiful and cohesive. I like it for its ambiance created by light, wardrobe, expression and technique. Fabulous, Mike... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), October 07, 2000.

and since you're so forthcoming with technical considerations, what kind of soup and receipie are you using, and how extreme was the crop (relative to increasing grain)?

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), October 07, 2000.

The last one works for me - very powerful! (ofcourse everybody doesn4t have to like everything - I just happened to state my op :)

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), October 08, 2000.

Both of these photographs are beautiful and very well done. I as well am intrigued by the purplish tint. I use selenium toner (1:15;80F;6-8') but have not yet gotten such a nice effect as these. I am definitely one for grain, but use only TMY and Z. From the comments above, I'm definitely going to have to give Ilford's 3200 a try! Very nice work, Mike.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), October 08, 2000.


this last image is very powerful and a pleasure to experience. still, the only real difference between the first offering and the second is the subject--the second model is possessed of a wonderfully "photogenic" face, and you have done a wonderful job of communicating that existential fact to any objective observer. in short, you have done your job as a photographic artist.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), October 08, 2000.

Thanks for the additional comments. To answer your questions:

I develop all my b&w in Xtol diluted 1:2, usually at 80 degrees F. It works great and stores well, and it's cheap. I've never experimented much with different developers; that's a variable I like to keep constant. I regularly shoot with several different kinds of film and often adjust EI's and development times to adjust contrast; switching among different developers would probably send me over the edge. The second photo was enlarged from a section of a 35mm negative that was about half the length and 2/3 the width of the image area. Also, the second photo was printed on Ilford WarmTone MG and toned in selenium. The WT paper tones much more readily than MG IV, and it turns a brownish color (which can be varied according to how long the print is toned). I look forward to the results of everyone's grainy experiments.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), October 08, 2000.


alright, finally something to disagree with! I knew I could count on you, wayne!

Your statement "the only real difference between the first offering and the second is the subject" neglects the point of view, which is well below the eyes (and nose!) of the subject, and the second shot, which is slightly above the eyes. Also the light is much harder (see shadows on mouth and nose) and the overall tone is brighter with higher contrast. That the first models nose is tipped in bright light, makes it seem sort of protuberant and the shadow on her teeth brings dental hygene to mind. Most likely, none of these descriptions/attributes apply to the subject, but only to this photograph. The second image is much darker and lit much softer and intimately framed and contained by the scarf. It is soft and seductive while the first is hard and challenging. There is a huge difference in photographic treatment between these two images. Maybe I'm just not an objective observer... t

80 degrees, huh?

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), October 08, 2000.


I like the pictures. I think that they both succeed artistically. Unless the light is really dim, we have a lot of choices as to the kind of grain that we get, of course. For informal portraits, I have used several combinations: Pan F in Rodinal, with tiny but crystalline-sharp grain, to FP4+ in D-76 (enlarges really well, to Tri-X in D-76 (EI 400) and 1600 (Xtol). I like to use Delta 3200(Xtol) in dim light, as long as the mood of the lighting is dark, too. I keep going back to Tri-X, and FP4+ if there is enough light. It seems to me that one of the reasons for the continued popularity of Tri-X is that its grain can harmonize beautifully with the texture of skin.

With all of these, the grain does figure into the final result. I don't think that in 35mm photography, we can get away from grain, so we let it work for us. Thanks for sharing these fine examples from the high-speed end of things.

-- Paul Harris (pharris@neosoft.com), October 08, 2000.


tom: when you say "maybe i'm just not an objective observer", you may be right; however, you are also a helluva lot more accomplished a technician than myself. my comments, as usual, were based on my own conclusions concerning the bottom line: the observed impression of the image. the closest i have been to a photography studio is when i had my passport photo made; the primary determining factor in the success of my images has always been sheer good fortune. in short, you will prevail in *any* disagreement we ever have over nuts and bolts. but i know a good looking woman when i see one. :)

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), October 08, 2000.


Tom,
Yep, 80 degrees. With Xtol 1:2, most of my times work out to about 8 to 12 minutes depending on the film (about 20 minutes with D3200); I do lower the temp for Pan F+ because at 80, it's development time is a little too short for my taste. A side note (Wayne's studio comment brought this to mind): neither of these shots was done in a proper studio. The first was lit by standard, incandescent room lights as she was part of the way up the stairs (there was also a lamp right behind her head). The second was lit by a five-lamp "chandelier" in a conference room; she was sitting on the conference table (I was kneeling on it). Neither even involved a reflector.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), October 09, 2000.

Yeah, I noticed all those catchlights..."she was sitting on the conference table (I was kneeling on it)"... sounds like a good office party, to me!

wayne, I think you got closer to what Mike intended to convey, than I did. But now we are learning about your taste in women... (Sophia Loren, not Darryl Hannah, right?). And preparation + opportunity = "sheer good fortune"... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), October 09, 2000.


off italics

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), October 09, 2000.

OFF damn italics!

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), October 09, 2000.

Hello

I take lot of pictures, but I don't develop my own film. When I want b/w pictures I use the T400CN because it's easy and processing is cheap(ish).

I really like the examples of grain shown above, and I would like to try it for my self. So, I'm going to buy some Delta3200. BUT, I intend to hand it in at the local store, and I think they will send it to a Kodak lab. I can see (but not understand) that you guys talk a lot about which developer etc. to use.

Questions: Will I get the grain effect when Kodak develop my D3200? Is there some trick to do when I take the pictures (rating, apply a bit over over/under exposer etc.)

Kindly, Martin

-- Martin Chr. Hansen (immch@pop.dtu.dk), October 10, 2000.


Martin, the answer is: only God knows! Seriously, developing your film is a simple matter of having a light-tight bathroom and a $15 tank to develop in, plus 3 rules to 'abide by' (time, temp, agitation).

I would only send chromo films to a lab; I've sent BW when I started and every time I did I must say the results were DISASTROUS!.

OK, I'm being a little melo here. But if you like what you see with the Delta, take some recommendations here, go get a used Paterson tank, shut the washroom door, and go to it. Have fun!!!

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), October 10, 2000.


Martin,

Delta 3200 is a grainy film no matter how you develop it, though push-processing increases the grain. Shawn makes a relevant point about the ease of processing it yourself, but it is possible to get decent results from an outside lab. I wouldn't just drop it off at the local drugstore, though. If you have a professional lab that has consistent procedures for b&w development, you can get good results with a little practice and experimentation. I have a friend who uses TMZ at EI3200, then has his pro lab process it with a 3-stop push--works great for him.

I generally use D3200 at EI 3200: I underexpose it by two stops (it's nominally an ISO 800 speed film), then develop it for a LONG time.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), October 12, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ