Retoucher

George Thomson

Posts: 698

Concord, California, US

Do you add grains - as in adding film-texture for the whole image?

If you do, how?
using generated noise in PS, or some custom textures, etc?

Dec 14 12 07:34 pm Link

Retoucher

Krunoslav Stifter

Posts: 3883

Santa Cruz, California, US

Photon Mayhem wrote:
Do you add grains - as in adding film-texture for the whole image?

If you do, how?
using generated noise in PS, or some custom textures, etc?

If I do it I would use newer versions of ACR/Lr that support grain, or I would use Nik Software and Alien Skin Exposure third party plug ins. Why do you ask?

Dec 14 12 08:12 pm Link

Retoucher

George Thomson

Posts: 698

Concord, California, US

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

If I do it I would use newer versions of ACR/Lr that support grain, or I would use Nik Software and Alien Skin Exposure third party plug ins. Why do you ask?

I like using grain in LR, especially on Sepia/terra, it also gives some perception for higher DR (at least to me), and masks "digital" noise in case I ended up shooting with higher ISO.

Looking through some examples it looked to me each company Kodak, Fuji, Ilford etc have specific noise/grain "patterns" of distribution and most products from each company have similar noise "pattern". (I was looking only at the BW films they make)

.. so wanted to add it programatically and it kind of worked, but wanted to see what other people are using (and check other software for some ideas) wink

but I wasn't sure if anyone was using things like that (here)

Dec 14 12 09:07 pm Link

Retoucher

Krunoslav Stifter

Posts: 3883

Santa Cruz, California, US

Photon Mayhem wrote:
I like using grain in LR, especially on Sepia/terra, it also gives some perception for higher DR (at least to me), and masks "digital" noise in case I ended up shooting with higher ISO.

Looking through some examples it looked to me each company Kodak, Fuji, Ilford etc have specific noise/grain "patterns" of distribution and most products from each company have similar noise "pattern". (I was looking only at the BW films they make)

.. so wanted to add it programatically and it kind of worked, but wanted to see what other people are using (and check other software for some ideas) wink

but I wasn't sure if anyone was using things like that (here)

Well, there seems to be a lot of solutions for most users, somebody who wants to replicate the exact grain pattern of some old film, that would be probably some enthusiast. And their number would probably be small in compression. Not sure if it's worth it.

Dec 14 12 09:11 pm Link

Retoucher

George Thomson

Posts: 698

Concord, California, US

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

Well, there seems to be a lot of solutions for most users, somebody who wants to replicate the exact grain pattern of some old film, that would be probably some enthusiast. And their number would probably be small in compression. Not sure if it's worth it.

My page for grading was due for an upgrade,
so adding "grain" option seemed natural.

The page is "up" so if you want check it out.
(company names are abbreviated as they are trademarked)
and just updated the grain blending algorithm a few hours ago

I'll take a look at Alien Skin... but it looks like they have one basic "grain"... anyway, it may be worth downloading the trial version to see what results they get. Thanks.

Dec 14 12 09:41 pm Link

Retoucher

AKMac

Posts: 329

London, England, United Kingdom

The grain in Nik Siver Efex Pro and Alien Skin Exposure is fantastic. If you want to see an example of what to avoid, check out Topaz B&W Effects.

Dec 15 12 01:03 am Link

Retoucher

George Thomson

Posts: 698

Concord, California, US

AKMac wrote:
The grain in Nik Siver Efex Pro and Alien Skin Exposure is fantastic. If you want to see an example of what to avoid, check out Topaz B&W Effects.

10x

how about DxO FilmPack? any impressions?

Dec 15 12 06:02 am Link

Retoucher

George Thomson

Posts: 698

Concord, California, US

Nik's idea for grain smoothing turned up useful

but I see some software adds noise even in the complete white 255,255,255
other do not.
which one do you think looks better?
(having a little noise in the "complete white" or no noise there at all)

Dec 15 12 06:16 pm Link

Photographer

Hugh Alison

Posts: 2119

Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom

Real film is more grainy in the shadows, almost grainless in the highlights.

This is a scan from Tri-X.
http://hughalison.com/wp-content/uploads/20616-0002-750x568.jpg

Full size image here: http://hughalison.com/wp-content/uploads/20616-0002.jpg

Dec 17 12 11:55 am Link

Photographer

sidney_k

Posts: 874

Paris, Île-de-France, France

Photon Mayhem wrote:
Do you add grains - as in adding film-texture for the whole image?

If you do, how?
using generated noise in PS, or some custom textures, etc?

And I thought all that high digital resolution was all about getting rid of grain...

When I shoot digital, I never add grain.

When I want grain, I shoot film, simple as that.

Why would I want to make one step ahead, to go back three? ;-)

Dec 17 12 12:14 pm Link

Photographer

Hugh Alison

Posts: 2119

Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom

Carioca wrote:
When I want grain, I shoot film, simple as that.

I wasted quite a lot of time trying to add grain to digital images convincingly - even using Nik software. Far less work to shoot a bit of film.

Dec 17 12 12:56 pm Link

Retoucher

George Thomson

Posts: 698

Concord, California, US

Hugh Alison wrote:
Real film is more grainy in the shadows, almost grainless in the highlights.

Full size image here: http://hughalison.com/wp-content/uploads/20616-0002.jpg

Thanks for the scan.
It's interesting that so far the all the software I looked at (including Nik's) do not add grains in the blacks at 0,0,0 (unlike what is visible on the scan here) but rather target the mid-tones and gradually fade the effect towards the highlights and the blacks.

maybe adding some grains in the blacks will make it even better

Dec 17 12 02:46 pm Link

Photographer

Hugh Alison

Posts: 2119

Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom

IT's a strange thing - but the grain on a print is where the light gets through the negative between the grains of silver - and there are less "holes" for it to get through the dark areas of the negative - therefore less grain in the light bits of the print.

Took me quite a long time to work out why the "digital grain" didn't look quite right.

Dec 17 12 03:20 pm Link

Photographer

NothingIsRealButTheGirl

Posts: 33522

Los Angeles, California, US

On the tonal distribution of film grain

http://tig.colorist.org/pipermail/tig/2 … 16190.html

Dec 17 12 03:45 pm Link

Retoucher

Peano

Posts: 4106

Lynchburg, Virginia, US

Hugh Alison wrote:
Real film is more grainy in the shadows, almost grainless in the highlights.

That can be replicated in Photoshop with the blend-if sliders.

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/820/graing.jpg

Dec 17 12 03:50 pm Link

Retoucher

George Thomson

Posts: 698

Concord, California, US

Peano wrote:
That can be replicated in Photoshop with the blend-if sliders.

.. this looks quite digital to me. =/
---


so made some more changes, made the highlights with even less grain, and left some grain in the blacks... and I have to say I like the result much better

one of the more grainier settings (second one is with a film-stock)

http://prikachi.com/images/395/5622395M.jpg

.. but... probably I should lower the grain in the deep shadows a little

Dec 17 12 04:03 pm Link

Retoucher

Peano

Posts: 4106

Lynchburg, Virginia, US

Hugh Alison wrote:
I wasted quite a lot of time trying to add grain to digital images convincingly ...

A question easily overlooked by retouchers is: Convincing to whom?

Take this, for example:
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/1406/shadowsh.jpg

Probably most here would say this image, an obvious composite, isn't convincing. Brad Pitt's sun is camera-right, Angelina's sun is camera-left. You can tell this by the shadows cast on their necks.

We notice this because we're all pixel-peepers here. The interesting thing is that most people (non-retouchers, non-photographers) will not notice this. Put another way, they find the image convincing, shadows and all.

Check this presentation. Scroll over to about 27:30 and begin there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKJ6gP5lJY

It's a little lesson in perspective: Don't assume that the details you notice will also be noticed by others who aren't focused on the technical aspects of an image.

Dec 17 12 05:57 pm Link

Retoucher

AKMac

Posts: 329

London, England, United Kingdom

Personally I don't think the creative use of grain in digital picture making should be constrained by the limitations and idiosyncrasies of the silver halide process, but for those who do, Alien Skin Exposure 4 gives you control over the shadow, midtones and highlight areas.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/21186335/Screen%20shot%202012-12-18%20at%2007.25.04.png

Dec 17 12 11:39 pm Link

Photographer

Neil Snape

Posts: 9473

Paris, Île-de-France, France

I sometimes use LR3+4 for add grain on monochrome.

A long time ago I used some scanned BW negatives for real grain. Using blend if always works and I use that for many adjustment layers and effects.

Add grain in Gaussian with monochome selected adds more grain in dark areas AFAIK.

I don't use grain in PS, actually hardly do any PS now, everything is done up front in LR.

Dec 17 12 11:56 pm Link

Retoucher

George Thomson

Posts: 698

Concord, California, US

- "Convincing to whom? "
imo, it really depends on your target audience.
in a gossip column is one thing, in fashion mag another, or fine-art photography (the one that hangs on walls) still something else.
(so spending the effort may be worth it)

"Alien Skin Exposure 4" - this one I didn't try.
the examples they had were not quite convincing but I see it gives a lot of flexibility.
Latitude in creativity is great, but I found one thing ever since I looked in the Kodachrome simulation - those guys in the film industry knew what they were doing! In most cases you get the best result if you llama what they were after.

I usually don't get out of LR too, but when it comes to the grain-engine I have to give it to Nik and DxO (I didn't try "alien skin"), though not by much.

Dec 18 12 02:52 am Link

Photographer

Hugh Alison

Posts: 2119

Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom

Peano wrote:

A question easily overlooked by retouchers is: Convincing to whom?

I'd recognise Tri-x, HP5+, and TMax400, because I used all three films.
They all have different characteristic curves as well as different grain.

None of the imitations are very convincing.

Dec 18 12 06:05 am Link

Retoucher

George Thomson

Posts: 698

Concord, California, US

Hugh Alison wrote:
I'd recognise Tri-x, HP5+, and TMax400, because I used all three films.
They all have different characteristic curves as well as different grain.

None of the imitations are very convincing.

I really appreciate your feedback.

here's a simulation of T-Max400 (Max400), with Kodak_web (Kod_web) at default roughness and 50% blend.
what jumps at you that is not "right" here? what gives it away?

http://46it.ca/2012-11-3_19-58.jpg



T-Max400 (Max400), with Kodak_web (Kod_web) all default

http://46it.ca/2012-11-3_41-1.jpg

Dec 18 12 05:27 pm Link

Photographer

Hugh Alison

Posts: 2119

Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom

Photon Mayhem wrote:

I really appreciate your feedback.

here's a simulation of T-Max400 (Max400), with Kodak_web (Kod_web) at default roughness and 50% blend.
what jumps at you that is not "right" here? what gives it away?

http://46it.ca/2012-11-3_19-58.jpg



T-Max400 (Max400), with Kodak_web (Kod_web) all default

http://46it.ca/2012-11-3_41-1.jpg

They are both very nice BW conversions. 'm on my laptop, so my screen is only OK, but I'll have a go.

First shot - has a nice smooth distribution of tones - more like HP5.  The TMax films  tend to burn out highlights unless one is very careful.

Second shot - the distribution of tones is more like I would expect from a T-max film, but the grain is too large for the size of foto, even from 35mm.

One of the best resources for comparison is this film only group on flickr:
"Film is not dead it just smells funny":
http://www.flickr.com/groups/onfilm/

This gets fotos taken with T-max 100:
http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?w= … pool&q=tmy

This gets fotos taken with T-max 400:
http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?w= … pool&q=tmy

T-max 3200:
http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?m= … 0N21&q=tmz

HP5:
http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?m= … 0N21&q=hp5

TriX:
http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?m= … N21&q=TriX

and this is a group using only Tri-x:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/tri-x/


Then you have to work out which were shot on 35mm, 120 film, or 4"x5" film.

Just to add to the variety, this shot shws very large grain, but it's probably a scanning artefact (grain aliasing, a bit like moire) from using a dedicated film scanner - a scan from a flatbed scanner has diffure light and lower resolution, so doesn't emphasize the grain so much:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visuallab/3266605172/


TMI - sorry!

Dec 18 12 09:48 pm Link

Retoucher

George Thomson

Posts: 698

Concord, California, US

Hugh Alison wrote:

They are both very nice BW conversions. 'm on my laptop, so my screen is only OK, but I'll have a go.

First shot - has a nice smooth distribution of tones - more like HP5.  The TMax films  tend to burn out highlights unless one is very careful.

Second shot - the distribution of tones is more like I would expect from a T-max film, but the grain is too large for the size of foto, even from 35mm.

One of the best resources for comparison is this film only group on flickr:
"Film is not dead it just smells funny":
http://www.flickr.com/groups/onfilm/

This gets fotos taken with T-max 100:
http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?w= … pool&q=tmy

This gets fotos taken with T-max 400:
http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?w= … pool&q=tmy

T-max 3200:
http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?m= … 0N21&q=tmz

HP5:
http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?m= … 0N21&q=hp5

TriX:
http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?m= … N21&q=TriX

and this is a group using only Tri-x:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/tri-x/


Then you have to work out which were shot on 35mm, 120 film, or 4"x5" film.

Just to add to the variety, this shot shws very large grain, but it's probably a scanning artefact (grain aliasing, a bit like moire) from using a dedicated film scanner - a scan from a flatbed scanner has diffure light and lower resolution, so doesn't emphasize the grain so much:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visuallab/3266605172/


TMI - sorry!

the information is just the right amount smile
thanks for the links!

setting the grain size/to image is something I need to take care of. Right not it's not dependant on the image-input size and if you load a smaller image you will get larger size grain.

Dec 19 12 02:46 am Link

Retoucher

Rob Mac Studio

Posts: 1105

London, England, United Kingdom

Here's a little fun thread I started a while back....

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … 642&page=1

Dec 19 12 04:43 am Link

Retoucher

George Thomson

Posts: 698

Concord, California, US

taking all the new information into account, now it's simplified

- choose film stock which will take care of the tones
(preferably the ones from BW, to keep with the thread's spirit)

- choose grain ( "company"/ film-size)
- choose ISO of the film

(turn preview off)

https://illuminations.herokuapp.com

(beer)

ps. the settings (for iso/plate-size) are eye-balled, so if not happy adjust to however it feels "right".

ps2. did some final* (for now) updates on the grain-engine, to feel more "analogue". Happy Holidays to all.

Dec 20 12 03:51 pm Link

Retoucher

George Thomson

Posts: 698

Concord, California, US

I'm not sure if I got the grain-size right. What do you think?
That is 35mm ISO400:
(not talking about a drum scanned negative, but the visual expectations of how it will look developed on paper)
http://prikachi.com/images/348/5647348G.jpg


Merry Christmas

Dec 23 12 08:02 pm Link

Retoucher

Krunoslav Stifter

Posts: 3883

Santa Cruz, California, US

Photon Mayhem wrote:
I'm not sure if I got the grain-size right. What do you think?
That is 35mm ISO400:
(not talking about a drum scanned negative, but the visual expectations of how it will look developed on paper)

Merry Christmas

Marry Christmas!

Can you show it a bit enlarged so we can see better the grains.

Dec 24 12 12:18 am Link

Retoucher

George Thomson

Posts: 698

Concord, California, US

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
Marry Christmas!

Can you show it a bit enlarged so we can see better the grains.

... I'm still tweaking the settings:
(I know it back-focused here, just testing the grains 35mm-ISO400)
http://mobilefiles.ca/Grain-Size_test.jpg

Dec 24 12 04:55 am Link

Retoucher

Krunoslav Stifter

Posts: 3883

Santa Cruz, California, US

Photon Mayhem wrote:

... I'm still tweaking the settings:]

Is there a ways to blend them into the image, something like what maybe effecting shadows, mid tone and highlights separately or is it uniform across the board.

Dec 24 12 04:58 am Link

Photographer

Hugh Alison

Posts: 2119

Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom

Seems pretty close to the right size to me.

Dec 24 12 05:03 am Link

Retoucher

George Thomson

Posts: 698

Concord, California, US

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
Is there a ways to blend them into the image, something like what maybe effecting shadows, mid tone and highlights separately or is it uniform across the board.

blending is defiantly not uniform. highlights are almost grainless.
most grains are in the mid, and mid-darks tones.
(actually I am quite happy with the blending, although this example may not show it well)

what I'm not convinced yet is the "size" of the grains
if the full picture here is 35mm, when a print is zoomed, will it get finer noise (smaller coarser specks), or it will show larger grains on a print. If the negative is drum-scanned it looks like that the noise i quite "sharp", but I don't remember this visible this way on photo-paper.

Hugh Alison wrote:
Seems pretty close to the right size to me.

thanks for the feedback

Dec 24 12 05:11 am Link

Retoucher

Krunoslav Stifter

Posts: 3883

Santa Cruz, California, US

Photon Mayhem wrote:
although this example may not show it well)

Probably that's it. smile

Dec 24 12 05:20 am Link

Photographer

K I S S P H O T O

Posts: 594

Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom

I never try to replicate "film looks"
I do add grain to most of my b/w photos though with normal photoshop grain filter because i just like it to look a little rougher
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121124/12/50b1333661b5d_m.jpg
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120103/16/4f039ec3ef34c_m.jpg

Dec 24 12 08:00 am Link

Retoucher

George Thomson

Posts: 698

Concord, California, US

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:
Probably that's it. smile

... it also does not show colours well, but beats the simple 50% grey which would be best for testing the grain size wink

happy holidays to all smile

another test with same settings 35mm ISO 400:
http://mobilefiles.ca/2012-11-18_56-10.jpg

http://mobilefiles.ca/2012-11-18_56-10_2.jpg

120mm, ISO400:
http://mobilefiles.ca/2012-11-20_44-12.jpg

Dec 24 12 08:49 am Link

Photographer

Hugh Alison

Posts: 2119

Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom

Dec 24 12 03:59 pm Link

Photographer

Brian Ziff

Posts: 4105

Los Angeles, California, US

I have massive libraries of real film grains on 50% grey that I've stolen from various corners of the internet.

Dec 24 12 04:04 pm Link

Photographer

Kent Art Photography

Posts: 2906

Ashford, England, United Kingdom

Do people think that grain = art, or b&w = grain, or what?

Didn't we do everything we could to eliminate grain?

Edit:-

And grain is NEVER plural!

Dec 24 12 04:14 pm Link

Photographer

J O H N A L L A N

Posts: 10308

Santa Ana, California, US

Carioca wrote:

And I thought all that high digital resolution was all about getting rid of grain...

When I shoot digital, I never add grain.

When I want grain, I shoot film, simple as that.

Why would I want to make one step ahead, to go back three? ;-)

Maybe because someone might want to retain the asthetic of film, while leveraging the substantial advancements in workflow digital provides.

Dec 24 12 04:17 pm Link

Photographer

1472

Posts: 1059

Pembroke Pines, Florida, US

i hear alien skin has great grain
i hear old film has better

in other news WOW at some of the retouchers avis on this thread smile

Dec 24 12 04:24 pm Link