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?
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)
but I wasn't sure if anyone was using things like that (here)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
Hugh Alison
Posts: 1,303
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.
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)
.. but... probably I should lower the grain in the deep shadows a little
Peano
Posts: 3,741
Washington, District of Columbia, 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:
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:
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.
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.
- "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 model 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.
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?
T-Max400 (Max400), with Kodak_web (Kod_web) all default
Hugh Alison
Posts: 1,303
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?
T-Max400 (Max400), with Kodak_web (Kod_web) all default
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/
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/
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/
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 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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
| 
| 
| edu