AG Schnozz wrote:
>> Oh, I didn't mean *digital/pseudo* B&W. I meant, *real* B&W,
>> the kind
>> that comes from film developed and printed in a darkroom.
>>
>
> Oh, the kind where "grain" isn't a defect?
>
I'm of the opinion that grain is a defect, and always has been, in the
sense that it is an artifact of the image capture process that is not a
part of the subject. You rail about digital artifacts in DSLR images,
but accept artifacts in film
That is perfectly natural. We have been looking at grain for our whole
lives and tend to see it as part of the image. And like selective
focus/blurring, petroleum jelly smeared on filters, cross processing and
other intentional artifacts, grain may well add to the artistic quality
of the resultant image.
It is nonetheless, a defect in the image creation system in that it
arbitrarily alters the image projected by the lens onto the film in ways
that have nothing inherent to do with the subject. Similarly, the lens
introduces artifacts, aberrations, as we commonly call them, that are
inherent in the lens, not in the subject.
Moose on his high horse.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|