actually there are a plethora of plugins avail to add gran,which work
superbly. I see many people now denoising their images with NeatImage
to get that perfect smooth non grainy look. Then they adjust colors,
contrast, sharpness, what have you. And then they add grain. It can
look superb. A fellow on my street takes lens cap-on-in-the-dark
pictures with all sorts of B&W FILM....then scans the grain, then
overlays the grain on is images. I have done this too and it is
spectacular....best of both worlds; you just need the time
>>> agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx 03/20/07 2:43 pm >>>
Bill Pearce wrote:
> My god, man,what are you saying? Someone would actually try to GET
> grain in their photos? That the holy grail of total absence of
> grain may not be right? Please, please remember that today's
> photographers don't want ANY visible grain (or noise) and will
> give up most anything in that goal.
I've pondered this many times. There are those in our ranks who
strive for the total transparant look--attaining "reality", whatever
that is. Granted, there are times when I have to do that too. But
not all pictures need to be "perfect" representations of reality.
I think a lot of this has to do with the style of photography/art a
person is striving for. As an example, much of my work would fall
under the "abstract" label. Since it is "abstract", it is often
needing a matching character.
What do you mean--ol Schnozz?
Well, think of it this way. Would you frame a picture of a high-tech
device in a frame made out of barnwood? No. You'd frame it in a
metal frame or some other modern material. Would you place a picture
of an old barn in a flashy gold and jeweled frame? Uh, no.
How about music? What good is a rock concert if the sound system is
turned way down and you can barely hear the music? Boring! Yet, you
wouldn't amplify chamber music to 126dB.
So, what we have is every tom, dick and harry wanting to have
perfectly clean, noiseless, grainless images of things that just need
character. For the fashion conscious, if an image is a dress, grain
would be the shoes, belt and purse that a woman would wear with it.
What I see in great abundance today is a million technically perfect
images out there that lack character. They lack life, soul, and
spirit. They lack that imperfection which puts the image into
context.
Instead of the constant pursuit of the perfectly clean, detailed, and
sharp (and oversaturated) image, we need to step back and ask
ourselves some basic questions about our work. If the image is an
"abstract", does the entire presentation match and enhance that
concept? If the image is an attempt at drawing emotion, is there
detail or information there which draws the attention away from what
you are trying to say? (this is why B&W works so well for street
photography).
Grain is not evil. Digital noise generally is because it is readily
apparant as not being "natural".
Structure and order is important in our daily lives. We strive for
it. Yet, when we want to "escape" what do we do? We go fishing,
hiking, sailing, golfing, etc. We go out into the natural world
where randomness reigns. Do our images of the natural world
(landscape photos, particularily), match the intent of the image or
are they just transparant "windows"?
AG
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|