MystyrMystyry
05-21-2011, 10:47 PM
There's been this tedious debate going on about the relative quality of digital sensors vs film (slide and negative) ever since the first digital cameras hit the shelves back in the nineteen nineties
The fact that they don't exactly compare seems to be missed on people who seek a definitive answer (there's a new one born every minute) and they just can't grasp the point about pixels (picture elements) not relating to film grain (organic visual noise)
Are 8 (or 10, or 12, or 14, or 16, or 18...) megapixels sufficient to replicate the smoothness of fine grain 35 mm film? This they ask over and over as though it makes an actual real world difference to the subject and execution of the picture
It never occurs to them that because 35mm was, for nearly a century, merely a consumer format (which happened to be used by professionals due to its omnipresent availability and therefore convenience) it was basically pretty bad quality due to its tiny size, and though far finer grained versions came and went (requiring ludicrously slow shutter speeds beyond the realm of simple hand-holding technique) the graininess became one of the aspects of photography that separated it from other artistic mediums (cinema veritae excluded because to what degree the camera may be purposely 'shaken' is entirely subjective)
Where most artforms seek clarity of both subject matter and representation, art photographers came to use grain (as well as blur, under- and over-exposure, various filters, black and white) as an extension of their self-expression (though rarely as their complete vision)
But curiously concurrent with the rise of digital imaging came print scanners, imaging programs, and the internet for all the after-manipulation any amateur or professional could ever wish for (I had more than two thousand plug-in filters and actions at one stage, which I knew was overblown, but they were there and they were free, so why not?)
But it struck me recently that in this striving for digital clarity the camera makers seem to have overlooked something. Sure they have included any number of effects and filters (simpler versions of standard Photoshop-type versions) but I've yet to see a 'grain' setting
So I designed one of my own - but I'll get to that in a minute
The thing with grain is that it allowed the film image some latitude in detail, that is it could be slightly out of focus or wobbly, but thanks to the grain adding perceived detail these slight defects usually went unnoticed and even undetected
With pixels you can obtain a relatively crisp picture within the confines of light rendering into a digital algorithm (remembering that even 28 megapixels will still be consumer grade photography relative to what the future holds - imagine adjustable filter plug-ins to recreate the 'quaint' quality of early 21st century photography)
So why the need for perceived clarity in photography at all, surely video cameras don't bother with it, shouldn't it be even less of an issue with a still photo?
Yes and no - a video usually involves a lot of movement to disguise the fact that it has limited dynamic range and quite low resolution but a still image requires a lot of detail, even if only in textures, to maintain interest
At this point some shall wish to cite Andy Warhol or Marc Rothko as composing some of the least detailed paintings ever, which is fine, but this isn't about art as much as art photography, which is a slightly different animal through general size constraints and expectations of the medium
Digital sensors are not perfect and do actually interpose a lot of messy digital noise (this is not the same as film grain) into the photo before a filter is applied to remove it, but in so doing, some of the perceived detail is invariably lost along with the 'hot spots'
So what I have done is take a series of high resolution photographs of unspoiled early morning sand (which is both organic and grainy) and by superimposing them over some less than scintillating pictures taken at various settings, created what look like high resolution professional film and slide photos
The effect is not just limited to my own, but to virtually any lo-rez picture downloaded from anywhere on the net
And those in the know shall ask but doesn't Photoshop and similar already have an add-noise filter - why not use that?
Because they look awful, and take an age to get the right settings for what I wanted to create - a meld of digital and organic clarity. We are largely stuck with infant digital and its slow evolution into a mature medium - at least at a consumer level (you can still buy film cameras and film for far less than the outlay of a shiny new digital Nikon or Canon - and you really don't want anything less - but by the time you've taken a hundred shots and had them developed any savings will be moot)
But in closing I urge you to try it - and don't limit yourself to sand - there are textures everywhere, with cracks and no, concrete, flywire, chipped paint, oiled wood, even plastic lawn from a hardware shop
Have fun!
The fact that they don't exactly compare seems to be missed on people who seek a definitive answer (there's a new one born every minute) and they just can't grasp the point about pixels (picture elements) not relating to film grain (organic visual noise)
Are 8 (or 10, or 12, or 14, or 16, or 18...) megapixels sufficient to replicate the smoothness of fine grain 35 mm film? This they ask over and over as though it makes an actual real world difference to the subject and execution of the picture
It never occurs to them that because 35mm was, for nearly a century, merely a consumer format (which happened to be used by professionals due to its omnipresent availability and therefore convenience) it was basically pretty bad quality due to its tiny size, and though far finer grained versions came and went (requiring ludicrously slow shutter speeds beyond the realm of simple hand-holding technique) the graininess became one of the aspects of photography that separated it from other artistic mediums (cinema veritae excluded because to what degree the camera may be purposely 'shaken' is entirely subjective)
Where most artforms seek clarity of both subject matter and representation, art photographers came to use grain (as well as blur, under- and over-exposure, various filters, black and white) as an extension of their self-expression (though rarely as their complete vision)
But curiously concurrent with the rise of digital imaging came print scanners, imaging programs, and the internet for all the after-manipulation any amateur or professional could ever wish for (I had more than two thousand plug-in filters and actions at one stage, which I knew was overblown, but they were there and they were free, so why not?)
But it struck me recently that in this striving for digital clarity the camera makers seem to have overlooked something. Sure they have included any number of effects and filters (simpler versions of standard Photoshop-type versions) but I've yet to see a 'grain' setting
So I designed one of my own - but I'll get to that in a minute
The thing with grain is that it allowed the film image some latitude in detail, that is it could be slightly out of focus or wobbly, but thanks to the grain adding perceived detail these slight defects usually went unnoticed and even undetected
With pixels you can obtain a relatively crisp picture within the confines of light rendering into a digital algorithm (remembering that even 28 megapixels will still be consumer grade photography relative to what the future holds - imagine adjustable filter plug-ins to recreate the 'quaint' quality of early 21st century photography)
So why the need for perceived clarity in photography at all, surely video cameras don't bother with it, shouldn't it be even less of an issue with a still photo?
Yes and no - a video usually involves a lot of movement to disguise the fact that it has limited dynamic range and quite low resolution but a still image requires a lot of detail, even if only in textures, to maintain interest
At this point some shall wish to cite Andy Warhol or Marc Rothko as composing some of the least detailed paintings ever, which is fine, but this isn't about art as much as art photography, which is a slightly different animal through general size constraints and expectations of the medium
Digital sensors are not perfect and do actually interpose a lot of messy digital noise (this is not the same as film grain) into the photo before a filter is applied to remove it, but in so doing, some of the perceived detail is invariably lost along with the 'hot spots'
So what I have done is take a series of high resolution photographs of unspoiled early morning sand (which is both organic and grainy) and by superimposing them over some less than scintillating pictures taken at various settings, created what look like high resolution professional film and slide photos
The effect is not just limited to my own, but to virtually any lo-rez picture downloaded from anywhere on the net
And those in the know shall ask but doesn't Photoshop and similar already have an add-noise filter - why not use that?
Because they look awful, and take an age to get the right settings for what I wanted to create - a meld of digital and organic clarity. We are largely stuck with infant digital and its slow evolution into a mature medium - at least at a consumer level (you can still buy film cameras and film for far less than the outlay of a shiny new digital Nikon or Canon - and you really don't want anything less - but by the time you've taken a hundred shots and had them developed any savings will be moot)
But in closing I urge you to try it - and don't limit yourself to sand - there are textures everywhere, with cracks and no, concrete, flywire, chipped paint, oiled wood, even plastic lawn from a hardware shop
Have fun!