Topic: Grain or no grain - that is the question......?

[Late Developer]

When I first started taking photos in the early 70's, there was a general preference towards reducing grain and retaining detail in shadows and highlights. Consequently, I shot most of my early stuff on ISO 25, 50 and, occasionally, 100 film.

Also, grain was seen as something to be eradicated or, at best, tolerated to get a reasonably sharp shot in difficult lighting.

These days, I keep a bit of a mixture of film types and speeds handy and try to match the film to what I believe would best suit the picture I want. Others I've spoken to have said they shoot everything one (or two at most) emulsions.

What's your opinion / preference? Is this a "style" issue?

[choppert]

On a relatively related note....

When I first started (late 80s) and all through the 90s all the magazines seemed to focus on the best kit and the sharpest and slowest films.  Do all that and you've made it!

Now I'm older (and none the wiser!) it's great to see so many fab photos taken with old equipment and any old film - it just means you can look at the picture for what it is.

Maybe I was slow getting it, but there it is!

When I see such teriffic images here taken with out of date film or 60 year old cameras with experimental development that's when I get excited about photography.  And I think digital has helped that process for me, if I want a good photo I can use the D80. 
If I want something to get excited about and enjoy (no matter what the end result) I'll grab a film camera.  Mrs Chops thinks I'm mad for getting covered in chemicals and screaming at the negs when they don't look how they should have done (for myriad reasons!) and I suspect she is probably right, and that's why I love it!

I think the functionality of digital has left us to get on with our alchemy in peace and quiet. 
Does that make sense?

And to answer the question...

I've a freezer full of different films, but the one I keep on ordering is Tri-X.  Is it grainy, contrasty, sharp?  I dunno, I just know it's cheap and there's something about it that I like.

Waffle over!


Chops

[Francois]

I for one have always been a fan of big grain. I feel it gives grit to the images, something which is now nonexistant in too many photographs.

[moominsean]

it just depends on what you are trying to achieve with a particular photo. some need fine grain, others need heavy grain...

[gothamtomato]

I love grain. One of my favorite films of all time was ScotchChrome 1000, which was discontinued in the early 90's. Lovely soft color palette and very grainy.

I think it IS a style thing.

[Pete_R]

No grain for me thank you. I was fed loads of it when I was younger and really can't face it anymore.

Junior Roo (that's Michael Roux Junior to you) likes a nice smooth emulsion as well. Heard him say it last night on Masterchef.

(Seriously, I don't like grain).

[hookstrapped]

I like grain, generally.  It's become part of my style, from huge Neopan 1600 pushed 2 stops grain to "classic" Tri-X 400 grain.

[LT]

I hate certain types of grain ... grain for grain's sake bothers me somewhat ( I know, it's my problem, but it irks none the less). I like visible grain, but it must be tight, small and sharp. Clumpy, Mushy grain is just awful IMO - and I've neve really managed to get anything else with Rodinal - hence my disdain for the stuff.

I think the king of grain is Michael Kenna - it's not that obvious in his books or web displays, but the prints in real life demonstrate a quality of grain that I think is wonderful. His mid to highs tones are apparently grain free, but the shadows have a wonderful graininess  - particularly in areas where there is a sudden transition from deep shadow to very light tones.  It almost looks like fine stipple-brush marks or an airbrush.  It certainly adds to the feeling that the finished print is something more than a photopgraph.   

[Phil Bebbington]

Leon, I like your bedside manner. 

Any chance of a Jackanory style filmwasters podcast? It could be called The Grain of Michael Kenna - a classic!

His work is wonderful.

[Late Developer]

As ever, a wonderfully diverse set of responses that proves - if proof were needed - that there are no right or wrong answers and that there's enough room for everyone to have their cake and eat it.

Whilst I'm very fond of the new, fangled, digital medium (in the right place, one of my criticisms is that it can bee too clinical and devoid of texture. My D700 is capable of great results much in the way that a Hassy full of PanF is. However, zero grain - even accompanied by oodles of classy tonal separation - can be as much of an acquired taste as grain like golf balls.

One thing I used to be certain of was that grain in colour film was a complete "no-no". Boy have I changed my mind since joining this forum....!? There's also a couple of really good exponents in Flickr - of which this chap is worthy of mention:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vunnyvun/5051453114/

So, these days, I'm loving the blur and getting grungy with the grain. How times have changed......

[Photo_Utopia]

I rarely 'do grain' for grain sake, sometimes it can give interesting results, I like the sharp grain I get with Rodinal in Tri-x  





I think it works with certain subjects and can impart atmosphere or feel, it can also be overdone as in most of the grain I see created electronically.

Mark Antony

[vicky slater]

I do like a little grain but not to the point that that's what you see more than the picture.

[original_ann]

I'm neither black or white -- sometimes it fits the image, the ambiance, the mood and other times (for me) it does not.  Leon's got me salivating to see McKenna's grain in person.  (Nice description!)

[lauraburlton]

I do like a bit of grain here and there, but not so much that it takes away image details.

On another note, I think its pretty funny how grain is all the rage in digital post processing these days. Lots of people add it after....