how to achieve grainy BW pic

hoppinghippo · 16th October 2002

Hi, does anyone have any advice on how to achieve grainy BW pics? I hope to achieve the grainy moody maybe a bit soft too kind of feel. very old street of london kind of shot.

I"m thinking of underexposing, or soft filters or even deliberate hand shake? there's this thing about pushing a few stops too but I know very little about that? isn't it the same as using exposure compensation to underexpose?

thanx!

ckiang · 16th October 2002

Try TMAX 3200. Or Ilford Delta 3200. No, please don't try deliberate handshake, looks bad.

Regards
CK

Kit · 16th October 2002

For grains, I recommend Illford HP5+. The Delta 3200, to me has rather fine grains and will only start to get visible with bigger prints(8R).

Sometimes, I feel that pushing will give you unuseable contrast.

Kit · 16th October 2002

and btw, delibrate softness and handshake blur are very different thing altogether. You might want to try a diffusing filter.

Jed · 16th October 2002

Sorry, but the honest to goodness answer for the best and easiest way to achieve this is, Photoshop. For those who find this completely repulsive, I'm sorry, but that's the truth. There are conventional ways of achieving the result desired, and I could tell you one or two ways that can work, but at the end of the day the best way to go about it really is with PS.

Kit · 16th October 2002

Quote:

Originally posted by Jed
Sorry, but the honest to goodness answer for the best and easiest way to achieve this is, Photoshop. For those who find this completely repulsive, I'm sorry, but that's the truth. There are conventional ways of achieving the result desired, and I could tell you one or two ways that can work, but at the end of the day the best way to go about it really is with PS.

Hey Jed, that's just what I wanted to find out. I've done a comparison between a print from Delta 3200 and a digital print with noise added. The grains from the digital print just look too uniform and I actually prefer the grains from film. Care to share your method making grains look more "filmlike"?

Kit · 16th October 2002

As for finding it completely repulsive.......... let's leave it to those fake elitists shall we?

darkness · 16th October 2002

Actually it is not *that* difficult to add digital noise of varying sizes. One simple method which I can think of is to use a few layers, each with gaussian noise of varying radius added. There! Grains of varying sizes...

Of coz there might be more elegant and better solutions. Anyone wants to share??

hoppinghippo · 16th October 2002

what's ilford hp5+? what's its ASA/ISO? is it slide film? delta 3200 is neg film rite? And these are both BW? how much are they? while taking the pics, do I expose normally like for highlights, or should I deliberately underexpose, like for the shadows?

I quite like the grainy pics of yester-year kind, very nostalgic feel, hope to reproduce that!

thanx for all your advice!

Kit · 16th October 2002

Quote:

Originally posted by hoppinghippo
what's ilford hp5+? what's its ASA/ISO? is it slide film? delta 3200 is neg film rite? And these are both BW? how much are they? while taking the pics, do I expose normally like for highlights, or should I deliberately underexpose, like for the shadows?

I quite like the grainy pics of yester-year kind, very nostalgic feel, hope to reproduce that!

thanx for all your advice!

HP5+ is a neg film at ISO 400. Yes, the Delta 3200 is neg. Both are B&W. What to meter on really depends on what you want. Do you want those details in highlight or those in shadow?

Kit · 16th October 2002

Here's one of my image using the Delta 3200.
http://www3.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=158982

hoppinghippo · 16th October 2002

wah lau kit, your pic is very sharp lah!!!!

don't see noticaeble grains at all! very nostalgic feel!

Kit · 16th October 2002

That's why I said the Delta 3200 has rather fine grains unless you enlarge the image. The version you saw was scanned from a 4R print and toned in PS.

hoppinghippo · 16th October 2002

Kit: point taken for sure!

so ilford hp-5 is the best bet? but if it's rated ISO 400, won't the grains be finer then delta 3200? how much is it?

Kit · 16th October 2002

I'm not sure myself as to why the HP5+ is granier but it is. I'm not sure how much they costs in Singapore but I would imagine not more then $10 a roll.

Kit · 16th October 2002

Btw, I'm trying out the Fuji Neopan 1600 now. Will keep you updated on how that turn out(if I remember

)

hoppinghippo · 16th October 2002

thanx!!

Kit · 16th October 2002

Hmmm........ I've just read some pretty contradicting reviews on the HP5+. Some say large grains, some say fine grains. For me, its definitely grainier. You might want to try out both the 3200 and the HP5+ just to see which one you prefer.

ckiang · 16th October 2002

Actually I have a better idea. Buy Kodak Max 400. Shoot it 1/2 to 1 stop underexposed, process normally. You get all the grain you want. Then convert to B&W.

Regards
CK

Jed · 17th October 2002

HP5 is a lovely film, and it is, bar none, my favourite B&W emulsion. It is more old-worldy in the sense that it is at least a conventional grained film, unlike Delta 3200 which utilises new grain structure patterns from the Delta series, like Kodak's T-grain structure.

And that brings me back to what I said originally, the best way to do it is Photoshop. As you've seen from Kit's D3200 shot, there's very little grain to be had from films these days unless you crop to a ridiculous extent. PS gives you more control, and more grain should you require it, different types of grain, etc, etc. Contrast can be adjusted, etc, etc.

Tri-X and HP5 are fairly tried and tested ways of getting grain in conventional film, rated at EIs of 1600/3200 and processed to accentuate the grain structure. Still the contrast starts bumping up badly, and the grain size still might not be what you want (insufficient).

16th October 2002	#1
hoppinghippo Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 559	how to achieve grainy BW pic Hi, does anyone have any advice on how to achieve grainy BW pics? I hope to achieve the grainy moody maybe a bit soft too kind of feel. very old street of london kind of shot. I"m thinking of underexposing, or soft filters or even deliberate hand shake? there's this thing about pushing a few stops too but I know very little about that? isn't it the same as using exposure compensation to underexpose? thanx!

16th October 2002	#3
Kit Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Bukit Timah / Melbourne CBD Posts: 6,034	For grains, I recommend Illford HP5+. The Delta 3200, to me has rather fine grains and will only start to get visible with bigger prints(8R). Sometimes, I feel that pushing will give you unuseable contrast. __________________ arkitectural photography http://arkitecturalphoto.1x.com/

16th October 2002	#4
Kit Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Bukit Timah / Melbourne CBD Posts: 6,034	and btw, delibrate softness and handshake blur are very different thing altogether. You might want to try a diffusing filter. __________________ arkitectural photography http://arkitecturalphoto.1x.com/

16th October 2002	#7
Kit Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Bukit Timah / Melbourne CBD Posts: 6,034	As for finding it completely repulsive.......... let's leave it to those fake elitists shall we? __________________ arkitectural photography http://arkitecturalphoto.1x.com/

16th October 2002	#11
Kit Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Bukit Timah / Melbourne CBD Posts: 6,034	Here's one of my image using the Delta 3200. http://www3.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=158982 __________________ arkitectural photography http://arkitecturalphoto.1x.com/

16th October 2002	#2
ckiang Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 6,597	Try TMAX 3200. Or Ilford Delta 3200. No, please don't try deliberate handshake, looks bad. Regards CK

16th October 2002	#5
Jed Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,081	Sorry, but the honest to goodness answer for the best and easiest way to achieve this is, Photoshop. For those who find this completely repulsive, I'm sorry, but that's the truth. There are conventional ways of achieving the result desired, and I could tell you one or two ways that can work, but at the end of the day the best way to go about it really is with PS.

16th October 2002	#8
darkness Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 757	Actually it is not that difficult to add digital noise of varying sizes. One simple method which I can think of is to use a few layers, each with gaussian noise of varying radius added. There! Grains of varying sizes... Of coz there might be more elegant and better solutions. Anyone wants to share??

16th October 2002	#14
hoppinghippo Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 559	Kit: point taken for sure! so ilford hp-5 is the best bet? but if it's rated ISO 400, won't the grains be finer then delta 3200? how much is it?

17th October 2002	#20
Jed Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,081	HP5 is a lovely film, and it is, bar none, my favourite B&W emulsion. It is more old-worldy in the sense that it is at least a conventional grained film, unlike Delta 3200 which utilises new grain structure patterns from the Delta series, like Kodak's T-grain structure. And that brings me back to what I said originally, the best way to do it is Photoshop. As you've seen from Kit's D3200 shot, there's very little grain to be had from films these days unless you crop to a ridiculous extent. PS gives you more control, and more grain should you require it, different types of grain, etc, etc. Contrast can be adjusted, etc, etc. Tri-X and HP5 are fairly tried and tested ways of getting grain in conventional film, rated at EIs of 1600/3200 and processed to accentuate the grain structure. Still the contrast starts bumping up badly, and the grain size still might not be what you want (insufficient).