putting grain into digital files

[MH]

a few years ago i worked in a post production agency where we used to put a little bit grain into the raw files.
we felt digital photographs to be little bit too slick.

today i am still using that technique to put some kind of depths into my pictures.
even details like gradients benefit from this step.

do you put grain into you photographs?

[Chairman Bill]

Sometimes - Silver Efex Pro makes it relatively straightforward - if the image warrants it

[Schewe]

do you put grain into you photographs?

You can actually have a positive impact with image detail by adding a tiny amount of grain. Camera Raw 6 & LR 3 gives you that option. The key is to make the grain small and only strong enough to help integrate with the image.

[Doug Peterson]

You can actually have a positive impact with image detail by adding a tiny amount of grain. Camera Raw 6 & LR 3 gives you that option. The key is to make the grain small and only strong enough to help integrate with the image.

Minor (technical only) correction: it can have a "positive impact on (perceived/apparent) image detail" which is, of course all that usually matters. The practical meaning is the same, just trying to clarify for someone who might be confused.

In very small amounts grain is also an easy way to pre-empt down-stream banding especially when you don't know who will be doing what with the file.

Capture One also has a fine grain slider.

If you're using different cameras and/or very different ISOs on the same camera in a project where you want a unified look one approach is to use the noise reduction tools in Capture One to reduce the amount of noise actually in the image and then use the "fine grain" slider in (starting with equal amounts on all the images and customizing by eye from there) to equalize the look of the different files.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

[Ken Bennett]

You can do it manually. One method that I use is this:

Create a new layer. Fill it with medium gray.
Use the Filter > Noise > Add Noise menu command.
Choose Gaussian and Monochromatic.
The Amount is up to you -- for large prints I'll start with an Amount of 6 or 8, but it can vary with the image size and content.
Then use the Filter > Blur > Gaussian Blur at 0.2 Radius to take the edge off the grain. Real film grain doesn't have sharp edges.
Finally, go to the Layers palette and choose Soft Light as the Blending Mode.
You can fine tune the effect using the Opacity slider, but I find that 100% usually works best.

Note that all of this can be automated using an Action, if you find yourself using the same Add Noise "Amount" most of the time.

[Dustbak]

I have used most of the above mentioned methods. I even have used 'real grain' in the form of exposed film on top of the image set to overlay (there are example you can download but I also made my own). I now use Alienskin mostly and find this in almost all cases delivering the nicest results.

I often add grain, if only to get rid of the 'digital feeling'.

[JeffKohn]

I often add grain, if only to get rid of the 'digital feeling'.

Same here, I find it really makes a difference for larger prints, where image PPI is dropping below 240 or so. The problem with digital is that as you enlarge, the interpolation does a good job of preserving edges; but it can't really do anything about the fine detail and texture missing from the original capture. What you end up with is smooth, plastic-looking areas that should have texture but don't. The result looks unnatural to me. Adding some grain can create the sense of texture (if not actual detail), and most people will find this preferable (especially since we're used to seeing grain in enlarged film photographs). I find Grain Surgery Pro works well, and I add the grain as a final step after interpolating and sharpening the image for printing (which I do in Photoshop).

[mhecker*]

Yes I do... 

[fredjeang]

I do add grain and also generally reduce the dynamic range because too much dr tend to not separate enough the different depths.
Also use silver effex pro when speed is required. The very good thing is that it works on layers.

If you are really into nice grain, there is a system very good for that because the kind of grain obtained is very esthetic: the Foveon pushed to 800isos. (but it has a huge dr, similar to digital backs)
I guess that is why I still have a DP1 as a pocket camera.

[deejjjaaaa]

the Foveon pushed to 800isos. (but it has a huge dr, similar to digital backs)

http://www.foveon.com/files/F13_image_sensor_Product_Flier_RevD.pdf

"Dynamic range in excess of 62dB"

does not sound like huge DR ( 62 / ~6  ? )

[hjulenissen]

Will artificial grain do the same as dithering to some degree?

I.e. "encode" more low-frequency intensity information into high-frequency noise, so that subsequent quantization errors are less visible?

[fredjeang]

http://www.foveon.com/files/F13_image_sensor_Product_Flier_RevD.pdf

"Dynamic range in excess of 62dB"

does not sound like huge DR ( 62 / ~6  ? )

You can't just relly on that spec to explain DR capabilities. I hate engineering discutions and always related to field experience. Foveon users will confirm that the Sigmas DR in practise is excellent, but I'll add that
other partameters have to be taken into account: physical size of the photosites. Remember that the Foveon has 3 more area than bayer on that aspect and that plays a key role on the practical DR.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Foveon users will confirm that the Sigmas DR in practise is excellent, but I'll add that other partameters have to be taken into account: physical size of the photosites. Remember that the Foveon has 3 more area than bayer on that aspect and that plays a key role on the practical DR.

While we are on a tangent of the thread's subject, Foveon users will confirm a lot of things. However, good dynamic range does not agree with poor high ISO performance. Besides, the Foveon requires x3 area to store the charge for R+G+B, so the 7.8 micron sensel pitch (=max. 60.84 micron^2) of the early model linked to above leaves room for something like 30000 electrons tops per color channel. That doesn't bode wel for high dynamic range (as is demonstrated at higher ISOs).

Now back on the subject of adding grain, yes that's effective in suggesting detail as long as its random (white) noise. Part of the explanation is due to the pattern recognition capability of our vision. Even when there are no patterns, we'll invent them like in this example:

Do you see the triangle, which is not there?

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

No? Can you explain then to us why digital backs have the best DR and at the same time a very poor high iso performance? Other things Bart, are you relaying on technical informations on paper, or do you actually own a Foveon?

Hi Fred, Thats simple, the DR of digital backs is overrated. They are also CCD based which means that the sensels that need their charge transfered a large number of sensel positions accumulate noise on the way, and many implementations use darkframe subtraction during Raw conversion which boosts random noise.

I base my judgement on papers from Foveon, numerous image samples, and newsgroups where owners complain about very little, except for noise at higher ISO (and poor Red reproduction). Although I'm intrigued by the Foveon technology, no I do not own a Sigma. But then a surgeon also doesn't need to operate on himself to be able and have an actionable opinion about what he's dealing with when he sees a patient.

Cheers,
Bart

[deejjjaaaa]

You can't just relly on that spec to explain DR capabilities. I hate engineering discutions and always related to field experience.
 Foveon users will confirm that the Sigmas DR in practise is excellent, but I'll add that
other partameters have to be taken into account: physical size of the photosites. Remember that the Foveon has 3 more area than bayer on that aspect and that plays a key role on the practical DR.

I have foveon camera - it does not have huge DR... as for practical DR we had enough crap about "6 stops" in couple of infamous topics.

[fredjeang]

I have foveon camera - it does not have huge DR... as for practical DR we had enough crap about "6 stops" in couple of infamous topics.

Your conclusion surprises me then.
I could make a couple on plateau shots with the DP1 with the same lightning than the serie with the 5DMK2 and when devellop the raws I could see that the Sigma handled much better and smoother highlights and also details where present in the shade while not in the canon.
In other situations, I could recuperate exposition errors with the Sigma much better than with any other dslr except the Nikon D3.
To me the Foveon DR is really excellent.
But, I guess every folk has his own appreciation of this DR parameters (that seems to be really a topic where nobody end to agree for ages).

[eronald]

It's the 5D2 which is a mystery to me. Most of the time it gives me weak soft work, and then suddenly BOOM! I get superb contrasty images with incredible details and DR ... from my $100 50/1.8.

Edmund

Your conclusion surprises me then.
I could make a couple on plateau shots with the DP1 with the same lightning than the serie with the 5DMK2 and when devellop the raws I could see that the Sigma handled much better and smoother highlights and also details where present in the shade while not in the canon.
In other situations, I could recuperate exposition errors with the Sigma much better than with any other dslr except the Nikon D3.
To me the Foveon DR is really excellent.
But, I guess every folk has his own appreciation of this DR parameters (that seems to be really a topic where nobody end to agree for ages).

[deejjjaaaa]

Your conclusion surprises me then.
I could make a couple on plateau shots with the DP1 with the same lightning than the serie with the 5DMK2 and when devellop the raws I could see that the Sigma handled much better and smoother highlights and also details where present in the shade while not in the canon.
In other situations, I could recuperate exposition errors with the Sigma much better than with any other dslr except the Nikon D3.
To me the Foveon DR is really excellent.
But, I guess every folk has his own appreciation of this DR parameters (that seems to be really a topic where nobody end to agree for ages).

if we will put personal impressions aside - DxOMark did measure just 11EV (at its native resolution) for 5DmkII - hardly an excellent result, and that will be further reduced in the field... and I might assume that fixed lens and overall design of the innerspace between lens and sensor in your DP1 camera actually will reduce its DR to much less extent than it is happening with your 5DmkII... plus are you using the same raw converter for both raw files (LR/ACR ?) to compare ?

[deejjjaaaa]

It does not seem that your conclusions are the same than a lot of sigma users

and a lot of MF users continue to see "6 stops" of DR advantage... and a lot of sigma users are taking things way to personal.

DxOMark?...

so you managed to produce a single shot in the field w/ more DR that was measured by them in the lab ? I 'd assume that answer will be "NO" - so we can really only talk about much much the DR will be less in the field w/ the given lens mounted, etc than what was measured... and again it is possible that your DP1 has actually losing less DR in the field than your 5DmkII...

[artobest]

I use Photokit Sharpener to add grain to over-smoothed images prior to printing. Any comments about its effectiveness versus the other methods mentioned here? (I don't have Silver Efex, for example).