| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/31/2005 02:26:06 AM · #1 |
Don't worry this is not a 'poor me' thread :)
I'm happy with my pic in the 'Faceless' challenge, with a reasonable score (including 8 9's and 8 10's) and a favorite I'm smiling - thank you :)
I'm sure that many people disliked the pic because of the grain, what I'm interested to hear are peoples opinions on the inclusion of grain in images on dpc, it seems to me that as a general rule it's a bit of a no-no.
My 'Faceless' entry:
Thanks again for all the positive comments and to Sweetlips for including my image in her favorites.
Cheers :)
Darren
|
|
|
|
01/31/2005 02:28:40 AM · #2 |
i agree, seems people don't like it much ... which is exactly why we should have a grain challenge ... force voters to appreciate it more
:)
excellent shot, by the way |
|
|
|
01/31/2005 02:41:34 AM · #3 |
I remember your photo - liked it overall. I do remember thinking to myself that this shot was probably going to take some heat for not being totally "faceless". I'm curious as to the comments you rec'd. I'll have to come back in a bit to look (supposed to be working right now but wanted to toss my two cents in). ;^)
|
|
|
|
01/31/2005 02:56:01 AM · #4 |
| I love the use of grain in a photo as it adds another dimension and a bit of surrealism to the image, as your photograph so well demonstrates. It's too bad that DPC voters shun its use. |
|
|
|
01/31/2005 03:08:31 AM · #5 |
Your work is your work. There aren't really any no-nos if you are creating what you intended to create. Now, if you are shooting strictly for mass appeal vs. exploring your vision then there are no-nos, and in general mass appeal likes buttery smooth images.
Personally, I don't mind grain if it fits the image. In this case it seems as though the grain's intensity was disproportionate to the image. Not every image is a destination; Some of them are waypoints. If this is what you intended, and you like it, then keep exploring.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2005 05:35:58 AM · #6 |
I don't think people liked the grain in mine either:  but then again my first ever blue ribbon was disqualified for adding grain to the photo, so I guess people liked the grain there or I wouldn't have won! :P
|
|
|
|
01/31/2005 05:39:34 AM · #7 |
I personally like grain and sometimes shoot to get it intentionally.
I think in both cases posted, the shots were just a little bit dull .. nice compositions just not entirely thrilling you know? |
|
|
|
01/31/2005 05:41:17 AM · #8 |
You're kidding ben? DQ for ADDING grain? It's ok to take out grain with neat image but not ok to add grain?
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2005 05:42:18 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
You're kidding ben? DQ for ADDING grain? It's ok to take out grain with neat image but not ok to add grain?
Robt. |
In the old days that was the case, yeh, but silly me didn't know! It's all changed now tho :P
|
|
|
|
01/31/2005 05:45:27 AM · #10 |
| Whether grain adds to or detracts from an image all depends on the image. In some it just makes the image look, uh... grainy. However, in others it sets the mood. Black and white I find can benefit alot from grain. |
|
|
|
01/31/2005 05:51:05 AM · #11 |
| Sometimes grain can add a lot to a picture, but I like bw film grain a lot better. Digital grain isn't the same... |
|
|
|
01/31/2005 05:59:11 AM · #12 |
I like grain..most voters here do not. This is quite grainny, and got low scores, but i like it and that, in the end, is all that matters.
 I was going for cheap horror flick and that idea didn't get through.
My light entry i ran though neat image to remove grain..I am 5.44 so I probably chose well.
This is from Facelss. I used mirrors and couldn't use flash so i ran the iso way up, and got grain.  I consdiered a partly desaturated image too. I got lots of comments (5 comments, 13 1'2 and 2's) and a low score all saying i am showing too much face. I did get some 9's and 10's...
End result: you cannot please all the voters all the time, but you can please some of the voters some of the time.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2005 05:59:45 AM · #13 |
Check out the ribbon winners in past challenges of the past and you won̢۪t see grain.
//www.dpchallenge.com/challenge_archive.php
But if you have a photo that you think is much better with grain then without that go for it, you can't always worry about what everyone else thinks. It depends on what you are taking photographs for, if they are for your own enjoyment then make them the way you think they look the best. If you are trying to be a professional photographer then that is another story, then you are shooting for others and not yourself.
But have fun, experiment and don̢۪t worry about the votes too much. |
|
|
|
01/31/2005 06:06:31 AM · #14 |
This is just my opinion, an expression of my own personal tastes, but sense you asked. I don't mind grain per se. Grain was often present in film shots whether you wanted it there or not. And sometimes digital shots are more noisy than we like. Using noise reduction programs is sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. Your picture doesn't look to me like it fits those categories. It looks to me like it is grain that was induced for the sake of grain, which I find that distasteful. It also strikes me as a fairly high level of grain, or graininess, not just a little noise.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2005 06:22:58 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by hopper:
i agree, seems people don't like it much ... which is exactly why we should have a grain challenge ... force voters to appreciate it more |
Good idea.
I think that in many cases it gives a good effect but this is something that´s easy to point your finger at in challenges. |
|
|
|
01/31/2005 06:39:24 AM · #16 |
| On the original post, I think grain could have worked OK. What strikes me on this image is 1) the grain is really heavy - overdone in my view, and 2) it looks unnatural. I'm assuming by the look that this is added grain, not noise. There's an odd disconnect between the heavy grain and the sharp, clear lines of the person - makes it look almost cut-and-paste. Ben's example looks much more natural - grain with an overall soft sense to the picture. |
|
|
|
01/31/2005 06:40:17 AM · #17 |
I think most people would agree with garlic - "in many cases it gives a good effect". A Grain challenge would be benficial if people learned when grain was appropriate and when it was not. But the usual pattern here at dpc is that people only learn how to do the technique. Having that knowledge without being cognizant of the appropriateness issue is of dubious value. How would you score a shot where the technique was superior but the subject was ill-suited?
|
|
|
|
01/31/2005 06:45:54 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
You're kidding ben? DQ for ADDING grain? It's ok to take out grain with neat image but not ok to add grain?
Robt. |
Removing digital noise that's introduced by the camera has been allowed since early in the site's life. Adding affects like grain through the use of filters in photoshop wasn't allowed until the advanced editing rules were introduced last year, and still isn't under the basic rules. |
|
|
|
01/31/2005 06:48:11 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think most people would agree with garlic - "in many cases it gives a good effect". A Grain challenge would be benficial if people learned when grain was appropriate and when it was not. But the usual pattern here at dpc is that people only learn how to do the technique. Having that knowledge without being cognizant of the appropriateness issue is of dubious value. How would you score a shot where the technique was superior but the subject was ill-suited? |
I was just going to say that... or something like it. (Mine probably wouldn't have included the word "cognizant".) :) |
|
|
|
01/31/2005 06:51:47 AM · #20 |
I know that it's rather irrelivant but in my case I did not add the grain intentionally, it came about from a) high ISO (1600), b)post processing (curves, usm, desat). I actually thought that there was a little to much and thus reduced it, looking at it again the next day on a TFT screen at work I realised that it should have been toned down a little more. Could all voters please get a 21" Sony CRT before voting on my images ;)
|
|
|
|
01/31/2005 06:57:31 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by bear_music:
You're kidding ben? DQ for ADDING grain? It's ok to take out grain with neat image but not ok to add grain?
Robt. |
Removing digital noise that's introduced by the camera has been allowed since early in the site's life. Adding affects like grain through the use of filters in photoshop wasn't allowed until the advanced editing rules were introduced last year, and still isn't under the basic rules. |
Actually you can use the grain filter (or Noise as it says in the rules) under basic editing. That and gaussian blur are the only exceptions.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2005 07:14:59 AM · #22 |
Right, Ben, that's what I thought. Didn't realize it wasn't always that way.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2005 07:30:48 AM · #23 |
Grain definetly doesn't seem to do well overall, I know from experience, I did get some nice comments, but my score refelects an average look on the picture by the group.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2005 08:01:17 AM · #24 |
I thought this had a nice "naturally" grainy look (none added), but it didn't go over that well, partly because the subject wasn't the clouds ...
 |
|
|
|
01/31/2005 08:07:26 AM · #25 |
grainy with attitude:
As to the OP, as I said in commnents during the challenge: this is good and appropriate grainyness.
And in order to blow my own horn, here is a grainy photo I shot last summer (forgot to adjust ISO levels from 1600 down to normal).
Islands optional.
Message edited by author 2005-01-31 13:13:40.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 04:19:12 AM EDT.
