What's the consensus on film grain simulations?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 21.2 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2021:07:22 14:57:52Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width3566Image Height2700
Made for midwits
>>3919581It's for instagram retards and thots who think film is superior to digital because "muh grain makes it feel more real".
>>3919587Except real film is superior to digital
>>3919594>>3919581See? Here's one.
>>3919581film grain looks nice and simulation grain also looks nice
if your shot looks good, it looks good. you can use simulated grain and it can look terrible or you can use it and it contributes to the overall feeling of the shot.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiColor Space InformationsRGB
>>3919581It’s just a layer of random grain which is the exact opposite of how film works.
>>3919699well duh digital is the exact opposite of how film works toowhat matters in the final product
>>3919701And only one of them looks good
>>3919581Grain is better than denoise plastic Don't see much reason to add it however.
>>3919705I don't really agree, I think most people just put film grain over unappealing photos so it gets a bad reputation. I have shot and scanned tons of 35mm film and often the grain looks bad especially when the scanning isn't lab-quality. I would allow that with a perfect shot on the perfect film stock, film grain has the capacity to look better, but plenty of photographers I admire use digital film grain and I think it looks great.
>>3919581>What's the consensusWhy do you need a consensus? Don't you have a mind of you own?
>>3919581Film Grain from film is Nice.Film Grain added to a photo isn't. >Might as well turn up the ISO and call it "Sensor Grain"
>>3919581just shoot on film you fucking retards, the chemicals aren't going to stain your fucking nail polish
Film grain is a flaw of the medium, it's uncontrollable and accidental requiring 0 skill to implement. Digital grain has to be applied with intention and skill, and therefore is more artful to use. I bet you filmlets don't even take photos>>3919735>>3919816>>3919878
>>3919884>Digital grain has to be applied with intention and skillLmao this is what xtranny believe in
>>3919581I got a new camera while back and it's got a couple film sim modes in the color options.I can't decide if I like them or not.
>>3919581They're gayer than AIDS.
>>3919884>I bet you filmlets don't even take photosI do and develop them myself but you'll bully me if I link them
>>3919884>If it's a flaw why are you trying to mimic it>It's not hard to mimic either. You would know this if you actually knew how to edit.>Even if it was difficulty =/= good. Just like you =/= a woman.
When printed, paper takes care of it, but for display, I'm adversely effected by too clean output, so I put a little bit of grain on most photos, unless iso is high enough to take care of that.
>>3919581Can you just not?
>>3919735unpopular opinion: I don't mind iso noise and actually think it looks good
>>3919581Who the fuck cares, if your photo benefits from it then just use it. Are you gonne stop using it because a bunch of /p/haggot told you it's bad.
>>3919816yeah man keep hating on ppl you dont know to feel better about your miserable life great job
useful for dithering and fooling shitty transcoding on instagram and such into giving you less blocky results
>>3919581Why do you care what a bunch of fags on 4chan think? Just decide for yourself whether it's good or not.
>>3921696It's all I have man don't be mean
>>3919942are you talking about ISO noise in SOOC raw files, with ISO noise reduction turned off, or are you talking about jpegs with ISO noise reduction turned on and raws with ISO noise reduction (on by default in any raw editor) applied?