[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 22 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: fnsims.jpg (1.53 MB, 3566x2700)
1.53 MB
1.53 MB JPG
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-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:07:22 14:57:52
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3566
Image Height2700
>>
Made for midwits
>>
>>3919581
It's for instagram retards and thots who think film is superior to digital because "muh grain makes it feel more real".
>>
>>3919587
Except real film is superior to digital
>>
>>3919594
>>3919581
See? Here's one.
>>
>>3919581
film grain looks nice and simulation grain also looks nice
>>
File: S0160017.jpg (3.2 MB, 2000x2500)
3.2 MB
3.2 MB JPG
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 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3919581
It’s just a layer of random grain which is the exact opposite of how film works.
>>
>>3919699
well duh digital is the exact opposite of how film works too
what matters in the final product
>>
>>3919701
And only one of them looks good
>>
>>3919581
Grain is better than denoise plastic Don't see much reason to add it however.
>>
>>3919705
I 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.
>>
>>3919708
Cool story
>>
>>3919581
>What's the consensus
Why do you need a consensus? Don't you have a mind of you own?
>>
>>3919581
Film 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"
>>
>>3919581
just 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 skill
Lmao this is what xtranny believe in
>>
>>3919581
I 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.
>>
>>3919581
They're gayer than AIDS.
>>
>>3919884
>I bet you filmlets don't even take photos
I 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.
>>
>>3919581
Can you just not?
>>
>>3919735
unpopular opinion: I don't mind iso noise and actually think it looks good
>>
>>3919581
Who 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.
>>
>>3919816
yeah 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
>>
>>3919581
Why do you care what a bunch of fags on 4chan think? Just decide for yourself whether it's good or not.
>>
>>3921696
It's all I have man don't be mean
>>
>>3919584
>>3919587
>>3919699
>>3919735
>>3919878
>>3919884
>>3919904
brainlets

>>3919688
>>3919921
>>3921689

actual photographers
>>
>>3919942
are 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?





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.