To Grain or not to Grain...

[Tony Warren]

A comment on a recent post of mine on 35MMC prompted these thoughts. The individual said he was a fan of grain and that Alfred Stiegltz used it in his work. I replied that Steichen used grain more than Stiegltz. He probably saw it mainly as an unavoidable component of the emulsions then available. Steichen on the other hand used grain as an expressive element in some of his images to reinforce his intentions. That's how I see grain, it is one of several options available to the photographer along with choice of shutter speed, aperture, framing, film and developer. This example is taken on 110 using Lomography Tiger processed in Rodinal - so golf balls! The original uncropped frame is below.





Any opinions?

 

[Gary R. Smith]

It would be interesting to work with the full-size image, but I don't think the version you posted has enough detail to improve and (for me anyway) there's just way too much grain.

 

[Tony Warren]

Very interesting - just shows what modern digital processing is capable of. I would be most likely to bump into you at an exhibition of the f64 Group though I think . But what I am saying really is that, rather than seen as a defect, the grain may add to the concept of image for some but not for others. There are considerably better examples than this one of course.

 

[Brian Moore]

I once developed a roll of HP5 in Rodinal and the images came out with grain like boulders. (Perhaps my agitation regimen was a little overzealous.) If I ever want grain I’m going back to that combo.

 

[Tony Warren]

So do you see grain as something you might want to use for particular effect Brian?

 

[Brian Moore]

So do you see grain as something you might want to use for particular effect Brian?

Maybe sometimes, Tony. But so far I tend to appreciate smoother images.

 

[Tony Warren]

Maybe sometimes, Tony. But so far I tend to appreciate smoother images.

It is something to be used when appropriate but I sometimes feel digital has pushed it to the back of the mind when it produces such polished images. Maybe one for the memory box nowadays.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

I replied that Steichen used grain more than Stiegltz.

I have a copy of Taschen's 550-page CAMERA WORK (The Complete Photographs) size = 8" x 5.75 and I don't feel that Steichen or Stiegltz "used" grain in any meaningful way. If you feel there are specific images contained in that tome, let me know and I'll give them additional visual scrutiny.

 

[Brian Moore]

It is something to be used when appropriate but I sometimes feel digital has pushed it to the back of the mind when it produces such polished images. Maybe one for the memory box nowadays.

On the other hand,...Daido Moriyama springs to mind.

 

[Pete Askew]

For me it is all about the image, and in the case above I think the grain in the first image enhances it and it complements the contrast and the dark points of the eyes.

I too am not convinced that Steichen and Steglitz exploited garin particularly even though it is a feature of the materials they used. However, I do think there are instances where enhancing it can really add to an image. The early work of Eddie Ephraums springs to mind where he uses grain to enhance the ‘atmospherics’ of his images ( I saw several original prints at an exhibition once and they were things of great beauty). For the larges series of landscapes taken in Lower Saxony I added grain to the digital images as that fitted the aesthetic better and I still like the grain-like effect you get with the the Nikon D3 cameras when you push the ISO, even for ‘portraits’ / people shots.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

I do think there are instances where enhancing it can really add to an image.

Me too Pete!

 

[Tony Warren]

I have a copy of Taschen's 550-page CAMERA WORK (The Complete Photographs) size = 8" x 5.75 and I don't feel that Steichen or Stiegltz "used" grain in any meaningful way. If you feel there are specific images contained in that tome, let me know and I'll give them additional visual scrutiny.

Steichen's work was often near abstract, a cause of much discussion between the two. These examples from Beaumont Newhall's "The History of Photography perhaps sum up what I am saying. Perhaps Steichen didn't consciously use grain as such but he accepted it as reinforcing some of his work. I am not familiar with the publication you mention I'm afraid. Is it a compilation of Stiegltz's original publication?

 

[Tony Warren]

Steichen's work was often near abstract, a cause of much discussion between the two. These examples from Beaumont Newhall's "The History of Photography perhaps sum up what I am saying. Perhaps Steichen didn't consciously use grain as such but he accepted it as reinforcing some of his work. I am not familiar with the publication you mention I'm afraid. Is it a compilation of Stiegltz's original publication?

As I returned Newhall's book to the shelf I notices the little book you mentioned lurking behind another volume so I do know it and a great little reference too! Senior's memory again I'm afraid. Illustrations 2-4 would be the kind of image I was referring to. The tiny reproductions don't bring out the grain as much as the originals would have but the portrait by Steichen, illustration 1, has noticeable grain, even at this size, though it is an unavoidable characteristic here as I suggested.

 

[Gary R. Smith]

Is it a compilation of Stiegltz's original publication?

Yes.