here are 2 versions of the same bw photograph (converted from RAW using Photoshop CS). As you will see, one version has much more grain (or noise if you prefer) deliberately added. I like the effect (makes it look authentically BW?) but I do not know if anyone else does or if you will consider it 'less good'. I am grateful for any comments/advice any of you would care to give thanks Charles

here is the original - less noisy vewrsion

I prefer the 2nd less noisy one! I guess it all depends on what you're trying to get across or portray here! The marching band and scene is more "modern" and the grain doesn't seem to "fit" (IMO)! Don't get me wrong...I like grain in certain situations, but just feel it doesn't suit this shot well.

My 2 cents!
Joe

Message edited on: 01/11/2006 19:02

Well, I agree with the previous post. If this had been a band from many years ago, dress and background, etc. reflecting that time...the added noise and even a color tone would work fine. For the image you have here, I do prefer the second one. I hope that helps! We get so close to an image at times deciding a direction to go with it can be difficult. Neat shot btw. Oh, considering the band members, if any are children of folks you know, I suspect they would prefer the second as a shot of their kid. TomDart.

I'm with Joe and Tom. I like my brass shiney, not grainy. There is a lot of detail here to explore, and adding grain takes away from that. It still feels authentic without the noise, IMHO. But I do agree that there are times when noise (grain) can add to an image. This just isn't one of them.

The grain looks like it was added or from high iso from digicam rather then authentic grain from old b/w. This also makes me prefer the 2nd one.

Charles, i really love b/w images and i do add grain to a lot of mine. i prefer your second image here because the grain seems a bit much here. perhaps a little less grain might look better. hope you don't mind that i played with your image. i took the 2nd image and then added some grain to it and played a bit. sorry i fiddled with the exposure and contrast and stuff. couldn't help myself. LOL! Yours is exposed just fine...i was just wanted to see how it would look like this. sorry. :(

Definitely NONE of them!! Ur highlights are completely blown out in both shots, making them good enough only for the recycle bin! Am I seriously the only one to see this?? O_o

Prior to you mentioning the blowouts, I truthfully didn't notice them Pascale. I took the image in as a whole and (IMO) the dark tones balance them out (in my eyes anyway) It all depends on what the final purpose of the image is really. It is gallery quality...maybe...maybe not. But then again Charles wasn't asking that. Not everything we capture needs to be a work of art! If it were one of my kids/family members in this photo, this would be a cherished moment captured in time...not something for the recycle bin! I would much rather HAVE the picture than not. Hey, Its all a matter of perspective in the end. 2 cents more added to the ante.

Pascale, i didn't notice highlights being completely blown out. i saw them as being more pushed to the edge, and i really like that with b/w images! since i have problems with my vision a lot, i asked kemal about the highlights. he says he sees overblown highlights in the guy with the glasses on the front. anyway, i like this image, especially the great focus and nice contrast! if it was my image, i wouldn't trash it. i really like it! :) i think it's pretty good overall! :)

O_O

I'm with Joe. Somehow, they completely escaped my notice. It's a tough balance though. There is such a wide range of tones in this image, if he had gone any darker then there would have been a lot of murky shadows. I think it is the best exposure under the circumstances, though I have nothing to compare it to. The ones his his gallery seemed spot on, but I may have to go back now and check the highlights. ;] Anyway, the question was about the texture, which I think just about everyone responded to that it didn't work here.