This may buck the current trend here of posting super clean digital photographs (Syyds caladium picture absolutely blew me away), but heres something Id appreciate some feedback on. This picture was shot on color 400asa film under low light. It came out very grainy, and made a horrible color photograph, but I saw in it a potential B&W. Ive posted 3 versions here. The first one is the normal B&W, the 2nd one has some additional Photoshop work, and the 3rd one is just the 2nd one with some added color. Is it too noisy/grainy, or does it work with the lighting? Also, do the 2 colors work, or would you suggest a single color sepia? Which one you like best? Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks!

#2 of 3

#3 of 3

I'm trying to decide if I like the 1st or 2nd better. I rather like the moodiness of the first with the drapery folds in shadow--and the dress and face not so bright. Hmm, I think I DO prefer the 1st--it has a quality about it that seems to suit the graininess. No, I personally don't think it is too grainy for what I see as a moody, environmental photo. I do prefer the b/w to the 2 color sepia, though-- BTW, there is a terrific VERY grainy B/W in the magazine 'B & W" (all black and white photo images--not process)that I love, so I'm def. not opposed to 'grainy' b/w images. Diane

Ok...A favorite topic of mine! I love black and white with grain. I have cropped and enlarged and pushed film to its max to achieve big grain. I have taken very fine photos and doctored them up with software to add grain. I think the grain gives photos and old, historical and timeless look. Color grain has its place too. As for your third photo, I personally don't like two-color because there certainly aren't two-color historical, timeless photos. I would prefer sepia if anything. But that is just me. Your 3rd pic does display some artistic qualities that you may be looking for. It is visually appealing to see the subject in a warm tone while the background is seperated by cool tones. It gives the person here warmth. In closing, I say if the photo has enough simplicity and qualities to hold it's own with heavy grain, I'm all for it. I think your photos are a good example of a photo that is improved with grain. Here is one of my own where I think grain gave it a "timeless" look. What do you think?

I like that a lot! But if it were clean, the feeling wouldnt be exactly the same. Its hard for me to explain why, though. Is it because over the years weve been conditioned to seeing that look as a part of B&W photography, especially older photos, or does it really touch a warm emotion deep inside? I knew an old DJ once who didnt like CDs when they first came out because he missed all the scratches and pops that he was used to with records. I often feel that some of the digital camera images I see are just a little too smooth or clean. I dont wanna feel like the old DJ, but I still like the film look better, especially B&W. And as for old photos, I tried to accomplish that look with another picture. Its called Wagon Wheels, and its in my gallery here at Renderosity. If you get a chance, check it out and let me know what you think. Thanks to you and picnic for your feedback. It really helps!

Aw, I really like the 3rd one!! Kinda looks like a 70's tv show on a bad reception tv!!! Cool!! (",)

Gee whiz! I'll have dig up some 1954 negatives from the archives. The normal practice was to "push" the Tri-X for all the low light we could capture. It was only successful part of the time, available light being very hard to judge and light meters are useless on the street at night. I'll vote for No 1 in this series. The dark is deep and few highlights. Almost the tonal range of charcoal drawing. Grain is part of the game. Sometimes you are forced to accept it and sometimes it adds to the effect.

I liked the third one and the first one. I think the darkeness of the first one hides some of the grain. On the other hand try using a some other filter upon the picture. It may just turn into something unexpected abut very likeable. bsteph