How does /p/ feel about purposefully adding grain to a photo? It seems rather counter intuitive when most are trying to make their images as clear as possible.
This is an image I recently added slight amount to. I personally believe in some cases it adds a texture to the image, makes it look real and alive.
Thought?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL T5i Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.4 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:12:02 07:19:17 Exposure Time 1/320 sec F-Number f/11.0 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/11.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 48.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3456 Image Height 5184 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
editing photos in general is dumb and if you cant take a proper photo without the need to edit its exposure, composition, etc you should stop taking pictures or switch to film to learn the basics of photography
>>2713882
aah yes, because taking advantage of technological advancements its such a fucking crime.
>>2713886
>taking advantage of
you said it yourself..
if you can't shoot with proper exposure, framing, composition, color. contrast, etc. dont pretend that you can.
>>2713872
>most are trying to make their images as clear as possible.
citation needed.
>>2713891
so you honestly believe I would have been able to achieve those colors and feel in the original picture without editing?
>>2713894
well I believe people are purchasing better cameras to improve upon various things, one being less grain using high ISO. but no, I have no citation. if you'd like me to label it as opinion, I'd gladly do that for you.
A lot of times it can look really cool, sometimes the dehaze slider looks cool if you slide it the other was and make it hazey
Grain can look really cool, it's just a creative tool
>>2713882
Far too ridiculous to be taken seriously. You miss the basic ideals of trolling
-3/10 - See me after class.
Nah man, grain is great.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2713872
Just a way to make a boring picture look "interesting"
>>2713872
As long as it's done in a way that looks good, totally fine. I think it's best done subtley and to kind of tone down the image from being too "clinical". It's also good in masking other post-process changes, especially sharpening.
>>2713882
I agree mostly with changing composition, but color and exposure adjustments after-the-fact have been a thing for as long as photography has been around. Even then, there are techniques where composition is fine to edit (panorama's, Brenizer, etc).
>>2713903
>so you honestly believe I would have been able to achieve those colors and feel in the original picture without editing?
This. There's a reason there's so many different types of films available at the same speed. All have different hues, contrasts, saturation levels. Processing RAW is just choosing the film afterwords.
>>2713931
well I think you are using the wrong word. I believe that it can be used effectively, but you have to be using it to achieve a purpose. there has to be an end goal in mind. I think once you start just applying it without any reason other than "why not?" then you might need to start re-evaluating what you intend to capture with your images. its not so much about boring images, but more about meaningless pictures.
I say this because I think even the most boring subjects can turn out to be beautiful pictures or simply just fun to look at.
>>2713924
its not tho. it depends what you're trying to achieve. the entire idea of a photograph is that you're trying to capture some piece of the world. if you edit your photographs to shit you might as well just take up painting. and this isnt about photojournalism ethics or anything. some people do crazy stuff with their pics and make cool stuff with artistic merit, but then there are those that just edit framing, composition, change colors and color palettes and people have this impression that theyre viewing something real but almost nothing in the final image is authentic
ITT: Lazy ass trolling and fucking morons who are biting down hard on the bait.
>>2713944
>someone more intelligent than you has thought-provoking insight that may run counter to your ideology
>theyre trolling
>you cannot be wrong
>only others are stupid
brilliant commentary
>>2713942
1/10
you got me the first time
>>2713942
>the entire idea of a photograph is that you're trying to capture some piece of the world.
No, it isn't.
>f you edit your photographs to shit you might as well just take up painting
Painting is perceived very differently.
> but then there are those that just edit framing, composition, change colors and color palettes and people have this impression that theyre viewing something real but almost nothing in the final image is authentic
What is your point? Where is there a rule that photography has to be authentic? Why would that ever be the case?
>>2713946
>can't handle alternative viewpoints
>doesnt like to be challenged on his beliefs
>cant even open himself up to listen to different ideologies
shouldnt you be at a bernie sanders rally or college campus safe space?
>>2713945
Nicely done, bro.
>>2713891
>Typical fucklord who doesn't think that all the best jobs in the photo field shoot perfect photos with perfect models with perfect skin under the perfect lighting.
Post processing is almost as important as the moment the shutter claps.
>>2713948
>>the entire idea of a photograph is that you're trying to capture some piece of the world.
>No, it isn't.
literally what it was made to do
>>if you edit your photographs to shit you might as well just take up painting
>Painting is perceived very differently.
because painting is and always has been a creative outlet not necessarily based on accurately capturing reality, whereas photography was created to do just that.
>> but then there are those that just edit framing, composition, change colors and color palettes and people have this impression that theyre viewing something real but almost nothing in the final image is authentic
>What is your point? Where is there a rule that photography has to be authentic? Why would that ever be the case?
see: the creation of photography, photojournalism, portraits, macro photography, landscapes, etc
>>2713953
>Post processing is almost as important as the moment the shutter claps.
only if you cant take a proper photograph
>>2713953
Not him, but I innately agree with him. I've always felt that digital photography feels way too much like "cheating". I don't ever edit my photos, even though I now use a DSLR. I shoot what I shoot, and if it turns out to be shit, so be it.
>>2713956
"Is almost as important as"
Alex, what is "Comprehension?"
>>2713953
this post doesnt even make sense. if everything in the shot is set up perfectly and you have a great photographer, theres no real need for post
>>2713956
You are wrong. Every great photo you have ever seen has been processed and optimized in one way or another. Every single one. A camera can not capture a scene as your eye sees it. It's not technologically possible. Therefore, to get a proper image the way you want it, it is processed. Either by a JPEG engine in your camera, or by hand. But there is processing going on, every single time. And that's a good thing.
Also, on the scene, you have tons of other senses giving you information and data. Smells, temperature, sounds, etc. Something that feels spooky or serene to you in person will come across bland and boring in a flat raw photo, and you have to process the image intelligently in order to convey what you were capturing at the time. There's no "stand in the right place and select the right aperture" in the world that will get around that fact.
Because of this, photography can NEVER be reality, despite what trolls in this thread will tell you. What was just outside of the frame influencing the subject inside the frame? What are the thoughts and feelings of the participants? Are they faking? Are they acting? Are they pretending to be happy because the photographer promised them money or food or sex afterwards?
Photography is about communication and expression, not about truth, and to pretend otherwise is aggressive ignorance.
>>2713965
You're an idiot.
>>2713872
I'm actually considering getting a t5i, are they any good for a poorfag?
In my view, post-processing should be a tool to enhance, not correct, a photograph. Then again, the hardest things to correct on PP (lighting, background elements) should be taken care of before the picture is taken anyways - if you are good enough at PP to correct those you should be able to take care of those before you even click the shutter and save yourself a lot of time.
>>2713954
>literally what it was made to do
Just because that's what it was made to do over a century ago does not mean that it is the only valid use. People were using photography as part of the surrealist movement in the 1920s.
>because painting is and always has been a creative outlet not necessarily based on accurately capturing reality, whereas photography was created to do just that.
Why can't photography be a creative outlet? Again, just because it was created with a purpose in mind does not limit it exclusively to that purpose.
>see: the creation of photography, photojournalism, portraits, macro photography, landscapes, etc
Journalism (and photojournalism) do have the purpose of portraying and telling the reality of a situation, but consider how media/governments use photographs as propaganda to manufacture a narrative - would that not make it unrealistic? Portraits often involve makeup and unordinary wardrobes - is it reality that is being captured? Macro photography presents reality from a very distinct point of view which is not normally achieved, at what point does it stop being reality? If macro photography can be considered reality, then why can't something seen through another person's artistic vision not be considered their reality either?
As far as OP's question, I very rarely find myself using grain in digital - it feels artificial (moreso with color pictures) and if I want the sort of aesthetic that grain gives a photograph I just use film instead (inb4 b-but film grain isn't present in the scene you take a picture of so it's not real photography).
>>2713872
Mostly a very bad editing habit.
>in some cases it adds a texture to the image, makes it look real and alive.
I think it makes it look less photographic and more like lomo, ads etc
Nothing against grain itself, when needed. But when it's added during the processing, it becomes very clear it was superfluous, like on your pic.
A photographer and a friend of mine who takes a lot of great grainy pictures is Rafael milani, and he's one of the few able to convey some sense through grain.
>>2713882
This troll is kinda right. You should focus on getting as much of it right in the camera on the day. But you should always kep an eye on the potential for editing.
Sometimes you might have to pick exposure for the sky or the ground. But you can expose for ont then the other and stitch it together later.
Sometimes you're not 100% sure of the framing. In those cases shoot a little wide because you can crop in but you cn't crop out.
You can shoot with a high ISO to gain some noise but that's easier to add in later than it is to take away.
>>2713976
>>because painting is and always has been a creative outlet not necessarily based on accurately capturing reality, whereas photography was created to do just that.
>Why can't photography be a creative outlet?
i never said it couldnt be, people get very creative with the setups and subjects of their photography, regardless of post processing
>Portraits often involve makeup and unordinary wardrobes - is it reality that is being captured?
people wear makeup daily, so it is a realistic capture of a persons appearence at least traditional portraits
>Macro photography presents reality from a very distinct point of view which is not normally achieved, at what point does it stop being reality?
yes, you're just getting a perspective that isnt typically of daily interaction with the subject, its not some strange unrealistic portrayal, you're just able to see details you wouldnt be able to otherwise. if anything its bringing reality to people who wouldnt be able to experience it
>media/governments use photographs as propaganda to manufacture a narrative - would that not make it unrealistic?
the photos arent unrealistic, unless doctored, the naratives being pushed are, which are distinct from the photographs
Photography is entirely what the photographer makes of it. No one can set the rules. People can't agree on what constitutes good photography anyway let alone what its purpose is.
Apropos since the original question was about grain but if you adjust your digicam's ISO to take a brighter shot than the natural lighting would allow I don't see how that's any different than increasing exposure in post, at least with regards to the "truth" of the original subject.
Or what about DOF? If I take a portrait shot in the forest with a background full of bokeh, which is certainly not how the shot would be perceived in the real world, is that inauthentic? Well maybe some here would say so but I think that's not nearly as important as taking a good picture. Obviously photography has plenty of artistic merit to it and is not just about shooting f/11 and capturing everything about a scene exactly as it looks.
OP I like your picture but not because it adds life, just that the grain makes it nostalgic-looking.
>>2713974
Sick bern, bro.
But really, you're a fucktard if you think that post processing isn't a bare-minimum requirement for a photo.
>>2713986
> Apropos, she entered the Matrix to save your life at the cost of her own.
> No...
> Which brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the Anomaly revealed as both beginning... and end.
>>2713882
Editing photos isn't bad its just turning it into a different art, some people prefer to present something as it is while others use what they know and like to take a picture as a basis and create a new piece of art based on that
>>2713948
>implying people can't take up an art with different ideas about what that art is about
>>2713872
>when most are
>most
Who gives a shit what other people do
So I guess you guys never use black and white film with your analog cameras, and I guess you have and never will shoot with polaroid film as both of those change the look of reality.
Unless you fucking use the highest top of the line camera, and adjust it just fucking perfectly, and have 0 flaws every fucking time, then shut the fuck up because there is no way you are perfectly capturing reality every time.
So to say that every photograph needs to be this perfect snapshot of the world every time and that ANY editing after the fact is basically one of the highest sins of photography is just plain retarded.
>do you not watch films? all of them are edited in one way or another. probably all of your favorite films too. they do this because its entertainment. why the fuck cant photography be entertainment? my photo has to be some sort of old school by the book photo? it cannot be the for entertainment of others?
>>2713882
>this one misguided notion I have is applicable to everyone in every single situation with no exceptions
gj
>>2713882
>switch to film because it's not edited
I have bad, bad news for you anon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2mQsUIc97E
editing has been around since the beginning of photography. Where do you think all the tools in photoshop came from?
>>2713872
It looks like you added shitty banding to your photo, not grain.
>>2714021
you do. that's why you're here.
>>2713966
100% this. This ends the thread.
I used to add grain to every photo I took because I've always loved the look of film and wanted my photos to have that look. Then I stopped being retarded and realized that I could just buy film cameras and actually shoot on film to get an authentic film look without having to add it myself.
>>2714090
I tried using an analog camera. But then it jammed up on me and I wasn't able to get the film out without destroying it.
Lost a lot of good pictures that day. Vowed never to use a film camera again.
>>2713966
polaroid
>>2714173
also in b4
>great
as i have seen some great polaroids
(p.s. processing and post-processing are two different things, broseph)
>>2713966
Perfectly said
>>2714170
i recently went traveling and decided that i would only bring my 35mm film camera along. i got the photos developed only to find i had a light leak.
at first i was disappointed. then i grew fond of the imperfections as i believed it gave it another element of style that canot be replicated.
After vowing to never shoot on film again... eventually i did.
>>2713945
>thought provoking insight
we have this thread every week. go to your hole where you belong
>>2713882
> editing photos in general is dumb
what you mean is: "I'm too dumb to use LR", right?
>>2717159
>You don't understand how RAW works.
yes i do you idiot. its just not compressed. if you take a good photo you dont need to fuck around in post all day, you have a good photo.
>>2717177
...no. It's raw data from the camera's sensor. It's called RAW for a reason. It's a file format that is SUPPOSED to be edited. Not editing RAW files is like buying raw chicken and eating it while shouting "IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE EATEN THIS WAY, BECAUSE THIS IS HOW I BOUGHT IT."
>>2717177
>yes i do you idiot. its just not compressed
lolno.
Ever look at a raw file and notice it looks flat compared to an out of camera jpg? that's because the camera edited the raw data to make it look a certain way when it saved the jpg. the raw file is just the data from the sensor with no processing at all, so you can edit it how you like.
>>2717192
Maybe in absolute perfect ideal studio conditions, but if you shoot raw without the intention to edit it, you're just wasting card space. As people have said 100 times in this thread before, every image you see has been edited in some way, either by the camera, or by post processing. even film is no exception. see >>2714032
why don't you show us some of your "proper" photos taken without any editing and we'll critique? put your money where your mouth is, faggot.
>>2717192
>yeah no shit, its an uncompressed, lossless image
No. Well yes, but no. A TIF file would be a better example for what you think a RAW file is. A RAW file contains much more than what can (or rather should) be displayed in a single image. Depending on the camera used, it has from 10 to 14/15 stops of exposure. You don't want that much DR in your picture. It looks grey, bland and like the picture has no contrast.
Your camera doesn't just compress when it converts the raw data to jpg, it edits them following a standardized algorithm. Because. RAW. Needs. To. Be. Edited.
>>2717202
>Maybe in absolute perfect ideal studio conditions
Not even then.
>>2717202
>if you shoot raw without the intention to edit it, you're just wasting card space
no. more detail for large prints, cropping, etc
>>2717208
>cropping
lol that's editing, retard.
>>2717211
that's not changing a photograph, thats making a new photograph from a larger one
>>2717219
but you said:
>you dont need to edit it because you have proper exposure, COMPOSITION, contrast, etc.
If you crop a photo, you're changing the composition. Are you fucking dense?
>>2717225
haha, that's actually my photo. I did edit it though. cropping and sharpening are both editing. I fucked around with the contrast and white balance a bit too.
Here's the out of camera jpg (rezised to 1000px)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 6D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:12:07 18:20:09 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/11.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/11.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 800.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
