Rongnongno Loc: FL

Since a thread on grain nostalgia appeared, if has been bothering me quite a bit. I do not see why folks says it is not feasible.

I think I partially cracked the code.

Wrong ways to approach it (and I tried hard)
- Create your own using a random pattern image with high contrast in order to keep a strictly B&W image of dots. This simply does not work, as the grain is out of proportion.
- Using PS CC noise filter. Doing this is global and simply ridiculous.

I went back to basic, where is the grain in a regular film? The answer is mid-tone.
The next question was how to create proportional grain using the exact size of an image? Well, for the size, create an empty layer.
Next came the 'proportional' issue...
I tried to give it a go using PS CC noise. "You cannot use the noise filter on an empty layer."
Damn.
I filled the layer with white and sure enough I had noise. To have noise that is larger than the random pixels, I used it a couple of times. Now I had noise on a white layer.
Using color select I isolated the noise and using Ctl-J I created a noise layer.
Then I deleted the white base.
It was good enough for the sample I used, but it was still noise, not grain.

Then it damned on me.
Why not create several layers of initial noise?
I did then I used the move tool on each layer randomly on or two pixels to the right, the left, whatever but never more. You can also use rotation, with caution.
The result? I had random black spots of various sizes and forms, not digital noise. This looked like 'grain'.
Editing each layer to apply it to the base was ridiculous.

I created a "Grain group". *
The next step was to control the grain and force it into the mid-tones.
I created a blend-if option on the group, selected the layer below it and using the highlight cursor to restrict the effect to the mid-tones.
Using the density layer on the group allows for further control.
The control was not enough yet, I created a mask and using a feathered brush with a low opacity (15 or below) I adjusted even more where the grain should be.

So, it sounds more complicated that it really is.

So, for the detractors and purists
- is this really grain? NO
- Is this digital noise? No, it is deliberately made not to look like noise.


--------------
The interest in creating a group:
- You can control how much grain and the size by switching layers on and off.
- Single Blend-If for control
- Single density slider use
- Single mask

fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...

[quote=Rongnongno]Since a thread on grain nostalgia appeared, if has been bothering me quite a bit. I do not see why folks says it is not feasible.

I think I partially cracked the code.

-snip-

Interesting… and- your work on such esoteric topics is appreciated- thanks!

Once upon a time, during the film age, when grain was desired, it was common to take a few frames of a clear, north sky and sandwich with the main image. Grain size was variable by ASA of the film and developing time – black and white, film, obviously. A collection of grain negatives was a handy thing to have. I didn’t do it much because I couldn’t always find my grain negatives when I needed them… every few years. I suspect the same process would work with digital... Next time I see a clear, north sky, I’ll give it a shot.

Jerry G Loc: Waterford, Michigan and Florida

Interesting topic, 55 plus years ago I hated large grain and strived to reduce it. I shot Panatomic X, ASA 25, when I could, if higher speed was needed I would shoot Tri X at 320 and process 80% develope time. Lately, I have tried to simulate grain without too much success. I have bookmarked this post for reference. Thanks for the post.

User ID

Rons project seems headed for some success. Having the texture relate to image densities is key. Thaz very intentional to call it texture and avoid the terms "noise" and "grain". For me its not about linguistic accuracy, but its to avoid the "emotional baggage" thaz been heaped upon "grain" and "noise" as words.

Im happy with the textures in the attached color image cuz they seem, to my eye, to be proportional to variations in density or tonality or brightness or whatever term avoids rhetorical nit picking !

There are no texture filters or layers involved. I spoze the texture ought to be called noise, but its been very intentionally massaged and exagerated. Its also admittedly easier to mess around with this type of semi-abstract image than with something more represenitive of a familiar subject.

(Download)

srt101fan

Fascinating image....