Matt Greene said: > The talk aobut "grain" always bothers me. "Grain" is > purely subjective. Some prints are absolutely horrid > (most B&W images) without "grain". Then again, > printing on textured paper defeats "grain" argument > every time. > "Grain", like "saturated colors" is, for all intents > and purposes, an affectation of purists and slide film > shooters. Print film users tend not to make such a > fuss about "grain". > > Besides, a little "grain" never hurt an ugly Bride.
My take on grain: when I enlarged a squirrel there were distinct green and red spots in its fur. A digital image might not have had better resolution, but green and red spots do stand out amidst gray fur. I think the color depth of pixels accounts for many people's pleasant experiences with digital, even if they don't have the pixel count of film. Grain seems like the sort of thing that should be available in software by now. Like load your digital image, and then choose a film brand and speed and enlargement you want to emulate.
