Tag: art

Thoughts on Analog and Digital Grain [Reddit]

From my reply to a discussion from r/fujifilm on Reddit.

I shoot both film and digital, and digital grain is certainly not the same thing as film grain. But that’s arguably the biggest mistake that people make: they aren’t meant to be the same. Consider that in film grain is unescapable: it is a byproduct of the film exposure and development process, inseparable from the taking of the photograph. There is no such thing as digital grain except as an effect applied in post. The way that film and digital grain are similar is that they both provide texture, albeit in different ways.

Texture is important to photography, because without it an image enters the uncanny valley of too-perfect realism. We see this especially in modern digital photographs using the best optics to create razor-sharp images with super high levels of fidelity. These images look “too real,” and that’s at odds with the fact that we know a photograph is not “the real thing.” It creates an unresolvable tension when viewing such images. Grain (both film and digital) gives us that by reducing the precision of the image. In this way the image aligns more with our own imperfect views of the world.

The other thing to keep in mind when thinking about grain is that it is like salt in food: you shouldn’t be able to tell that it’s there. If you can, then it’s too much. Now obviously some photographers lean into grain for artistic effect. For most images taken digitally, however, we want a little bit of grain to take away that aforementioned tension. How much is too much? It’s a subjective call. Some people like really salty food, and some people like really grainy images. I personally say that if you can perceive the grain when looking at the full image, it’s too much. If you’re pixel peeping (or magnifying) then of course the grain will be apparent. You’re too close! But if upon stepping back the grain disappears into the image, then that’s probably about right. Again, it’s a personal call and there’s no right or wrong answer.

I generally shoot raw with my Fuji cameras, so I don’t usually use grain. If the image needs any texturing, I apply it when editing later. When I do shoot jpg, however, I think at the weak setting, it usually gives just enough tonal variability to texture the image appropriately and get rid of the clinical “digitalness” of the image. YMMV.

Is the Fujifilm XF 35mm f1.4 magical? [Reddit]

From my reply to a discussion from r/fujifilm on Reddit. 

“Magic” is the word used in photography when someone wants to defend their subjectivity. So when people say the 35mm is magic, they’re just saying they like the lens in spite of (or maybe because of) its imperfections. It doesn’t actually do some Disney-style hocus pocus when attached to your camera. The real magic comes from the photographer, not the lens.

I’ve had both the XF 35mm f1.4 and XF 33mm F1.4. They’re both good. I prefer the 33mm. I love how clearly it renders my images, I love the bokeh, and the way it renders colors. I love how solidly built it is and how it just works. It is one of my favorite lenses of all time. For some it’s too big, and others, it’s too clinical. To me, it’s magical.

Buy the lens you want. Use it to take amazing pictures. It will become your magical lens.

Fevermonks Revived

Many, many years ago, I wrote and played a bunch of songs with my friend Tom Rump. We called ourselves the Fevermonks, and we’ve recently been able to reconnect and record those songs through the magic of the Internet. We’ve published the songs on Bandcamp, so now you too can enjoy them in highest of fidelity. Go give the songs a listen and a download if you like. We appreciate the support.