A Reminder to Pay Attention to What Matters Most

These blank-faced gentlemen were offering cocktails to guests at the exhibition. Even at this size and this low resolution, I believe the Avedon prints on the wall are still the most interesting thing about this photo.

I recently had the pleasure of attending an exhibition of Richard Avedon fashion photographs at the International Center of Photography in New York City. The bulk of them were black and white prints, the smallest of which were approximately 16x20-inches in size. Some were twice that size and one, showcased in an exterior window, was at least eight feet high.

Needless to say, when you're looking at prints that large, especially images shot back in 1947, using older emulsions, the film grain was obvious. Pixel peepers would be horrified. How could anyone calling himself a professional use such inferior equipment? How could he produce prints with so much obvious "noise?" Who in their right mind would want to display them, much less buy them?

Anyone who can recognize a beautiful photograph produced by a master, that's who. Who gives a damn about grain (or noise) when you're looking at classic photographs of beautiful women, beautifully posed and lit, wearing beautiful clothes in beautifully atmospheric locations? Anyone who does is the same sort of person who would go to a fine restaurant and pay more attention to the plates than the meal.

Don't get me wrong: I strive for technical excellence as much as the next guy and I have little tolerance for photographers who try to pass off laziness and poor technique as "art." What I'm saying is that unless you've got an image worth looking at, all the technical excellence in the world can't save it--but when you do have a strong image, minor issues such as film grain become moot. Viewers either won't notice or won't care. And why should they?

So if you ever find yourself getting too obsessed over what camera has the lowest noise at ridiculously high ISOs or which lens has the flattest field or the best MTF, I offer a humble suggestion: Turn off the computer, get out of the house, visit a museum or gallery at look at some real photographs produced by real photographers. You may find it an eye- and mind-opening experience.

Comments

[Paul]

Gordon: I agree wholeheartedly. I would say that comparing a photo shot on film vs. one shot on digital is a comparison of technologies and is not really applicable. Having recently gone back to shooting film, and loving it, grain is just a fact of life. It really only matters to the pixel peepers and is not a technical flaw only a fact. Someone may not like the grain, but that's a matter of preference.

I'm heading to NY in about a month to visit a friend and I'm really looking forward to getting into some galleries and having a look around. I plan to visit MOMA as well as the Leica gallery. It will certainly be a fun filled time in NY. Also, I plan to use a number of rolls of film, grain and all!

[John Krill]

Thank-you.

[Steve Rosenbach]

Well said, Gordon. Also, while we photographers can't help getting up close and personal so as to check out tiny details like grain, large prints are meant to be viewed from a much larger distance than small prints. At reasonable viewing distances, I'll bet the grain is not noticeable.

[Janne]

Saw the World Press Photo exhibition last month. The winning image - an American policeman going through a foreclosed house, weapon drawn - was printed at, oh, B2 or A1 size, something like that. The image was clearly taken with a 35mm camera, using a fast BW film. The grain was very obvious at that size, to the point where you can clearly see that the image really is just patches of black and white.

And again, it simply doesn't matter. You see the image, not the grain. One of the unexpected benefits when I started using film as well as digital is that I quickly got a lot more relaxed about noise. It jsut doesn't matter nearly as much as some people seem to think.

[Helcio J. Tagliolatto]

Nothing to say, except: Bravo, Mr. Lewis!

[Kent Whiting]

You are right on the mark about real photos vs. the pixel peepers. By the way I found your sight thru Mike's TOP web site and your K7 review. You have a very good eye for photos and I really like the lady with the umbrella on the K7 review. Great work!

kman

[Bruce Robbins]

I agree with your sentiments, Gordon, but I'd have to make a distinction between grain and noise. I don't mind grain at all - quite like it in fact - but I can't stand noisy digital images. The only thing worse is photographs that have been run too aggresively through Noise Ninja or something similar.

When I was choosing a DSLR, the lack of noise was, therefore, important to me. On the other hand, I've got one or two 35mm outfits and love to run a roll of Tri-X through them at 1250 ISO and develop it in Diafine. Illogical? Hell, yes!

[David]

To piggyback on Mr. Robbin's comment, with noise I notice the tiny color differences and just-plain "dirtiness" it creates. It's a sin of commission.

I perceive grain merely as a lack of resolution, which is more acceptable (to me) as lack of omission.

[Gordon Lewis]

I agree that digital noise doesn't have the same visual appeal as film grain, especially in color. (Deborah Turbeville, a photographer who build a career out of grainy color photographs of fashion models would agree as well.) That said, even a digital image shot at ISO 800 with a 4/3rds DSLR is no more "grainy" than the average color film shot at ISO 200--but you get to shoot in two stops less light. Count your blessings, fellas.

[Paul]

Yeah I'd have to disagree. You could make a really sweet, super grainy portrait of someone. But would a super noisy digital portrait look as good? Nope. Noise is square looking and looks like a computer screwed up. Grain looks organic. At least to me.

Noise in general looks cheap. Also, it's not 1950. Digital should (has to) be a step forward. We've been seeing images on amazing films for years, and to say "oh, well, film in 1940 had grain, so noise is ok", that doesn't work for me. Tintypes from view cameras are beautiful, but I'm glad there was black and white film, and leicas. It was a movement forward. Visible noise is a step backward.

This is all obviously irrelevant in the context of a noisy amazing picture, or a perfectly un=noisy bad picture.

[Miserere]

You're getting much agreement from my side of the screen :-)

[Sam]

Gordon, do you think this applies to all genres of photography? I don't mean to nitpick - in prinicpal I agree with what you're saying - but take fine art landscape photography for instance, I'm not sure the classic b&w large format images from people like Adams, or Weston's still lifes, would have the same impact smothered with noise, or grain - those images rely heavily on tonality as much as specific subject matter - the reduced signal/noise ratio from small format film or digital would be detrimental I think, no? For documentary/news/pj/social etc photography of course you're right.

[Gordon Lewis]

"I'm not sure the classic b&w large format images from people like Adams, or Weston's still lifes, would have the same impact smothered with noise, or grain"

There's a big difference between visible grain or noise and an image "smothered" with it. Yet even landscapes "smothered" in grain can be beautiful. Rather than make blanket statements that "grain/noise" is bad I prefer to judge such things on a case-by-case basis. That said, I agree that most landscape shooters do aim for maximum detail and tonality and minimum grain. The best way to get that is still to use a large format camera (film or digital) mounted on a tripod.

[taiabati]

100% agree!

[ObiJohn]

A good article and a valid point.

I find that I am much more intolerant of the inherent flaws of my equipment in my photos than I am of other photographers' images. Why? Perhaps it's because I remember the image I saw... and no camera can ever measure up to the synthesis of vision and imagination.

The cure has been to just batch-convert images to small, web-sized JPEGs and view them after some time has passed. The smaller image forces me to concentrate on the artistic merit rather than the technical merit... and if I find an image I like then I'll go back and look at the original.