🚀 go-pugleaf

On 28 Feb 2006 07:16:42 -0800, "Djon" <jtk@channelsynergy.com> wrote:

>"Djon's basic premise was that the amount of grain in a scan is a
>function of "skill" which is wrong. Grain is a function (an intrinsic
>part) of film image and reducing grain means reducing image data."
>
>No, that intentionally twisted what I said. 

Then, let's read what you wrote:

--- start ---
On 26 Feb 2006 05:38:17 -0800, "Djon" <jtk@channelsynergy.com> wrote:
>If you have the skills, you have grain or don't according to your
>wishes. It's a matter of skill.
--- end ---

How does that differ from my paraphrasing it as: "Grain is a function
of skill"?

>Film grain is itself a
>function substantially of skill, with or without a scan.

No, grain is a function of film. The image on film is composed of
grain. It may be small grain, it may be big grain. But grain is always
there.

Before we go on do you agree with that? If not, why not i.e. if not
grain, then what is the image on film made of?

>Scan results are irrelevant without considering reproduced images,
>whether litho, print, or monitor display.  And the qualities of all
>those reproductions depend on skill as much as upon technology.
>
>Photographers make images, not "image data."

Yes, they do! Analog images still contain image data: Analog image
data. Which is expressed as grain.

>Grain was traditionally addressed in wet darkrooms by grain dissolving
>developers such as D23, and by diffusion enlargers. Honorable,
>beautiful methodology for people who liked grainless images.

The point is there is no such a thing. All analog images on film are
made of/contain grain. You can reduce its *appearance* but at a price.
That price is loss of information.

>I preferred point light source, or at least optically coated Durst
>condenser enlargers with glass carriers in the wet darkroom. That's
>simply another approach, entailing different/equal skills. My work
>showed sharp grain because I wanted to show it, was skilled enough to
>show it sharply. Ansel's students didn't want to show it, were taught
>how to avoid it: Skills that are just as applicable today, with
>scanners, as they were in Ansel's day.

That's not really the issue but even in the analog paradigm reducing
grain artificially still loses information.

>Human skills are crucial to photography. 

Of course. But that has nothing to do with grain being recorded by the
scanner which is the subject matter.

>Digital technology is not crucial to photography. 

?

Analog technology is not crucial to photography either!

What does either of those statements prove other than acknowledging
there are alternatives?

>Grain is controllable by skill.

Not without loss of information, be it in the analog or digital
domain.

Don.