UKC

Here we go >

http://leicaphilia.com/the-renaissance-of-film-grain-in-the-digital-age/

In reply to Henry Iddon:

Maybe one day there'll be a renaissance in jpeg compression artifacts.

In reply to Henry Iddon:
This is very interesting and as a film user I do know where you are coming from on this. But please tell me how you achieve the graininess in the heading portrait when it has to be rendered in digital form on the web page. Is it done by using a much higher digital resolution that then retains the lower resolution grain?

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Not sure what you mean. I assume the blogger scanned the neg which picked up the grain.

In reply to noteviljoe:

Perhaps when the real world is run on some kind of giant emulator.

In reply to Henry Iddon:

Photoshop > Filter > Artistic > RetroVintageFilmGrainThingy

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Basically what you say is correct, the digital version has to be higher 'resolution' (I say that because the term is not so well defined for film) that the film so the digital version can accurately capture the texture of the film grain (be it from a scanned neg, print or artificial grain applied digitally).

I find it fascinating that film grain is so pleasing on the eye compared to digital artefacting. I think it must be because there is an intrinsically organic nature about the film grain. By adding it you actually create (to me at least) the illusion of more detail - your eye seems to accept the grain and see past it, interpolating the smaller detail. Whereas with digital artefacting it sticks out like a sore thumb and distracts from the image. Personally I don't routinely add grain digitally and I haven't used film for 12 years, but I can see the appeal.