@chiZ
if I remove the grain, then nothing remains on the film :-)

sorry my dilettante comment, sir! =P
So how would I say this correctly?
grainyness? noise?

Guess since it is here in digital form we could say noise...

Ah man now I'm just confused!

grain is correct, chriz.

---
higher speed traditional film and film that is "pushed" will produce more grain. the image becomes more grainy looking and less sharp. when the ccd cell is pushed to higher light sensitivity, it responds with more "noise".

the ccd cell in a digital camera is an electronic device, and virtually all electronic devices produce noise. noise is the base level signal produced when it is in a rest state. for any electronic device to work well there must be a good signal to noise (S/N) ratio. all electronic transducers (things that turn a measured physical energy to an electric impulse) have a signal to noise ratio associated with them. a microphone turns sound energy to electronic impulses, and we hear the electronic version of the sound. the higher the signal to noise ratio the better the quality of sound.
---

http://www.theimage.com/photography/photopg8.htm

This sure makes sense! And I have in fact learned about that already!

But I think everybody understands what I mean...
or should I say denser grain?

@chriz
the film used is a maco 400, expired 1990.
the grain is normal like it is. for my senses, not enough :-)

I guess I'll just stop here...
before I make a fool of myself! =)

Vernon,
I have successfully processed film that had been exposed over 20 years earlier. Expired film and latent images...all part of the magic of photography.

I *like* film grain.

Ratings Summary

* Relevance: 3.38
* Impact: 2.54
* Composition: 2.92
* Technique: 2.85
* Quality: 2.85
* Overall: 2.908

impressive ratings, wow.

News flash! S.S. Trent is sunk in the harbor. "It was all a mistake!" claim raters.

That's what a little film grain will get you on W.S. Some of our images deserve better. This is one of them--and you know I wouldn't say it if I didn't mean it.

@Chriz...in no way was my remark above intended to reflect on your exchange with Vernon.

The issue of grainy images is an old one that Vernon has had to cope with many times before. I've had my share, myself.

I was just commiserating with Vernon, in a humorous fashion, I hoped.

I was one of the raters here. Vernon usually does great work. I'm a big fan. However, I found this image lacking.

For me, the film grain had nothing to do with it. It feels snapshot-ish. Looks like something someone took with one of those panorama film cameras.

I greatly admire Vernon's work, but I thought this one was mediocre. In fact I was shocked to see his name when I clicked on submit.

I guess I'm just easy to please.

Folks (and by folks I mean everyone who participates in W.S.)

I see that I was not careful enough in my use of words above. I've been corresponding with one of you via e-mail and my eyes have been opened, so I want to share this with you.

I did not address my remarks (the one about the S.S. Trent being sunk) specifically to Vernon--which was intentional. My message was intended to go to everyone, but was motivated by my sympathy with Vernon's dismal ratings.

By "our images," I meant to say "of all of the images posted by all W.S. participants" and not just Vernon and myself. I don't consider myself to be a better photographer than anyone else who participates, although I probably have more years of training and experience with film, view cameras, lighting and all the technical demands of pre-digital photography than most of you...including Vernon Trent.

However, I'm truly a novice at digital photography, as I've stated on W.S. many times, and I don't consider myself any more than intermediate level at Photoshop, although I'm patient and persistent and determined to become an expert.

I'm sorry to have inadvertently suggested that Vernon and I are members of an exclusive club, although I do believe that we respect each other's opinions--Vernon will have to speak for himself on that.

Many of you will also probably admit, at least to yourselves, that I am supportive and generous with praise. You may not know that I am also generous with ratings and tend to look for the best in every photograph.

While my remarks in sympathy with Vernon's poor ratings authentically reflect my personal opinion and are consistent with my philosophy, I'm sorry to have ruffled some feathers.

Geez..sounds like a good ruffling might have been in order. I certainly wouldn't have interpreted your remarks in that fashion king, even in your position as WS Group Gadfly ;)

Damned internet, it's no good for communication I tells ya.

@dennis...sigh, you're right.

let them eat cake

Just to clarify, I wasn't feeling ruffled King. I thought I should better state my position on why I rated this picture as I did, since I knew I was one of the raters.

As I discover over and over I am out of step with many of the other Weekly Shot participants though. I suppose you should dread getting me as one of your requisite 13. In order to help anyone who might want to avoid me, I usually post around midnight Central Time here in the USA, so you may want to post much earlier or later. ;-)

you're cracking me up, kadenjack. I like anyone who comments on my shots, no matter how they feel about a shot. (because they took the time) And I appreciate your comments more than a lot of the others, because they're an actual, true, comment, and not a standard 'nice shot' sort of thing. PLease rate all my shots, I welcome your honesty, always.

thanks everybody for all your feedback.

I have nothing more to say... thanks for the fish.
:-)

have a great weekend with sun in your hert.

chhers
v.t.