Reading mode: Light Dark

DPR Article: See the grain effect that's about to make the Nikon Zf even more retro

Go to last post
Mathew Anderson

Mathew Anderson

Community Manager
Staff member
Administrator
Forum Moderator
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
640
Location
USA
When Nikon showed us its two new DX lenses, it also let us try the Grain Effect processing that's about to arrive on the Nikon Zf.

The option should arrive in a forthcoming firmware update for the camera. It allows you to add grain to stills or video, with a choice of grain size and intensity. The grain differs with each photo, and changes frame-to-frame in video mode to give a realistic temporal effect.

Check out the complete article by Richard Butler .

--
DPReview Community Manager
 
Last edited:
It actually looks horrible. Like ISO 3200 on my 1-inch Sony RX 100 iii

I liked it in black and white on my Fujis but I prefer the lightroom editing way more.

I was hoping for more since the ZF is my favorite camera of all time.

2 shots from today with Lightroom grain

Nikon ZF & Voigtlander 40mm 1.2

644dc8d36c364495907ee7bbf50b5888.jpg

b1fe5c70188b44d2b78ddf840b1a18c8.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think it does not work with every picture, sometimes it can look nice.

Some more examples created with Nikon NX Studio. All with intensity 3 and large grain size:

c91b314bcad549349d967fae05df76a9.jpg

fd7358d1e7844daeb9b1a3123a1e3941.jpg

c75324e8a8f94f9587a3c2edadcc67a9.jpg
 
Last edited:
This is, in my opinion ridiculous. I come from the time when ISO 100 film was grainy but acceptable. ISO 400 in color was bad and ISO 1600 was a last act of desperation when you just had to get the shot. Grain was not a good thing to be proud of. It was the enemy.

Now I'll admit that sometimes when shooting monochrome I'll intentionally shot at extremely high ISO to try and get a nostalgic film like look. But it will never be the same. With film the grain was not all the same size nodules. This just looks fake and no better than shooting at high ISO.
 
Rodenmg said:
This is, in my opinion ridiculous. I come from the time when ISO 100 film was grainy but acceptable. ISO 400 in color was bad and ISO 1600 was a last act of desperation when you just had to get the shot. Grain was not a good thing to be proud of. It was the enemy.

Now I'll admit that sometimes when shooting monochrome I'll intentionally shot at extremely high ISO to try and get a nostalgic film like look. But it will never be the same. With film the grain was not all the same size nodules. This just looks fake and no better than shooting at high ISO.
Click to expand...
Back in the day my primary B&W film choice was Kodak Panatomic-X, which was a very fine grained film with an ASA (ISO) of 32. To refine the grain even further I would rate it at ASA 16 and pull the development to compensate for that 1 stop over exposure. In addition I developed it in a 1:3 dilution of D-76 using paused interval agitation. All this acted to pull the development in the highlights and push the development in the shadows. The end result was negatives that printed like those from a 4 x 5 inch negative with grain that was difficult to see using a 10X magnifier. BTW I had an 8X grain magnifier and that was near useless for focusing the enlarger, I had to use fine detail in the print and if I missed the focus I would have to trust the enlarger would hold the focus between film changes. I also did shoot Tri-X Pan but that was reserved for when I wanted a "gritty" print.

That said it is an interesting effect and once Nikon figures out that actual film grain exhibits random clumping they may build some of these filters that are fairly accurate reproductions of actual film grain. So I am not going to say it's all bad.
 
I agree with you, adding fake grain just doesn't make sense to me. After years of pushing Provia 400 to 800 and 1600 to shoot night sports with an F5, I really enjoy being able to shoot at even 4 stops higher with much much less noise.

I think it's a nostalgia thing, because it's so difficult to shoot film these days that actually getting naturally occurring film grain is a lot of trouble.

Just because it doesn't make sense FOR me, I don't disparage those who want to try it (and I'm not saying that's what you're doing, so don't take it the wrong way), I also don't disparage people using the Nikon picture controls for film-like effects. I think there will be a much larger group of photographers who didn't use film that like and use all these effects, and I actually applaud their curiosity and experimentation.
 
John Ideal said:
I agree with you, adding fake grain just doesn't make sense to me. After years of pushing Provia 400 to 800 and 1600 to shoot night sports with an F5, I really enjoy being able to shoot at even 4 stops higher with much much less noise.

I think it's a nostalgia thing, because it's so difficult to shoot film these days that actually getting naturally occurring film grain is a lot of trouble.

Just because it doesn't make sense FOR me, I don't disparage those who want to try it (and I'm not saying that's what you're doing, so don't take it the wrong way), I also don't disparage people using the Nikon picture controls for film-like effects. I think there will be a much larger group of photographers who didn't use film that like and use all these effects, and I actually applaud their curiosity and experimentation.
Click to expand...
I actually like added grain in prints up to 100cm. It looks more organic and nice for the eyes.

I've had plenty of exihibitions over the years and to this day not one person has been able to tell what is shot with film or with digital cameras with added grain. This include photography clubs, hundereds of photographers and even big magazines.

I even sold a 1000usd print to a Leica M6 photographer who was sure it was shot with the Leica and a TX400. In fact it was shot and cropped down to 3 mp on my 16mp Fujifilm XE1 and printed 70x50cm.
 
I often used Ektar 25 when I wanted to run a role of pictures with little or no grain. It seemed was always looking for less grain and never pushed film hard. I was really glad to go digital.
 
As I said in my post, I appreciate that adding grain is a valid artistic statement, but it's not for me. My eye doesn't add grain to an image, it sees it as a flawless grain free vista. Grain back in the day was a necessary evil. For me, it does nothing but detract from the image.

I have drum scans from Kodachrome 25 shot on a 6x7 camera that rival my 45mp digital images at times, but they certainly don't surpass them.
 
I made this comment in the main article. Using NX Studio, the setting for grain size seems to affect the sharpness of the pattern, not the actual size. IMO, size should be size. If I want grain, I don't want it to be subtle, and the available settings don't get me a big "Tri-X in Accufine or Rodinal" kind of grain. Maybe combine the grain with some severe cropping. I think it's a good start and can't fault anybody who wants to use it; it's just not something I could imagine using very often.

Now, if the grain pattern is somehow adaptive to the image, it will be hard to make any comments at all without shooting a lot of subjects!
 
Eh... I dunno... Grain has always been the arch-nemesis in photo realism. Sure, it can be used artfully, and many images have benefited from it, but all from the past. It was a time, a statement about available technology and pushing past barriers, and something we had to add to our list of considerations before pressing the shutter release.

With that said, digital grain will never look like actual film grain. It can't, as film grain was a quasi-organic artifact of wet chemistry film processing. No two frames were ever exactly the same. Each frame was a one of a kind. That's what made it so special.

I feel like we're in a time where folks are seeking "reality" and "authenticity" by tapping into the past. Fine, but just like the 14 year old LARPer/Paintballer distressing their gear to look like a combat vet, it's fake as Hell and in the end lame.

Just my two cents that no one asked for, but it is what it is. We live in a time where our gear has never been better, so no need to fake what isn't there. IMHO, digital will never look like wet-chemistry processed film. And that's OKAY!!!
 
Last edited:
I can get a similar result by using my FZ330.

I don't get it tbh.
 
Personally I don't get it.

Just crank up the ISO if you want grain.

Too bright? Stop down or use ND's.

If you don't want to commit to it in JPEG, then you're shooting RAW anyway and you can add to taste then...
 
Half the people are using machine learning (Topaz, DxO) to remove any traces of noise from ISO12,800 images, and the other half are using grain effects to add more noise to ISO64 images in post. I do not quite get it, but whatever floats people's boats, I guess.
 
Last edited:
monte12345 said:
Rodenmg said:
This is, in my opinion ridiculous. I come from the time when ISO 100 film was grainy but acceptable. ISO 400 in color was bad and ISO 1600 was a last act of desperation when you just had to get the shot. Grain was not a good thing to be proud of. It was the enemy.

Now I'll admit that sometimes when shooting monochrome I'll intentionally shot at extremely high ISO to try and get a nostalgic film like look. But it will never be the same. With film the grain was not all the same size nodules. This just looks fake and no better than shooting at high ISO.
Click to expand...
Back in the day my primary B&W film choice was Kodak Panatomic-X, which was a very fine grained film with an ASA (ISO) of 32. To refine the grain even further I would rate it at ASA 16 and pull the development to compensate for that 1 stop over exposure. In addition I developed it in a 1:3 dilution of D-76 using paused interval agitation. All this acted to pull the development in the highlights and push the development in the shadows. The end result was negatives that printed like those from a 4 x 5 inch negative with grain that was difficult to see using a 10X magnifier. BTW I had an 8X grain magnifier and that was near useless for focusing the enlarger, I had to use fine detail in the print and if I missed the focus I would have to trust the enlarger would hold the focus between film changes. I also did shoot Tri-X Pan but that was reserved for when I wanted a "gritty" print.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this. Your memory is spot on, and it's a fun read that brings back fun memories from the darkroom days for me. I can almost smell the chemicals.

monte12345 said:
That said it is an interesting effect and once Nikon figures out that actual film grain exhibits random clumping they may build some of these filters that are fairly accurate reproductions of actual film grain. So I am not going to say it's all bad.
Click to expand...
 
Mathew Anderson said:
When Nikon showed us its two new DX lenses, it also let us try the Grain Effect processing that's about to arrive on the Nikon Zf.
Click to expand...
Will it even do anything to the raw file?
Mathew Anderson said:
The option should arrive in a forthcoming firmware update for the camera. It allows you to add grain to stills or video, with a choice of grain size and intensity. The grain differs with each photo, and changes frame-to-frame in video mode to give a realistic temporal effect.

Check out the complete article by Richard Butler .
Click to expand...
 
BasilG said:
Half the people are using machine learning (Topaz, DxO) to remove any traces of noise from ISO12,800 images, and the other half are using grain effects to add more noise to ISO64 images in post. I do not quite get it, but whatever floats people's boats, I guess.
Click to expand...
High ISO noice and Grain are two very different things.

High ISO prints pretty bad while added grain on low ISO looks good in print.
 
Nothing against the OP.

WHY Nikon, WHY?!

Put all time, energy, resources, and money in to Z-mount lens and Z camera bodies; only to add fake grain to digital images. It's like dropping a V6 into a Mustang GTD.

We have spent decades trying to get away from grainy. And here they are adding option for grainy. :-(

How about spending those Retro grainy dollars on cleaning-up, stabilizing, and rolling all Nikon Apps into "1" App.

Walks away shaking head and mumbling: Z7iii, Z7.3, Z7ii+1, ...
 
I know they can walk and chew gum at the same time. IMO, this grain thing shouldn't have involved much for resources. Remember, the camera is a tool for all sorts of users and creators, not just old farts like me and traditionalists who turn up their noses at anything smaller than 4x5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mathew Anderson
DPR Article: See the grain effect that's about to make the Nikon Zf even more retro
Replies
11
Views
4K
camerosity
C
D
Sigma 300-600 4 DG OS Sports – Review After 14 Days of Testing
Replies
1
Views
19K
jerste
J
P
A serious hobbyist's first impressions of the Z 8 - Five Days In
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
4K
sirhawkeye64
S
M
Keeping the Community Whole - Last Attempt
Replies
10
Views
715
D Lynch
D
M
  • Locked
Keeping the Community Whole, and Some Ideas
Replies
4
Views
739
Smaug01
Smaug01

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top