Which do you prefer: A Shoot w/ Noise or No Shot At All?

Maybe I was going bout this all wrong? Any samples of pics before and after guys? Like B&W conversions?

AudibleSilence wrote in post #9303516
A lot of folks think this way..they push and push and push. I am a bit old school, I prefer to have a clean image if and when possible. I think noise can help an image if it's done right..but sometimes a picture is just horrid, NR software or not.

AS, I think you're misconstruing what I was saying. I'm not about aggressive pushing for the sake of pushing. I'm about adapting to the limitations of the medium I work in (no point in going nuts over things you can't control...). I prefer perfect images too, and will do all I can to obtain them. But if I can't, for whatever reason, I'll take the degraded image over no image at all any day. Go back and look at some of the "classic" images that predate 1950 or so. Many of them are, by today's standards, hideous. Especially the furtive attempts at color imaging. But they're still viewed as classics. Maybe this is actually a good example of the validity of the old idea of "shoot first, ask questions later".

I gotcha

Having never been abducted by aliens, I've never had this one shot suddenly pop up where I had to make an abrupt decision on noise and ISO.

For me I typically walk into the situation I'm planning to shoot and I take a meter reading. Then I consider the equipment I have, the reach I need, the shutter speeds I'll need and what ISO it will take to get there.

I balance that against what I plan to do with the images (web size, normal prints, huge posters) and decide how to shoot. I have some ISO ceilings that I won't go above vs. certain outputs because I know I won't be happy with the results. So far I've always been able to make it work.

I would have no hesitation to raise the ISO as high as it goes for that once in a lifetime shot.

With digital, almost all images are useable. I've shot at 3200 and up on my 50D to get the shot, then worried about noise later.

Better to get a shot than no shot at all. Whos to say that noise reduction software wont be able to remove 100% of noise in future with no degradation?

There's a firmware hack for the Digital Rebel XTi that increases the camera's ISO range from ISO 1600 to ISO 3200. When the ISO 3200 setting is used, it's obvious why Canon didn't enable that setting in the camera: lots of noise in dark areas.

So, there's an easy solution: noise reduction software such as Imagenomic Noiseware. Here's an XTi image taken at ISO 3200:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Good post DC Fan..

When a 12 X 18" print looks like crap?
The image I get may not be as "good" as I'd like, but it's better than no image at all in some cases, no?

I went gray area on this one. I have NIK dfine which works great on getting a lot of noise out. But all in all I would rather go ahead and take the shot and find out later that it's unusable then not take the shot and have that bug me not knowing wether or not it would have been a usable shot or not. It's not like I'm wasting film anymore.

That's a no-brainer, get the shot!

Having started with a guy that shoots a lot of local bands at local venues, I spent most of the first few months of my D-SLR experience at ISO 3200. I never understood why people got so upset about noise. Then, after a few months of nothing but ISO 800 or lower, and having to go back to ISO 3200, I kinda got it...

When it comes down to it, though, what possible reason is there to not take the shot (in the argument of noise v. no noise)?! You generally get one shot at getting the photo. Especially if you're getting paid, you should take the shot every single time.

To this day I have two 20x30" prints hanging on my wall of performers at local places. Each of them were taken at ISO 3200. I couldn't have gotten at least one of them without it!

DCFan, Others:

I use the Imagenomic Noiseware product as well. It's a very powerful tool with many options and many modes of NR. Although I like it, and do use it fairly often, I have learned that I have to use it with deliberate restraint. DCF, your example, above, is a good one. I find, alas, that it's very easy to "overcook" an image with this NR program (and the couple others I've experimented with too).

My bottom line, as it seems it is for many others, is to take the picture, an go from there.

Upon further reflection, I think I phrased it wrong..I should have stated which do you prefer to display to the world. I will often attempt shots, but if they look like plaid I don't even bother to process them.

It comes down to something like this: Can you redo the shot with less noise some other time?