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

AudibleSilence wrote in post #9310768
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.

Is it the only shot I have from an event I was paid to capture? No question, I'm using it; it's that easy.

Like I tried to say above (but am not sure if it took), I don't understand the obsession with "noise-less" photography. A fantastic shot is a fantastic shot. Can noise take away from a photo? Sure. However, I doubt that, under normal circumstances, noise will ever be the make or break factor for a photo.

Also, if prints are being made, the noise tends to be much softer than what is seen on a computer screen, so that lends me to say that if a shot is bound for the printer, there is way more latitude with how much noise is acceptable.

Grey area . . . I try and avoid noise if at all possible. I will accept some, but would rather pass up a shot than force one with lots of noise, because I would not likely be able to use it anyway. (exception: Major event unfolding in front of me, in which case I would just shoot, shoot, shoot . . .)

bjyoder wrote in post #9315040
Is it the only shot I have from an event I was paid to capture? No question, I'm using it; it's that easy.

Like I tried to say above (but am not sure if it took), I don't understand the obsession with "noise-less" photography. A fantastic shot is a fantastic shot. Can noise take away from a photo? Sure. However, I doubt that, under normal circumstances, noise will ever be the make or break factor for a photo.

Also, if prints are being made, the noise tends to be much softer than what is seen on a computer screen, so that lends me to say that if a shot is bound for the printer, there is way more latitude with how much noise is acceptable.

I wholeheartedly agree. Back in the film days, we simply lived and dealt with grain. It you chose to use a grainy film, you knew it was coming, and that was that. Perhaps the psychology of control is at play here. We now have tools (the various NR options) that can make noise go away (but so often, they take away a lot of valid signal with the noise...). But since it tends to be so hard to use effectively, many may be "over-avoiding" noisy shots in the first place.

Yeah, sure, my G10 shots at 800 ISO and above are very, very noisy. But so was Tri-X when you pushed it. I got some great shots back in the 80s that way, and yes, they were loaded with grain/noise. I don't get the fuss either.

bjyoder wrote in post #9315040
Like I tried to say above (but am not sure if it took), I don't understand the obsession with "noise-less" photography. A fantastic shot is a fantastic shot. Can noise take away from a photo? Sure. However, I doubt that, under normal circumstances, noise will ever be the make or break factor for a photo.

Digital photography has monitors, which makes it easier to pixel peep. Although you could do that with film, it is more difficult for the general public to do it; everyone with a computer and a digital file and zoom in on an image. Unfortunately, it seems to me, that some take more pride in noise-free 100% crops than produce true works of art.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9315422
Unfortunately, it seems to me, that some take more pride in noise-free 100% crops than produce true works of art.

Bah.."true works of art" is a bit dramatic no? There are plenty of people shoveling true works of crap on both sides of that fence. Folks that pixel peep and care about their general IQ, and those that don't care about IQ and just care about "the moment." Personally I try to find a mix between the two. You can capture a moment and not have it look like it was made of sand or stuck in circa 1990s Seattle. Art is subjective, noise and Overall IQ (to an extent and depending on which aspect) are quantifiable.

Photos are judged by three aspects.
1. Impact
2. content
3. technical quality
Importance in that order,
My vote, make the picture.

AudibleSilence wrote in post #9316014
Bah.."true works of art" is a bit dramatic no? There are plenty of people shoveling true works of crap on both sides of that fence. Folks that pixel peep and care about their general IQ, and those that don't care about IQ and just care about "the moment." Personally I try to find a mix between the two. You can capture a moment and not have it look like it was made of sand or stuck in circa 1990s Seattle. Art is subjective, noise and Overall IQ (to an extent and depending on which aspect) are quantifiable.

I'm curious, could you post a picture that you think is just a little too unreasonably noisy and wouldn't use? Thanks.

Maybe by "unusable" he means something like this?

Jon wrote in post #9321939
Maybe by "unusable" he means something like this?

Could be. I'd hate for that picture to be non-existent because of the grain.

Jon wrote in post #9321939
Maybe by "unusable" he means something like this?

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9322074
Could be. I'd hate for that picture to be non-existent because of the grain.

You guys are taking it to the extreme just to prove your point. Again, combat photography is different from club photography which is different from wedding photography etc etc etc.

That is also a picture from 1944...technology has improved a bit since then.

I think the point still stands. If the photo is interesting enough to look at clean, it will still be interesting to look at with a bit of noise. Now I don't know where you draw the line. My camera only goes to ISO 1600. Iv'e pushed to ISO 6400 equivalent, and yes, I rarely get shots I wanna keep at ISO 6400. But I do have a couple.

AudibleSilence wrote in post #9322399
You guys are taking it to the extreme just to prove your point. Again, combat photography is different from club photography which is different from wedding photography etc etc etc.

That is also a picture from 1944...technology has improved a bit since then.

The same could be said that your example is also extreme: taking studio shots. Hasselblads only go to ISO 800: they have no use higher than that because they're not made for that. I don't really care if you only need studio pictures, but by acting like you won't take any pictures that contain noise is extremely limiting. And Jon's example really wasn't extreme, it played into your thesis of if there's noise, it's not worth an actuation.

The point is that it's better to have a poor quality shot than no shot at all. You can always decide later whether to use it. Robert Capa brought back two rolls of film from the D-Day landings; they were overheated and the emulsion ran during processing because, the story goes, the lab tech was in a hurry to see what was there. That's one of the 11 frames that survived (and the overheating and melting of the emulsion is responsible in large part for the state of the shot). Life Magazine used 10 of the 11 in that week's issue.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9322624
The same could be said that your example is also extreme: taking studio shots. Hasselblads only go to ISO 800: they have no use higher than that because they're not made for that. I don't really care if you only need studio pictures, but by acting like you won't take any pictures that contain noise is extremely limiting. And Jon's example really wasn't extreme, it played into your thesis of if there's noise, it's not worth an actuation.

Yea but it play into anything at this point because it doesn't apply...

AudibleSilence wrote in post #9310768
Upon further reflection, I think I phrased it wrong..I should have stated which do you prefer to display to the world.

I already amended my point to state Usable because I thought it would be confusing to folks. I mean yea, if I were in a pitch black room I wouldn't even try, but I take shots all the time that I won't use because they are too far gone. I think we all have.

The point is, would you rather shovel crap out to the world or keep those you've deemed unusable to yourself. I personally don't display really noisy images just for the sake of "capturing the moment"... But tolerances to noise are as subjective it would seem as what one considers High IQ.

A combat photographer doesn't have these constraints...war is fast paced and you could miss something world changing if you don't shoot. I'm sorry but a good many people are never in that situation.

Jon wrote in post #9322763
The point is that it's better to have a poor quality shot than no shot at all. You can always decide later whether to use it. Robert Capa brought back two rolls of film from the D-Day landings; they were overheated and the emulsion ran during processing because, the story goes, the lab tech was in a hurry to see what was there. That's one of the 11 frames that survived (and the overheating and melting of the emulsion is responsible in large part for the state of the shot). Life Magazine used 10 of the 11 in that week's issue.

I also heard they were color and someone really jacked it up; however, a history professor, not a photography professor told me that, so he might have had no clue at all in regard to development.