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

AudibleSilence wrote in post #9323015
Yea but it play into anything at this point because it doesn't apply...

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.

Backpedal all you want - the fact remains, if you don't take the shot you won't be able to "choose" whether to display it or not. So take the shot and do the best you can with it. News sites are buying and using cell phone shots because they showed what was happening when it was happening, while the guys with the big guns were still trying to get there so they could take the shot of the aftermath, with all the cleanup over.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9323145
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.

Yeah, no clue. They were B&W.

Jon wrote in post #9324878
Yeah, no clue. They were B&W.

I don't see how it's possible to develop color into BW. It's possible to cross develop slide and print film, but that's a different story because both are color (but I think you'll wind up with a very different looking picture).

Always take the shot...

3200 ISO pics from tiny sensor cameras like the G11 and S90 are usable even with no noise reduction IMO:

One thing that a lot of people dont account for here - as photographers, we focus very much on the technical side and pixel peep, measurebate, compare sharpness, look for noise etc, whereas the general public look at photos in a different way. They see the overall, whereas we see the "faults".

Also , as someone else mentioned, when printed noise is even less of a problem. A large portion of the noise simply disappears when printed (unless they are large prints near the limit of the image)

Jon wrote in post #9324878
Backpedal all you want

You really wanna take it there? You're a mod..

Would you submit a picture like that to a wedding couple? I should hope not. What is and isn't considered good IQ or a usable picture varies by type of photography. This has been stated multiple times.

Jon wrote in post #9324878
if you don't take the shot you won't be able to "choose" whether to display it or not.

I get your point, and I have already conceded that point BEFORE you made your WWII reference. Different types of photography have different tolerances for what is usable. Like I said, the difference is not in actually taking the shot, but using it.

Jon wrote in post #9324878
So take the shot and do the best you can with it. News sites are buying and using cell phone shots because they showed what was happening when it was happening, while the guys with the big guns were still trying to get there so they could take the shot of the aftermath, with all the cleanup over.

Like I said, you can't tell someone at a wedding that you caught the moment as it was happening while taking thousands of dollars for blurry, noisy, pictures. I mean I know people have but you shouldn't.

P.S. News outlets buy cell phone footage for ratings and to scoop other stations/papers. It has nothing to do with IQ and everything to do with having it FIRST so they can make $$$ off the scoop.

Spacemunkie wrote in post #9326209
Always take the shot...

3200 ISO pics from tiny sensor cameras like the G11 and S90 are usable even with no noise reduction IMO:

Can't see what the problem is.

Like I said before...what people consider usable varies. I like that pic, the noise actually helps..it reminds me of the ads for drinks you see in newspapers or on billboards. The noise adds to that effect.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9325579
I don't see how it's possible to develop color into BW. It's possible to cross develop slide and print film, but that's a different story because both are color (but I think you'll wind up with a very different looking picture).

It's quite straightforward, actually. All colour film is is B&W film with chromogenic dyes in it. For that matter, Kodachrome didn't even contain the dyes - they were added later during the processing (which is why it wasn't (generally) available except to major labs). The developer which has reacted with the silver activates the dyes (less silver at a spot, less developer reacts with the dye). Then the silver's bleached out, leaving just the dyes. In transparency film, the colour-coupling comes in the second round of development, which yields the positive.

AudibleSilence wrote in post #9327978
You really wanna take it there? You're a mod..

Would you submit a picture like that to a wedding couple? I should hope not. What is and isn't considered good IQ or a usable picture varies by type of photography. This has been stated multiple times.

I get your point, and I have already conceded that point BEFORE you made your WWII reference. Different types of photography have different tolerances for what is usable. Like I said, the difference is not in actually taking the shot, but using it.

Like I said, you can't tell someone at a wedding that you caught the moment as it was happening while taking thousands of dollars for blurry, noisy, pictures. I mean I know people have but you shouldn't.

P.S. News outlets buy cell phone footage for ratings and to scoop other stations/papers. It has nothing to do with IQ and everything to do with having it FIRST so they can make $$$ off the scoop.

Like I said before...what people consider usable varies. I like that pic, the noise actually helps..it reminds me of the ads for drinks you see in newspapers or on billboards. The noise adds to that effect.

You're letting your prejudices colour your responses. Nobody (except, it sounds like, you, when you're offering the counter-example) is saying that you should go for the noisiest shot you possibly can. However, we are saying to use what you have to its best effect to make sure you get a shot rather than walk away empty handed. Sure you could present the bride and groom with a noisy, grainy ISO 25600 shot at 1/8 sec. because your camera will let you set it that way, but is that the best setting for that environment? And is it any more acceptable for you to tell them that you got no pictures because you didn't like ISO 25600 at 1/8? If you are going into a known situation, it's your responsibility to be prepared for reasonable conditions. But if the wedding party was hit by a sudden blackout and all you had was ISO 25600 at 1/8 in the light of the altar candles, do you think the B&G are going to be more upset because you used that, or because you threw up your hands and walked away? For that matter, the officiant would probably allow you to use flash if that happened even if it was against normal policy. But setting up a straw man of high grain vs. no shot while ignoring the full spectrum of tools you have available is irresponsible. Whatever your situation is, you use your best capabilities, and take your best shot, regardless. You don't just walk away saying "I know I won't like how it comes out, so I'm not even going to try". Unless you want to stop learning and growing.

I would still like to see a picture too noisy to use.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9328977
I would still like to see a picture too noisy to use.

A shot that I took or a shot that I've seen someone post saying it's acceptable and I disagreed?

Jon wrote in post #9328943
You're letting your prejudices colour your responses. Nobody (except, it sounds like, you, when you're offering the counter-example) is saying that you should go for the noisiest shot you possibly can. However, we are saying to use what you have to its best effect to make sure you get a shot rather than walk away empty handed. Sure you could present the bride and groom with a noisy, grainy ISO 25600 shot at 1/8 sec. because your camera will let you set it that way, but is that the best setting for that environment? And is it any more acceptable for you to tell them that you got no pictures because you didn't like ISO 25600 at 1/8? If you are going into a known situation, it's your responsibility to be prepared for reasonable conditions. But if the wedding party was hit by a sudden blackout and all you had was ISO 25600 at 1/8 in the light of the altar candles, do you think the B&G are going to be more upset because you used that, or because you threw up your hands and walked away? For that matter, the officiant would probably allow you to use flash if that happened even if it was against normal policy. But setting up a straw man of high grain vs. no shot while ignoring the full spectrum of tools you have available is irresponsible. Whatever your situation is, you use your best capabilities, and take your best shot, regardless. You don't just walk away saying "I know I won't like how it comes out, so I'm not even going to try". Unless you want to stop learning and growing.

I mean, we're saying the same thing here..I don't get the disconnect. And for the love of God, I've already said I take shots, I just don't always use them. Get off of the point already!!!!

So what point are you trying to make,then?

So much has to do with subject matter as well. If this pic was not of the concord in flames, it would be too noisy but given the subject, it's a powerful image.
http://www.nytimes.com …ld/europe/04con​corde.html

AudibleSilence wrote in post #9329071
A shot that I took or a shot that I've seen someone post saying it's acceptable and I disagreed?

Doesn't matter who took it, I just want to have an idea of how noisy a picture is that you consider unacceptable, so I don't have to guess.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9329344
Doesn't matter who took it, I just want to have an idea of how noisy a picture is that you consider unacceptable, so I don't have to guess.

It varies by picture...I'll grab something later I'm at work.

I think all this comes down to the fact that we all want to take the best photographs possible with our gear. If you have full control over the subject and lighting, then there is no excuse for excessive noise. Add flash, open some drapes, shoot long exposure, come back later, etc, etc. But when you have no other option but to shoot now and sort it out later, you pick the best compromise of settings in your camera. Sometimes that is max ISO pushed 2 stops. Will it be noisy? Yes. Will it be the best photograph you could have taken of that subject at that time with the gear you had? Also, yes. So what more can you do?

The Jose Cuervo shot glasses - too noisy. That's a controlled subject and people are expecting you to control it better than using ISO 3200. Now if you are shooting a rock concert, the band is not going to wait around for you to setup the shots, so you just shoot. ISO 3200 is the best you can do, so be it.