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

tkbslc wrote in post #9329455
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.

The noise adds character to the picture. Take away that character and you're stuck with just another picture taken of stuff lying around. I'm not sure you got the point.

tkbslc wrote in post #9329455
The Jose Cuervo shot glasses - too noisy.

In your opinion.

It was a controlled subject. I deliberately set it up to show that a 3200 ISO RAW image from a contemporary p&s camera is eminently usable with the noise even (shock, horror...) adding something to the image if you process it right.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9329741
The noise adds character to the picture. Take away that character and you're stuck with just another picture taken of stuff lying around. I'm not sure you got the point.

Not sure I agree, but I guess that is a matter of opinion.

So if noise is never bad, why don't we all shoot used D30's for added character?

Spacemunkie wrote in post #9329784
In your opinion.

It was a controlled subject. I deliberately set it up to show that a 3200 ISO RAW image from a contemporary p&s camera is eminently usable with the noise even (shock, horror...) adding something to the image if you process it right.

I like it a lot. It shows you cared about what you wanted to produce and if you busted out the tripod of a pixel peepers delight, it would have looked like "just another picture".

tkbslc wrote in post #9329795
Not sure I agree, but I guess that is a matter of opinion.

So if noise is never bad, why don't we all shoot used D30's for added character?

You're missing the situational element of it.

tkbslc wrote in post #9329795
Not sure I agree, but I guess that is a matter of opinion.

So if noise is never bad, why don't we all shoot used D30's for added character?

I think what we're seeing is better control of noise from recent cameras. There's less banding (this was the killer for me with my 40D at 3200ISO), it's finer due to sensor resolution and often generally more pleasing to my eyes at least.

It's not a case of suggesting that everyone should use high ISO all the time, more just pointing out that there is a certain level of hysteria about noise that I simply can't fathom.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9329800
I like it a lot. It shows you cared about what you wanted to produce and if you busted out the tripod of a pixel peepers delight, it would have looked like "just another picture".

"Pixel peepers delight"? The image is noise-ridden at 800px wide! Who is pixel peeping. I am sorry for critiquing the photo harshly, but in my opinion, the noise does nothing for the photo. Interesting lighting and perhaps an interesting background would have made the photo more than "just another picture". If you guys like it, cool, really all that matters is that the photographer or the photographer's customer like the photo. Who cares what I think.

I was trying to argue the situational element. I have personally never seen a photo where normal digital sensor noise has ADDED to a photo. I find it tolerable a lot of the time, but never beneficial. So in my mind, if you have the option to shoot a noise free shot, and you don't, you have failed. Noise free meaning noise is not a primary component of the image. So in this situasion, the noise is not forgiveable to me. I would have shot a clean image. In the concorde in flames picture that was linked, it is easily forgiveable because that was the only option. If you are shooting portraits for pay, you are going to make sure you get set up so you don't have ISO 12800 shots with banded clumping noise. You'll be shooting at low ISO and control the light. So yes, I agree, the situation determines how much noise is acceptable.

As always, this is just one dude's opinion, we all get to decide for ourselves.

You missed/misunderstood the metaphor.

tkbslc wrote in post #9329904
"Pixel peepers delight"? The image is noise-ridden at 800px wide!

You missed the "if you busted out the tripod" part of my quote.

I'm just fine with a noisy shot. A crappy picture is better than no picture at all.

This was shot at ISO 1600 on a 1D Classic. Unacceptable by today's standards, but I got the shot I was looking for, which is what matters.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

MClassImages wrote in post #9333430
I'm just fine with a noisy shot. A crappy picture is better than no picture at all.

This was shot at ISO 1600 on a 1D Classic. Unacceptable by today's standards, but I got the shot I was looking for, which is what matters.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Got a larger version of that?

AudibleSilence wrote in post #9333471
Got a larger version of that?

http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com …63693886_f83eb6​9de4_b.jpg

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.

Personally I like the noise in this shot, no pun intended. I think it makes it.

MClassImages wrote in post #9333513
http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com …63693886_f83eb6​9de4_b.jpg

Noise like that does disappear in print. Example of mine from my 1ds:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

tkbslc wrote in post #9329904
So in my mind, if you have the option to shoot a noise free shot, and you don't, you have failed. Noise free meaning noise is not a primary component of the image.

I'd generally agree with this, although it assumes that everybody who used to use 1600 and 3200asa b&w film did so because they were shooting in low light and were forced to. And what about those perverts that use Holgas and similar?
Lo-fi images have their place. They involve good technique like any other style of photography when they aren't just 'happy mistakes'. Kind of like Les Dawson playing the piano

That pic wasn't posted as an example of an inspiring photo - it was just what was lying about to test 3200iso out on. The colour version is ugly with lots of chroma noise: