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

I really don't understand people's aversion to noisy images. Your client doesn't care about noise. Really. I regularly use whatever ISO i need to get the shot. If the content/subject matter of the photo are strong enough, noise is irrelevant.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

AudibleSilence wrote in post #9333642

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Did I think this was good enough to post up? Nope.

Mate, there's nowt wrong with that pic. The 1Ds is another camera that renders noise rather attractively.

PMCphotography wrote in post #9334736
I really don't understand people's aversion to noisy images.

Those who complain about DSLR noise would have never been able to tolerate using Kodak Royal Gold 1000 film.

DC Fan wrote in post #9335214
Those who complain about DSLR noise would have never been able to tolerate using Kodak Royal Gold 1000 film.

I came from film...which is exactly why I get so irritated with digital which can and should be cleaner.

DC Fan wrote in post #9307342
Here's an XTi image taken at ISO 3200:

I see no objectionable noise whatsoever. Nor would I have felt the need for NR

MClassImages wrote in post #9333430
Unacceptable by today's standards

Guess my standards aren't up to date then

AudibleSilence wrote in post #9335785
I came from film...which is exactly why I get so irritated with digital which can and should be cleaner.

It is. By a very long shot IMO.
I shot Neopan1600 and Tmax3200 way back when. And Ektar1000. Even Konica3200. That was grain by the bucketloads

TMZ:

http://www.jpgmag.com/​photos/794047

I too am very glad with digital. Now I have a usable ISO 6400 on my 1D3
I do understand that everybody's opinion of "usable" differs, but I also think technicalities tend to get in the way to much sometimes.

AudibleSilence wrote in post #9333642
Noise like that does disappear in print. Example of mine from my 1ds:

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Did I think this was good enough to post up? Nope. Did the folks that ran the event I was documenting think it was great? Yep. In print the noise blended and it looked more like old school film grain (thank God). Print size was plus/minus 19x27 and it looked fine...I suppose it worked because it was capturing the stress of setting up the event..the grain helped. Couldn't do them all this way..nope nope nope. I'm starting to realized that each pic is different. Ah well grow and flex your style I suppose.

Well, I think it's a very good picture, but I'm more of a PJ by nature, so I look at the picture for its "story value", and not its "aesthetic value".

What do you think about this picture?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9336568
What do you think about this picture?

Since we are talking about this is a thread with the context of "how much noise do you like", My eyes immediately notice the heavy NR, especially in the bystanders.

But if I was an Ohio State fan and opened up a newspaper or magazine article with that photo next to it, I would just think "wow, that guy is pumped! I bet he just won a match". I think it is an excellent capture of the moment and nobody but photo nerds looking for noise are really going to give a rats arse that there is some NR going on.

tkbslc wrote in post #9336642
Since we are talking about this is a thread with the context of "how much noise do you like", My eyes immediately notice the heavy NR, especially in the bystanders.

But if I was an Ohio State fan and opened up a newspaper or magazine article with that photo next to it, I would just think "wow, that guy is pumped! I bet he just won a match". I think it is an excellent capture of the moment and nobody but photo nerds looking for noise are really going to give a rats arse that there is some NR going on.

Actually, that was fairly light NR - I don't own any NR software other than PS and LR. That was f/2.8, so they're OOF; I think that is giving the heavy NR appearance.

However, I doubt there would be a sports editor that wouldn't use that picture.