I wanted some constructive criticism on this shot... The conditions were VERY hasty - we had just ran to the stop, the cable car was starting to roll, so I put the F - 3.5 and ISO 1600, zoom out to 18mm and snapped away, hoping for no blur. It's not the sharpest picture but I quite like it... for some reason, the noise from the ISO doesn't bother me as much as I'm not going for the sharpest pictures... what do you think?

It looks sharp. I zoomed in on the Powell sign and that looks good. I find this shot pretty interesting. Good work for a "fast shot"

[Sailor]

I like it a lot - looks pretty sharp to me. The only thing I'm wondering about is WB - did you intend the "tungsten" look?

Anyway - good job.

Jer

[mischivo]

I'm not certain what kind of constructive criticism you're requesting. Do you want us to comment on the acuity of the shot, or on other aspects of the shot? If it's the former, than we can't say, considering the very low resolution of the file you've made available. Additionally, acuity is something that's very simple to verify: just look at it. There is no need to ask for opinions of friends or fellow forumers. So I'm still left puzzled about the nature of your question. If it's about the aesthetics of the picture... well, some photos are just best left not analysed.

[prajno]

I'm not certain what kind of constructive criticism you're requesting. Do you want us to comment on the acuity of the shot, or on other aspects of the shot? If it's the former, than we can't say, considering the very low resolution of the file you've made available. Additionally, acuity is something that's very simple to verify: just look at it. There is no need to ask for opinions of friends or fellow forumers. So I'm still left puzzled about the nature of your question. If it's about the aesthetics of the picture... well, some photos are just best left not analysed.

I guess I am not really sure of what criticism... first time posting a photo up here. The comments so far are helpful to me.

In terms of the photo quality - it's the full jpeg size on flickr. Maybe the pro account will allow for a larger version of the photo... it does look pretty low-res in 1024x768.

[prajno]

I like it a lot - looks pretty sharp to me. The only thing I'm wondering about is WB - did you intend the "tungsten" look?

Anyway - good job.

Jer

I didn't play around w/ WB at all... just the effect of the streetlights. I'm wondering would it will look printed out.

[prajno]

I upgraded my flickr account... the original size is here.

Still think it's worthy of printing. Nice capture.

[mischivo]

So after looking at the full sized JPEG, I'm somewhat astonished that the image is ISO 1600. There is just too much sharpness killing noise reduction happening in that shot. Which camera are you using?

Update: a very effective, surprisingly cheap, and not too inconvenient way to mitigate resorting to high ISO shots is to use a monopod. Gooshin bought me one for my birthday (I think!), and although I don't carry it around much, the times that I have, I've been happy with the results it has given me. Here are two examples from the same location: it was actually darker than it seemed, and hand-holding was not an effective option:

[prajno]

So after looking at the full sized JPEG, I'm somewhat astonished that the image is ISO 1600. There is just too much sharpness killing noise reduction happening in that shot. Which camera are you using?

Update: a very effective, surprisingly cheap, and not too inconvenient way to mitigate resorting to high ISO shots is to use a monopod. Gooshin bought me one for my birthday (I think!), and although I don't carry it around much, the times that I have, I've been happy with the results it has given me. Here are two examples from the same location: it was actually darker than it seemed, and hand-holding was not an effective option:

I'm using the K200D w/ the DA II kit lens. I have the High-ISO Noise Reduction Setting to 3 Weak. I was reading somewhere here that the in-camera Noise Reduction works better than Post Processing. I guess I'll experiment a little with it off and weakest to see how much different it is. Thanks for your observation. I will be looking into getting a monopod as well - I have a tripod but don't really take it around unless i'm doing a solely photography outing. If the monopod is small enough, I might take it around with me more often.

BTW, your shots are very clear! what aperture and lens did you use for those?

[mischivo]

The benefit of a monopod is that it's much more portable than a tripod, easier to set up, and doubles as a defensive weapon in the unfortunate instance you're being mugged (hold the monopod at the leg end and strike with the base plate). The first two points mean that you'll use it more often than a tripod.

Also, I must suggest this: always shoot RAW... always. Noise reduction, from personal experience, is most effective when done by you in a RAW editor. I use Lightroom (or ACR; they're identical): leave luminance reduction to 0 (luminance reduction smooths noise, and consequently smooths out any fine contrast detail) and chromatic reduction from 5-15. The latter setting is really camera specific. When shooting digital, I leave mine at 5 by default, as it works all the way up into 1600 ISO. The worst quality of digital noise is not it's "graininess", but the it's chromatic aspects: the blotchy colour patterns that develop. Reducing these makes an image remarkably more pleasing.

I shot those images with a EF 35mm f1.4 lens @ 2.8.

[causey]

Like it!

And yes, monopods are great: cheap, light, easily extendable. They don't give you the best stabilization, but with them you won't miss many shots. (And I always find a fixed thing to place my monopod against.)