[FoTom]

You must have a far better post-process than I do. Depending on light condition at the time of the shot, I get frustrated with ISO 400+.

I think it's just in your mind. Once you get past the "ooooh, I'm gonna get noise in my image" and embrace the grain, it'll be good. Now, my shots are not award winning, I like them very much and I shoot for myself [ok, not the weeding ones] but still, I like them, I like the noise and not that I like it much but I know it's either have noise or have no photo. I choose noise.

Gemini 80-200mm, f/8, ISO 3,200
Spidey



Laughter
Pentax 40mm XS, f/2.8, ISO 4,000



Our Dance
Same settings, but ISO 10,000

[Sandy Hancock]

No, nobody shoots at 51,200. On our entire site there are less than 10 photos shot at this ISO (that aren't test shots).

Well I do. I nearly always shoot in TAv for my concert work, and sometimes you need to go to extremes to get a shot. Here is one example of the extremely photophobic Mark Lanegan band. Most of the other togs walked off shaking their heads, while I managed this with the K-01 and FA77 wide open. Manual focus was the only possibility.

[VisualDarkness]

No, nobody shoots at 51,200. On our entire site there are less than 10 photos shot at this ISO (that aren't test shots).

I have, for emergency in dense darkness

[rawr]

Here is one example of the extremely photophobic Mark Lanegan band.

Great shot.

The only time ultra-high ISO really falls down is when you have an image that needs lots of good, clean visible detail to work, esp when viewed at larger than web. But there are lots of scenes where this isn't really a requirement, fortunately.

[Barry Pearson]

I think it's just in your mind. Once you get past the "ooooh, I'm gonna get noise in my image" and embrace the grain, it'll be good. Now, my shots are not award winning, I like them very much and I shoot for myself [ok, not the weeding ones] but still, I like them, I like the noise and not that I like it much but I know it's either have noise or have no photo. I choose noise.

I wonder how much people's view differ depending on whether they used film, and how long ago?

I used to use Tri-X a lot. (I'm showing my age! 66). It had lovely grain structure, depending on the developer. (I often used D76).

I've just added noise in Photoshop to one of my images intended for A3+ printing for a competition, to give a better effect.

[Digitalis]

Higher ISO images can be quite usable, though you do have to keep the print size modest.


Pentax K5IIs -SMCP-FA31mm f/1.8 ASPH Limited, ISO 12800 @f/11 1/60th

It is also a good way to test out how different NR programs tackle the problem:

Note these are 100% crops - the lightroom NR settings were Luminance 50, Colour 50 - Dfine was set to the default 100% on both colour and contrast noise. It is interesting to note that Dfine sacrifices quite a bit of edge detail.

[snake]

SFX Pro handles very high ISO images really well. It certainly works with shaping the noise into something more like a pleasing grain.

[FoTom]

I wonder how much people's view differ depending on whether they used film, and how long ago?

I used to use Tri-X a lot. (I'm showing my age! 66). It had lovely grain structure, depending on the developer. (I often used D76).

I've just added noise in Photoshop to one of my images intended for A3+ printing for a competition, to give a better effect.

I think it's a mix between "now I can get the shot with this unbelievable high sensitivity, what noise are you talking about?" and like you say, the aesthetic character it gives a photo sometimes. I mostly shoot digital, but also like the grainy texture in some photos, especially because I shoot 80-90% in Black and White. I recently began shooting film again after many years, and when I shoot film I don't get much noise because I use ISO 400 Tri-X for BW and Fuji Superia and Kodak Ultra for colour.

I have added some noise to images in post, but have been very rare exceptions, not the rule ;]
To each their own, I'd say.