This article on Luminous landscape, is, I guess typical. In that lot's of quasi-scientific posturing is made about testing. Perhaps the target audience appreciates this. I personally think it is over complicated.
[From Some Noise About Noise]
The final paragraph says it all though for me, and given my understanding about noise in a digital file and how it is created, actually defeats the intention of the article.
My advice on avoiding noise, in digital files? Expose correctly and never ramp up your ISO settings, unless you are absolutely stuck. This necessitates the carrying of a tripod, something I've done for 20+ years, and unless I'm prepared to shoot wide open, unavoidable. Don't want to carry a tripod, shoot wide open or settle for other technical trade-offs like noise.
Edit, 2008.06.10
Throughout the whole article the tester neglects to mention one key and pivotal piece of information. How many stops exposure difference between the brightest area in the scene and the darkest. Expoxures choices are driven by this more than any other, for example how little detail can I accept in the shadows, hw will that impact on the highlights. Can I keep detail in the highlights, without having empty black shadows? As an aestheitc choice, do I want either? Adding insult to injury, to the best of my knowledge CCD's can only record 3 1/2 stops. In Australia this potentially makes photography impossible, on sunny days, the time when most amateurs go out to take photographs.
