You know when you see a shot which you must have - but you have only got your trusty pocket CyberShot in your pocket?
Is it better to select a low ISO, wedge yourself in, hold your breath and take? Or, find a convenient resting place for the camera - then take? Or leave it on Auto (ISO) and live with the graininess?
I simply can't hoik my Nikon around with me when working, but I always have my old digital Sony ready - which is fine in good light levels but not so good in low.

are you using any "noise reduction" software in your arsenal?

neatimage ... the FREE standalone demo works forever ... with only a couple limitations ..

it works wonders on pixelated skies and low-light shadow areas

Thanks! I have linked to neatimage and will have a go! I know it sounds mad, but I am a bit of a purist when it comes to photography and yearn to take the absolutely perfect shot - one of these days! My significant other loves manipulating shots - but I hate it - if I can avoid it. The curse of striving for perfection....!

Remember that your camera makes its own adjustments without you knowing so doing some yourself is only different in that you have an option of what is done. Anyways, neat image works well, but it isn't as good as having a grainless shot from the camera. For me your question can't be answered with one solution. It really depends how your sorroundings. It is probably best if possible to take a bit of a longer shutter with a lower iso but sometimes that isn't possible. Camera shake is maybe worse than grain so if you can't hold still go with iso, but if you can find something to rest on, and what you are taking a picture of is still as well i would go for that. Although one thing to remember is grain gets worse after a very long shutter even if you are down at iso 50, or 100 or whatever so sometimes it can't be helped no matter what you do. As far as picking between wedging yourself in or resting the camera on something it is probably better to rest it on something if possible. although with good technique some faster (but still slow) shutter speeds can be handheld.

a trick i've discovered is to use the timer feature. it's the next best thing to a remote shutter release. find something to rest or lean the camera on, set up your shot, set the timer, and go. one thing, i've found that if you have more than one time available, use the shortest one...it'll cut down on the chance of your restless hand moving, or any other unforeseen mishap from occurring... good luck.

Thanks to you all. Didn't think of the timer - good one and thank you for that advice. I shall try them all and see what arrives on my screen!

Oh, and one other thing i forgot to mention. I don' t know what your camera allows you to do, but putting the aperture wide open will give you faster shutter speeds.

Neat Image - I have not tried this one but found a good set of instructions for it here

http://photography.about.com/cs/digital/fr/digsw_neatimage.htm

The only problem with the demo of Neat Image is that the resolution is now limited to 1024X768?

oh really? ... I didn't know that ... bummer

I thought that had always been the case. It was last time I tried it (which was several months ago). There is one way around it which is to divide a large picture into four smaller images, neaten them and then join them back together, but it's probably easier just to but the full version...

Yes, sad but true! In a recent wipe and reinstall of XP I didn't bother saving the old version...can't complain because of price.

I’ve been using Noiseware Community Edition with good results. It has opened all the files I have thrown at it. It only saves untagged JPGs. So you have to assign your favourite profile to it in Photoshop. That’s not much hassle and you can’t complain about the price.