Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 25, 2005, 7:44 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
musicarvind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 101
Default

I am really dissapointed. So I thought I'd head out to the experts in the area to feel better about the outcome of digital cameras. I bought a Canon Ixus V3 or known as Powershot 230 or something like that. Its a 3.2Mpx. I took pictures with it sometime back. Say about a year or more ago and was totally taken back by the poor quality pictures it prints at the processing center. it went into the table drawer and never looked back at it until I got hold of this forum and wondered what it would be like to learn more about digital cameras and the proper ways of using it.

I got out the manuals, learned all the right settings. Optimised the setting to super fine using the most of the camera. Took pictures of my kids the whole of last night and this morning and just could not wait to get to the camera shop to get them printed out.

The pictures turned out horrible. ! .. Focusing was so blur. All settings were auto and if you would be telling me that I should turn to manual, then I might as well get back to conventional cameras!. My questions is:

Is 3.2Mega Pix really enough to take good quality pictures that is worthy for the photo album?
Should I take that extra step in making an investment in something with higher resolutions? ie. 5Mpix? It would scare the hell of me to wait for the outcome.
Or Digital cameras just do not match that of conventional cameras?

I am however a happy owner of a conventional/regular Nikon F60 SLR which has never dissapointed me. Only hassle is the processing of film! At least the pictures are worthy for a whole lifetime.

Last edited by musicarvind; Jun 6, 2011 at 12:03 AM.
musicarvind is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 25, 2005, 7:54 AM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

musicarvind wrote:
Quote:
The pictures turned out horrible. ! .. Focusing was so blur. All settings were auto and if you would be telling me that I should turn to manual, then I might as well get back to conventional cameras!.
Why don't you post an example.

Complaints of blur is a common problem. Usually, it has nothing to do with focus. It's usually caused when a new camera owner tries to take photos without a flash in conditions that a flash is needed (i.e., indoors with normal room lighting is going to require a flash with most camera models unless ISO speeds are increased).

So, shutter speeds are too slow to prevent motion blur from camera and subject movement at lower ISO speed settings.

What conditions were you shooting in, and were you using a flash?

Quote:
Is 3.2Mega Pix really enough to take good quality pictures that is worthy for the photo album?
Should I take that extra step in making an investment in something with higher resolutions? ie. 5Mpix? It would scare the heck of me to wait for the outcome.
Or Digital cameras just do not match that of conventional cameras?
It never ceases to amaze me that most people assume that higher resolution = higher quality (especially at smaller print sizes).

3 Megapixels is plenty for your album size prints. Even 2 Megapixels can provide acceptable quality at up to8x10" print sizes, but 3 Megapixels is noticeably better at this larger size.IMO, more than 3MP is really not needed, unless you'll be printing at larger than 8x10" sizes. Higher Megapixels can actually be worse from more noise (similar to film grain) compared to some of the older 3 Megapixel sensors if higher ISO speeds are needed.

Your problem with blurry photos at smaller print sizeshas nothing to do with resolution. Why don't you post a sample photo so we can see what you're talking about?

Chances are, it's your shutter speeds (too slow for the lighting, apertureof the lens, and ISO speed setting, so you're seeing motion blur), and has nothing to do with film versus digital, etc.

The same problems occur with film, too (if your lighting isn't good enough for the ISO speed of the film you're using, andaperture setting/brightness of the lens).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2005, 1:40 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
musicarvind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 101
Default

Hi Jim,

Thank you for your reply.

Last edited by musicarvind; Jun 6, 2011 at 12:04 AM.
musicarvind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2005, 2:29 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Carrots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 377
Default

I think that photo looks pretty good. You might try adjusting the white balance. The camera tries to auto detect the correct setting, but its better to adjust it manually. It should have settings for the different light sources.
Carrots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2005, 2:46 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
musicarvind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 101
Default

I really need help in this adjusting the white balance part and ISO settings. This one is totally over exposed with flash I think.

Last edited by musicarvind; Jun 6, 2011 at 12:05 AM.
musicarvind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2005, 5:57 AM   #6
Moderator
 
Nagasaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 897
Default

On my monitor the photo of your son doesn't look so bad. I've attempted to lighten up the picture of your daughter but it's difficult to keep a balance between the face and the clothes. I used photoshop curves for this. I tried to use levels which is easier but I couldn't achieve a suitable balance. I think this shot really needed flash.

What software do you have available for adjusting the pictures?

Are you always using the same photo shop for your prints. If so it may be worth trying another as some are a lot better than others.


Attached Images
 
Nagasaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2005, 10:52 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

Your camera has a poor flash. The distribution looks to be uneven in the picture of your daughter (pretty girl) and it is not throttling down properly in the picture of your son. It appears there might be a hot spot in the middle that is causing both.

It is uncommon for the flash to be uneven like that, but the occasional camera doesn't throttle down properly. Steve has a sample flash picture from the S230 if that is what you have, and the flash distribution and metering looks pretty good. You might have gotten a bad camera, and it is unfortunate that it has soured your attitude toward digital.

For the picture of your daughter you might zoom some or try to get her face closer to the center. It looks to me the flash might have a hot spot in the center and is metering for that. The camera doesn't seem to have a flash intensity adjustment – most do anymore. Maybe the EV correction will throttle the flash down for you.

You might do your cropping and resizing from the freeware Irfanview for posting. You can save the image without stripping the EXIF information, and it helps to have that for people to follow what you are doing. The crop tool is always hot – you don't have to select it. Just draw the box and go Edit>Crop selection. Size is under Image>Resize/Resample. http://www.irfanview.com

If you are planning to get another camera I would recommend Steve's list of best cameras. Each listing is a link to the full review, which I would read before considering a purchase. http://www.steves-digicams.com/best_cameras.html

Photoshop has a feature new to CS that fixes your daughter's picture in a single step, but it is more expensive than a good camera.



Attached Images
 
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 AM.