# Digital camera/pictures too dark



## tobyjug (Jun 25, 2005)

My wife purchased a digital camera yesterday. The pictures, (using automatic) are too dark. The pictures were taken outside in  sunshine.
What are we doing wrong?


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Jun 25, 2005)

My d/camera takes crap pictures on automatic as well, either too light or too dark. What I do is go into the menu thing and adjust the EV setting before I take pictures.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 25, 2005)

dynamicbaddog said:
			
		

> My d/camera takes crap pictures on automatic as well, either too light or too dark. What I do is go into the menu thing and adjust the EV setting before I take pictures.




Could you be more explicit as to which way to alter the settings please.
(I am a complete ignoramus about photography we usually use throwaway cameras and have few problems with those).


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jun 25, 2005)

didn't you get a manual with the camera?


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 25, 2005)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> didn't you get a manual with the camera?




A ********* huge CD based one, but the manual assumes some knowledge of photography. It does not state which way to alter the settings to make pictures lighter.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Jun 25, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> Could you be more explicit as to which way to alter the settings please.
> (I am a complete ignoramus about photography we usually use throwaway cameras and have few problems with those).



in EV mode you'll see some numbers 0+,1+ etc the higher the number the lighter your photo will be and you can reverse it to make it darker, just look at the image in your viewfinder and you can see how dark/light it's going, when it looks O.K you can take your picture. Just spend a while experimenting with it, you should get the hang of it soon enough


----------



## Corax (Jun 25, 2005)

Ask the fella who programs your video player to do it?


----------



## atomik (Jun 25, 2005)

Are they too dark when viewed on the camera's display, or is it just when you transfer them to your computer? Could be that your computer display isn't correctly calibrated.


----------



## alef (Jun 25, 2005)

What exact camera have you got? Can you place some of the pictures online for us to see?


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 25, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> What exact camera have you got? Can you place some of the pictures online for us to see?




I.T.WORKS 3045. I am unable to put any pictures on U75 as I do not have a web site. (I have tried all ways suggested in the past and none of them work).
If we take a picture from inside the house of the outside the pictures are OK.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 25, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> I.T.WORKS 3045.




     


*_shakes very wet leg of trousers!_


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jun 25, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> *_shakes very wet leg of trousers!_



hey c'mon don't be nasty, we can't all afford a D20


----------



## Corax (Jun 25, 2005)

I've only got a 2mp Olympus - even worse.  I am, however, able to competantly point it at stuff.  

*sniggers*


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 25, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> *_shakes very wet leg of trousers!_




It was a near freebie, (on offer with something else)  so there is no need to be a fucking moron. I asked a simple question.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 25, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> It was a near freebie, (on offer with something else)  so there is no need to be a fucking moron. I asked a simple question.



I was having a laugh at the _I.T.WORKS_ bit actuarsey!...I wasn't trying to leave a smell of snobbery...weird anthropologically( youse lot!!!) that all I have todo is type a few words or post a few emoticons and sudenly it's assumed by all that I wouldn't want to help or whaddeva?...for the umpteenth time I DO NOT OWN A DECENT CAMERA...ish...just an adequate one for web use...I use a diddy ones to...for diffrent effects..if you are nice to me I may give you an URL to compare and contrast...#humph#....by-the-by if I am a moron how will I be able to help you?....duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrr!...so to prove that I'm not...I will....  ...in a minute....when I've moronically scooted round Google to see if I can get the spec of your camera's exposure controlabityness.


----------



## Corax (Jun 25, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> I was having a laugh at the _I.T.WORKS_ bit actuarsey!...I wasn't trying to leave a smell of snobbery...weird anthropologically( youse lot!!!) that all I have todo is type a few words or post a few emoticons and sudenly it's assumed by all that I wouldn't want to help or whaddeva?...for the umpteenth time I DO NOT OWN A DECENT CAMERA...ish...just an adequate one for web use...I use a diddy ones to...for diffrent effects..if you are nice to me I may give you an URL to compare and contrast...#humph#....by-the-by if I am a moron how will I be able to help you?....duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrr!...so to prove that I'm not...I will....  ...in a minute....when I've moronically scooted round Google to see if I can get the spec of your camera's exposure controlabityness.


Moron.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 25, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Moron.



sexah MILF!!!!


----------



## Corax (Jun 25, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> sexah MILF!!!!


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 25, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

>



pah!  

anyways Meeeeesta tobyjug...it appears your camera doesn't seem to have much in the way of controls so you'll have to deceive it by trial an error...as you have a fixed focus lens I'd assume that the focus/exposure assessment/then shoot! experience your camera goes through when you depress the shutter realease is only in fact two fold...in mid depression the shutter realeas will assess the exposure then upon complete depression the picture will be taken. Try half depressing the shutter release half way whilst viewing something darker (if you find your picture is underexposed) then re-compose your shot keeping the shutter button in the halfway position..then shoot. Also consider using the force flash...conversely if the picture is overexposed do the process in an opposite way...it'll be a trial and error experience I'm afraid but not a technique that is impossible to achieve and repeat...in the end you'll work out you limitations of the camera and without breaking in a sweat do tons of pickees.

To start with take as many...AS MANY!!! pickees as you possible can to work out the way it works....do 'em of you big toe/cat/flower pot/favourite window view...wherever/whatever...and jus keep playing until you get what you expect to get and then you'll have sussed it...a couple of set of rechargeable batteries are a must and get and 128mb card...this has to be  one of my favourite sites of all time the guy started of with a similar spec.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 25, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> pah!
> 
> anyways Meeeeesta tobyjug...it appears your camera doesn't seem to have much in the way of controls so you'll have to deceive it by trial an error...as you have a fixed focus lens I'd assume that the focus/exposure assessment/then shoot!




You have now puzzled me even more. It has more than enough controls for me, which is why we used it on Auto.
It has a zoom, can record sound, a short sequence of video, time delay, macro focus, white balance, exposure -2.0 to =2.0. and quite a bit more.


----------



## Corax (Jun 25, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> You have now puzzled me even more. It has more than enough controls for me, which is why we used it on Auto.
> It has a zoom, can record sound, a short sequence of video, time delay, macro focus, white balance, exposure -2.0 to =2.0. and quite a bit more.


Cameras like yours and mine have various settings tobes, but they're all preset automatic bundles really.  That's what's meant by the dearth of control.  The 'decent' cams allow you to adjust them in a more accurate manner, rather than picking "sunny".


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 25, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Cameras like yours and mine have various settings tobes, but they're all preset automatic bundles really.  That's what's meant by the dearth of control.  The 'decent' cams allow you to adjust them in a more accurate manner, rather than picking "sunny".



It would be a complete waste of time my wife and I having a decent camera with a lot of bells and whistles, as we would never be able to operate it.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 25, 2005)

As a fix after the fact, you can always use a photo editing package to correct some of the problems (not as good as taking the exact photo you want in the first place, but can help).

There are various ones; for a beginner I'd say something like Picasa, which is a photo cataloguing program that has some editing facilities, would be useful for you. You can click on a photo, select "under exposed" and it will do some automagic correction.

http://www.picasa.com/


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 25, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> As a fix after the fact, you can always use a photo editing package to correct some of the problems (not as good as taking the exact photo you want in the first place, but can help).
> 
> There are various ones; for a beginner I'd say something like Picasa, which is a photo cataloguing program that has some editing facilities, would be useful for you. You can click on a photo, select "under exposed" and it will do some automagic correction.
> 
> http://www.picasa.com/




I am OK with photo editing I have three different packages to choose from. I would much rather be able to take the pictures right in the firstplace.


----------



## snadge (Jun 25, 2005)

My mate got one of those for about 20 quid, they are absolutely dirge, you should be able to take IT works to court over the trade descriptions act, cos they don't take pictures at all, just frustrate the user.


----------



## snadge (Jun 25, 2005)

better of getting a decent pns camera, I have a canon ixus 500 which is spot on in auto.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 25, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> My mate got one of those for about 20 quid, they are absolutely dirge, you should be able to take IT works to court over the trade descriptions act, cos they don't take pictures at all, just frustrate the user.




We can take pictures with it, and good ones. All I want is an explanation  of how to make some of the pictures lighter using the adjustments.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 25, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> You have now puzzled me even more. It has more than enough controls for me, which is why we used it on Auto.
> It has a zoom, can record sound, a short sequence of video, time delay, macro focus, white balance, exposure -2.0 to =2.0. and quite a bit more.



So Comet must have the wrong spec or the manufacturer has upgraded the camera...stick with what i said in the end...take loads of picture of anything to get use to your camera's falabilities.

-2 will make it darker +2 will make it brighter.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 25, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> -2 will make it darker +2 will make it brighter.



Cheers that was all I needed to know.


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> Cheers that was all I needed to know.


As you'd already quoted this setting, I assumed you'd tried adjusting it to no effect (and I suspect others did the same).  What was stopping you?    

Play around with it Toby.  You can't break it by changing settings, and you'll almost certainly discover a "reset to default" option somewhere if you bugger them up too much and can't work out what you've done.

Just play with it and snap away, it doesn't cost anything, you can delete the photos if they're crap.  You'll almost certainly get better snaps like this, and you might even enjoy it, y'know?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 26, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> Cheers that was all I needed to know.




no i doubt it was, firstly you have recieved some excelent adivce here, you should try taking it with out getting huffy at people or snobish about your camera choice, or defnesive regarding it... 

secondly try actually learning to use the piece of equipment you have to maximise it's potential, if you fail to do this then don't be suprised when your shots continue to be less than you want them to be...

finally when asking for help don't get the arse ache with people due to the lack of your own knowledge on a subject... 

funny really you could do with learning that in other areas too...


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 26, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> As you'd already quoted this setting, I assumed you'd tried adjusting it to no effect (and I suspect others did the same).  What was stopping you?



What was stopping me was the total lack of explanation in the manual which assumes prior knowledge of photography. It is also my wifes camera not mine. I have never owned a camera. I also have manual dexterity problems as part of my disability and as such I am reluctant to fiddle about with something as delicate as a digital camera.
I came into this forum to ask a question and I expected a helpful reply not a load of insulting shit. After a lot of shit I finally got an answer.


----------



## atomik (Jun 26, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> What was stopping me was the total lack of explanation in the manual which assumes prior knowledge of photography.


You say that as though it's unreasonable. It's not the job of a camera manufacturer to teach you about photography any more than it's the job of a car manufacturer to teach you how to drive. Would you complain if you bought a car and it didn't come with a manual explaining the purpose of gear changes?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 26, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> What was stopping me was the total lack of explanation in the manual which assumes prior knowledge of photography. It is also my wifes camera not mine. I have never owned a camera. I also have manual dexterity problems as part of my disability and as such I am reluctant to fiddle about with something as delicate as a digital camera.
> I came into this forum to ask a question and I expected a helpful reply not a load of insulting shit. After a lot of shit I finally got an answer.




ok firstly no one here is likely to know your personal situation if you are not capable of explaining we are not like to have some kind of physic ablitly to asses your particualr needs are we...

secondly your disablity has fuck all to do with the advice which has been given here and makes bugger all difference to your taking some shots and comparing the difference, the only cadence it would possibly have is if your dispbilty particularly prevent you from picking up the silver box sticking it near your eye and stopped you from presing the little button.....

so please for the love of all things reasonable don't use your fucking disablity as a badge of honour to display when you yourself neither explained yourself nor were reasonable when people tried to help you by asking speicfic questions it's insulting the wider disabled communtiy and it reduces you even further in peoples eyes for using such a creintious snivelling excuse...

wa wa i and arse but don't have a go cos i'm disabled ... the two are not connected and in no way relate, you think that becuase your disabled that excuses you from being reasonable ... WELL DO YOU....

as for the camera take the godam shots which will tell you about the conditions they are shot in then you can assess who to use your carmea which by it's design has limitations, how you can on oneside use the limitations of your disabltiy as an exucse because you are attempting to highlight that you are aware of them but cannot make yourself aware of the limitations of your camera is beyond rational thinking tbh...


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 26, 2005)

atomik said:
			
		

> You say that as though it's unreasonable. It's not the job of a camera manufacturer to teach you about photography any more than it's the job of a car manufacturer to teach you how to drive. Would you complain if you bought a car and it didn't come with a manual explaining the purpose of gear changes?




Given the sheer size of the CD manual I would have expected some explanation as to what any adjustment does and how to correct any faults with a picture.
The comparison with a car is not legitimate one, one cannot legally drive a car without having a licence.


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> What was stopping me was the total lack of explanation in the manual which assumes prior knowledge of photography. It is also my wifes camera not mine. I have never owned a camera. I also have manual dexterity problems as part of my disability and as such I am reluctant to fiddle about with something as delicate as a digital camera.
> I came into this forum to ask a question and I expected a helpful reply not a load of insulting shit. After a lot of shit I finally got an answer.


  

You really _are_ a frightful tit, aintcha?

Garf's already put it so well.


You're too fucking technically illiterate, stupid and/or lazy to read the manual or experiment yourself, and when Urban doesn't immediately leap to help you, you get a pinecone up your arse.  My post was a civil and constructive one, but no, you have to get huffy.

You might be _x_ years old, but you're a fucking _child_ on this evidence.  Grow the fuck up, you're getting tedious.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 26, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> Given the sheer size of the CD manual I would have expected some explanation as to what any adjustment does and how to correct any faults with a picture.
> The comparison with a car is not legitimate one, one cannot legally drive a car without having a licence.




you can buy a cr with out a licence though can't you....

why not stop your defencsice wank and your rude stance and also your insulting ooohh don't blame me for beign irate i'm a cripple defence act accept you over reacted to reasonable enquireies and take the bloody advice... for once in you life on these boards...  jesus


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 26, 2005)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> you can buy a cr with out a licence though can't you....
> 
> why not stop your defencsice wank and your rude stance and also your insulting ooohh don't blame me for beign irate i'm a cripple defence act accept you over reacted to reasonable enquireies and take the bloody advice... for once in you life on these boards...  jesus




I asked a perfectly legitimate simple question and got a load of shit. This is not what I expect in a specialist forum.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 26, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> I asked a perfectly legitimate simple question and got a load of shit. This is not what I expect in a specialist forum.



the shit you got was entirely of your own making there's absoultly nothing wrong with what has been suggested nor with the adivce given except you have choosen to take it as a slur on your camera choice...

YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE ATTITUDE PROBLEM not the people who have responded to you... your actions your reactions your problem...


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2005)

Lesson one:  If everyone reacts to you the same way, it's *you*, not them.

(nice'un Garf.    )


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 26, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Lesson one:  If everyone reacts to you the same way, it's *you*, not them.
> 
> (nice'un Garf.    )




I only get such reactions from a small group of arrogant bastards on U75. I never have any problems elsewhere.


----------



## alef (Jun 26, 2005)

Anyone for a glass of iced tea?

tobyjug, let us know if your pictures are coming out ok now.


----------



## tobyjug (Jun 26, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Anyone for a glass of iced tea?
> 
> tobyjug, let us know if your pictures are coming out ok now.



I won't bother given some of the unhelpful showers of shit in  here. Keep your forum to yourselves and don't help novices.


----------



## alef (Jun 26, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> I won't bother given some of the unhelpful showers of shit in  here. Keep your forum to yourselves and don't help novices.



Whoa, don't make the mistake of lumping an entire crowd based on just a few members. Most people replying were offering you help. squelch is a bit hard to understand, but from what I can make out was trying to help you out. No comments on Garf or Corax.

Maybe this thread will just end up binned? Shame, usually this forum is fairly free of this kind of crap.


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> I never have any problems elsewhere.


Amongst your group of petite-bourgeoisie freemason self-righteous friends you mean?  No, I''m sure they just bitch about what a nob you are behind your back instead.


And that reply to alef is COMPETELY out of order.  He has (as ever) been nothing but polite and helpful.  You twat.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 26, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> I only get such reactions from a small group of arrogant bastards on U75. I never have any problems elsewhere.




i might venture that you don't readly dismiss peoples advice which you have asked for out of hand in real life and thus you don't get the same reaction... then with out your reactive conceit you don't seek to actively alienate those whom you have asked help from and thus you don't get responses afterward which antagonise you by questioning your motiveation....

see if YOU are reasonable with people they are reasonable with you... can you see where you fucked up yet, you don't think that in people asking you what your camera was or advisign you of it's limitations and how to over come them were helpful then don't fucking ask...

we are not your idiot in a box advice forum ... I'm sure no one has any problem helping any one out regrading how to get better pictures in here, in fact i know it... what anyone one who is even half reasonable will have an issue with is being derided or sneered at or totally ignored when they proffer the help which has been asked for only to have it slapped away by your own actions...

your conciet is unbeleivable ...

regreatably i have met you type far to often, to quick to moan, full of self importance, have no understanding of the thing they are attempting to master and refuse point blank to listen to anyone else because they are speaking out of turn... you wanted help you got help a simple thank you and an apology for being a moody arse would suffice...


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> No comments on Garf or Corax.


Oh come on man...

This post:




			
				Corax said:
			
		

> As you'd already quoted this setting, I assumed you'd tried adjusting it to no effect (and I suspect others did the same).  What was stopping you?
> 
> Play around with it Toby.  You can't break it by changing settings, and you'll almost certainly discover a "reset to default" option somewhere if you bugger them up too much and can't work out what you've done.
> 
> Just play with it and snap away, it doesn't cost anything, you can delete the photos if they're crap.  You'll almost certainly get better snaps like this, and you might even enjoy it, y'know?



Received this reply:




			
				tobyjug said:
			
		

> What was stopping me was the total lack of explanation in the manual which assumes prior knowledge of photography. It is also my wifes camera not mine. I have never owned a camera. I also have manual dexterity problems as part of my disability and as such I am reluctant to fiddle about with something as delicate as a digital camera.
> I came into this forum to ask a question and I expected a helpful reply not a load of insulting shit. After a lot of shit I finally got an answer.




?


----------



## sparkling (Jun 26, 2005)

<coughs politely>  excuse me people but I'd like a digital camera but have little money and little technical sense.  Any advice on which fool proof camera might suit me?

I've just got into bird watching and on ebay have seen binocular cameras...does anyone know if these are anygood?


<you can carry on with your row after this if you want>


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 26, 2005)

sparkling said:
			
		

> <coughs politely>  excuse me people but I'd like a digital camera but have little money and little technical sense.  Any advice on which fool proof camera might suit me?
> 
> I've just got into bird watching and on ebay have seen binocular cameras...does anyone know if these are anygood?
> 
> ...




what would you like to use it for ?

day shots night shots inside out side people animals print web etc what are your needs from the camera ?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 26, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> No comments on Garf or Corax.



dude i was merely commenting that yet again toby has gotten the arse with people sturing up shit in a forum over nothing .... his continuoous bad tempered cnatackerious manner is not needed when asking for help, and gettign the arseache with people who are helping you is nto really the way to get more help...


----------



## sparkling (Jun 26, 2005)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> what would you like to use it for ?
> 
> day shots night shots inside out side people animals print web etc what are your needs from the camera ?



Nothing too brilliant really...I suppose happy family type shots but like I said I've recently got into bird watching and would like to be able to take some wildlife pics although I think thats more a long term aim.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 26, 2005)

sparkling said:
			
		

> Nothing too brilliant really...I suppose happy family type shots but like I said I've recently got into bird watching and would like to be able to take some wildlife pics although I think thats more a long term aim.




ok np what's your budget are you looking for new or just an ebay bargin type thing ?


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2005)

Ey-up sparkles!



			
				sparkling said:
			
		

> <coughs politely>  excuse me people but I'd like a digital camera but have little money


The prices range massively - what kind of budget are you looking at?

I can only comment on my basic olympus point'n'shoot.  Very user friendly and consistent (when on the highest resolution*), but very little in the way of manual control.  Something in their range might suit.

*Toby, check your camera is set up on the highest resolution, it'll improve the picture quality of your shots no end.  Or don't bother and just throw your toys out the pram again, I'm not bothered.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 26, 2005)

sparkling are you still in london this seems like a good deal and should do much of what you want but it's a today only type thing 

http://www.gumtree.com/london/89/2542989.html

in fect if you goto gumtrees camera section then you'll find lots of cheap digital cameras there the 300d at 340 is a bargin considering i spent £500 on mine but that's a proper digital slr http://www.gumtree.com/london/digital-cameras-for-sale_93_1.html


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2005)

sparkling said:
			
		

> Nothing too brilliant really...I suppose happy family type shots but like I said I've recently got into bird watching and would like to be able to take some wildlife pics although I think thats more a long term aim.


Forget one like mine then.  The digital zoom is pointless as all it really does is crop & expand the image, with no compensation in terms of resolution.

You need something with a decent _optical_ zoom.  Most cameras have this nowadays though, so it depends how close you want to get.


----------



## sparkling (Jun 26, 2005)

Thanks Garf and Corax     No am not in London and am off out in a mo to visit some bird sanctury in Hertfordshire.    

I suppose because I really am a beginner I was thinking of around a £100  but am really not sure what that might get me or indeed what I need.
I've tried looking briefly at Corax's thread but it all looks very techny and you have to know what it all means.  I need some help with the basics, Squelch's ideas on just taking photo's of anything but over and over again till you understand what your camera can do and how you can control it sort of appealed to me...it made sense so its sort of inspired me to have a go hence my request for advice.

So there you are a complete novice.  Should I start a thread for photography for idiots do you think?


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jun 26, 2005)

sparkling said:
			
		

> I've tried looking briefly at Corax's thread but it all looks very techny and you have to know what it all means.  I need some help with the basics, Squelch's ideas on just taking photo's of anything but over and over again till you understand what your camera can do and how you can control it sort of appealed to me...it made sense so its sort of inspired me to have a go hence my request for advice.
> 
> So there you are a complete novice.  Should I start a thread for photography for idiots do you think?



try this place has a good  buying guide and learn section also the forums are more specialised http://www.dpreview.com/


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 26, 2005)

thing is for a ton your not going to get much in fact your not going to get anything at all really which will give you good shots... and you'll fast be limited by it's capabilties as yours improve... 

go for say one of the ones advertised on gumtree for example and you get second hand but better bang for your bucks you want an optical zoom you want as amny mega pixels as you can afford with as good a ccd as it can get  theccd is the sensor which replaces the film the biger this is the better quaility the shot will be the higher the mega pixel rate the less bitty (it's called grain  )the sharper the content will be.


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2005)

sparkling said:
			
		

> Should I start a thread for photography for idiots do you think?


I'll join. 

Honestly hun, I only picked up my camera a couple of weeks ago.  I've learnt a lot from alef's "Submit a photo" thread.  Have a look if you haven't already.

Cam suggestion... 

...but bear in mind I don't know a lot about it, so I'd wait for others' comments...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 26, 2005)

no optical zoom it's better to buy summit you can grow into that summit which just suits your needs as you'll find you have more to snap or shoot once you get the thing than you first invisaged


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2005)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> no optical zoom


You must have missed it...

3x optical

(& 4x pointless digital zoom)


----------



## sparkling (Jun 26, 2005)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> thing is for a ton your not going to get much in fact your not going to get anything at all really which will give you good shots... and you'll fast be limited by it's capabilties as yours improve...
> 
> go for say one of the ones advertised on gumtree for example and you get second hand but better bang for your bucks you want an optical zoom you want as amny mega pixels as you can afford with as good a ccd as it can get  theccd is the sensor which replaces the film the biger this is the better quaility the shot will be the higher the mega pixel rate the less bitty (it's called grain  )the sharper the content will be.




This makes some sense.  What about Ebay are the bargains on there?


Am off to start beginners to photography thread and hope someone adds a glossary of terms for me.


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2005)

sparkling said:
			
		

> hope someone adds a glossary of terms for me.


Heres one:

_*Manual:* Thing you should read before getting arsey because you can't adjust the brightness._


Yeh yeh, I'll behave now.


----------



## sparkling (Jun 26, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Heres one:
> 
> _*Manual:* Thing you should read before getting arsey because you can't adjust the brightness._
> 
> ...



Silly Toby even I knew that you shouldn't point your camera towards the sun.     I expect all that brightness gave him a headache...I get tetchy with headaches.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 26, 2005)

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30019&item=7525912395&rd=1

this isn't too bad for a ton 

kodak point and shoots have lovely colours and the images aren't to shoddy either the one above is a 5 mp which is good too...

this is also not bad http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI....24&ssPageName=MERC_VI_RSCC_Pr4_PcY_BID_Stores

don't be disuaded by the we have got 12 mp in our camera type hype most of these cameras have not got optical zooms and have not got bigger ccd's meaning that their 12 mp is the equiverlent to a normal cameras 2.2 mp due to the grain certain at best it's a 3 or 4 mp camera which means you aren't getting more but less bang for your buck...


----------



## Corax (Jun 26, 2005)

Blokey-ess in Jessops told me that the megapixels have to increase exponentially for the resolution quality to be affected...  so the difference between 8 & 12 mp is sweet FA, wheras the difference between 2 & 6 is huge, iykwim.

That right?


----------



## sparkling (Jun 26, 2005)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30019&item=7525912395&rd=1
> 
> this isn't too bad for a ton
> 
> ...



Thanks Garf ...have put in a bid now...am off out and will let you know if I won and if I did then I can start learning something new.


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jun 26, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Blokey-ess in Jessops told me that the megapixels have to increase exponentially for the resolution quality to be affected...  so the difference between 8 & 12 mp is sweet FA, wheras the difference between 2 & 6 is huge, iykwim.
> 
> That right?



this is quite informative http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Effective_Pixels read the section on sensors and sensor sizes too


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 26, 2005)

kinda but the ccd also needs to increase... imagine it like this ccd equates to film size now in the olden days you used to get the 110 size film it produced crap shots and was tiny the amount of photo reactive film with which the lens could store the image onto was small thus the images were also small undetailed but becuae of negatives it was alway possible to blow up these images to larger sizes for print.  35 mm was the next size up the detail was better as there was a larger surface area with which to store the images...

ccd sensors are the same as film and whilst the 35mm ccd sensor isn't actually 35mm (it's about 30 mm) it's effective equiverlent is 35mm so it has the same recording power as 35 mm film.  the ccd on a point and shoot is much smaller thing about 15mm sometimes smaller that's a lot less surface area to let light in...store the image.

if you increase the memory capacity of the data you can save (the mega pixel) then all you are doing is squeezing more info into a resricted space meaning it overblows the image (the contrast goes to fuckery and the colours look wierd) and it get grainier as the ccd hasn't been able to save any more image data than before even though the processing memory and storage is greater.

Standard high quality film is around 22 mp. a standard 6.5 mp camera shot in raw format can be blown up to this size mp with almost no loss of definitition giving you the film equiverlent, in digital.  as long as you have a ccd sensor which can cope with this... other wise you'll get a roy lichenstine image or worse ... some thing which looks like it was taken on a web cam...


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 26, 2005)

> All of tobyjugs posts on this thread


   

Fuck me toby, even by your pig headed standards you've put in a star turn here.
You don't deserve the good advice you've been given and franky I think you should sod off and continue to fumble around with the damn thing untill you get so fed up with it that you throw it at a wall or something and save us the bother of your presence in this forum ever again.

You belligerent prat.


----------



## atomik (Jun 26, 2005)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> Given the sheer size of the CD manual I would have expected some explanation as to what any adjustment does and how to correct any faults with a picture.


The lack of an explanation regarding adjustments is not the same thing as a presumption of photographic knowledge.



> The comparison with a car is not legitimate one, one cannot legally drive a car without having a licence.


Fine. Then would you expect a set of pans to come with a free cookery course?


----------



## Wess (Jun 27, 2005)

Toby ... email me (or PM) and I'll tell ya how to put picures from your hard drive onto the internet and how to fix you photo's up a bit if you want.

 I've just gone through all the same problems recently myself so I might be able to help.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 27, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> squelch is a bit hard to understand, but from what I can make out was trying to help you out.



      :*shimmies*: good aren't I?


----------

