Brandon
Dec 26 2004, 05:41
every single digital pic from my camera is crappy. i have the Sony Cybershot P72 point&shoot camera 3.1MP. This pic below is unedited by photoshop in any way except the little fuzz on the middle of the face... why is the color so disgusting, and light becomes dark in one line instead of fading... i took like 10 pics in my room tonight, and all the color ones turned out all graniy and stuff...
Revenant
Dec 26 2004, 05:45
Fiinger Marks on the lense?
Got3n™
Dec 26 2004, 05:46
hahah the faces look funny, but i have never seen a camera do this with the colot like that, looks like your in like 16bit color mode or something.
try changing the resolution to a higher one.
Brandon
Dec 26 2004, 05:48
QUOTE(Spector @ Dec 25 2004, 23:45)
Fiinger Marks on the lense?
[right][snapback]585168544[/snapback][/right]
nope, just cleaned and tested, same thing
QUOTE(KeR @ Dec 25 2004, 23:46)
try changing the resolution to a higher one.
[right][snapback]585168550[/snapback][/right]
its at 3.1 already
Brandon
Dec 26 2004, 05:53
QUOTE(Got3n™ @ Dec 25 2004, 23:46)
hahah the faces look funny, but i have never seen a camera do this with the colot like that, looks like your in like 16bit color mode or something.
[right][snapback]585168548[/snapback][/right]
i agree, but the pics are in highest quality, and everything is set to auto
Brandon
Dec 26 2004, 06:01
i know the camera is good quality...
look at this - one of the review sites
LightHawk
Dec 26 2004, 06:05
According to the file's EXIF data.. you didnt use a flash. Did you? I know that my F505V messes up when i dont use a flash and i get the same results
Brandon
Dec 26 2004, 06:07
QUOTE(LightHawk @ Dec 26 2004, 00:05)
According to the file's EXIF data.. you didnt use a flash. Did you? I know that my F505V messes up when i dont use a flash and i get the same results
[right][snapback]585168656[/snapback][/right]
i did use a flash... you can see the light gleeming off the gold garland on the tree
LightHawk
Dec 26 2004, 06:08
QUOTE(caveman017 @ Dec 26 2004, 01:07)
i did use a flash... you can see the light gleeming off the gold garland on the tree
[right][snapback]585168660[/snapback][/right]
Thats wierd then... any other special settings that you were using?
Brandon
Dec 26 2004, 06:09
no everything else is on auto
jaydacodemonkey
Dec 26 2004, 06:15
What was the ISO level at? High ISO levels result in a lot of grain on many point and shoot cameras.
warwagon
Dec 26 2004, 06:16
whats wrong with your picture.... looks fine to me
Brandon
Dec 26 2004, 06:36
QUOTE(jaydacodemonkey @ Dec 26 2004, 00:15)
What was the ISO level at? High ISO levels result in a lot of grain on many point and shoot cameras.
[right][snapback]585168683[/snapback][/right]
lowered to 100iso (the lowest) and its a little better... still not that great for a $200 camera
I think it looks fine.....
Brandon
Dec 26 2004, 14:59
QUOTE(No.47 @ Dec 26 2004, 00:50)
I think it looks fine.....
[right][snapback]585168817[/snapback][/right]
the first picture, click on it then enlarge it... it really sucks...
I dont think my camera is good in low light
digitaljames
Dec 26 2004, 15:02
If the cam has a digital zoom feature, turn it off. Digital zoom sucks....
Brandon
Dec 26 2004, 19:31
QUOTE(digitaljames @ Dec 26 2004, 09:02)
If the cam has a digital zoom feature, turn it off. Digital zoom sucks....
[right][snapback]585170176[/snapback][/right]
i have it turned off....
any pic taked inside without tons of light on it turns out like this
ApostolicFire
Dec 26 2004, 19:46
Is the quality set to Fine or Standard?
Brandon
Dec 26 2004, 20:04
QUOTE(ApostolicFire @ Dec 26 2004, 13:46)
Is the quality set to Fine or Standard?
[right][snapback]585171311[/snapback][/right]
fine
ApostolicFire
Dec 26 2004, 20:10
and this only does this in darker areas? perhaps it is a limitation of the camera. i have an old digital camera i think did the same thing.
Colin Holywell
Dec 26 2004, 20:11
Lower the ISO speed. The higher the ISO speed the grainer the pics will look.
Brandon
Dec 27 2004, 03:26
QUOTE(ApostolicFire @ Dec 26 2004, 14:10)
and this only does this in darker areas? perhaps it is a limitation of the camera. i have an old digital camera i think did the same thing.
[right][snapback]585171439[/snapback][/right]
yeah.. i mean heres pics of my computer look how icky and bad it is
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?act=...=post&id=102146
A word of advice... stick to film. They are more high-quality. They look better. And darn that addicting shutter sound is so cool to hear! Digitals that replicate that sound just sounds different somehow. Must be psychological.
Digital cameras are still not up to par with film... especially the price to quality ratio.
QUOTE(caveman017 @ Dec 27 2004, 11:26)
yeah.. i mean heres pics of my computer look how icky and bad it is
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?act=...=post&id=102146[right][snapback]585173612[/snapback][/right]
Hold on a sec here... are you really complaining about your picture quality or are you just showing off your LCD and your iPod and your 5.1 setup???
Brandon
Dec 27 2004, 04:21
QUOTE(YOHAN @ Dec 26 2004, 21:54)
Hold on a sec here... are you really complaining about your picture quality or are you just showing off your LCD and your iPod and your 5.1 setup???

[right][snapback]585173756[/snapback][/right]
HAHA no
couture
Dec 27 2004, 04:37
You have to play around with your camra. Don't leave it on the default settings...you use different settings for different situations (including, the amount of light you are given, the distance from you and the picture, among many other elements) so it's common for pictures to come out less than what is advertise, and if all else fails use photoshop to manipulate the colors/hues/brightness contrast, or you can use photoshop filters..
nquinnathome1
Dec 28 2004, 19:19
The EXIF data on the image doesn't say that you used a flash or not - all the SONY cameras i've owned or seen have added this data in, so i'm not sure why your photo does not say whether flash was used or not, also the ISO is at 250, and SONY's do suffer quite badly at ISO's over 200 (100 to 150 is preferable - 250 on a P72 suggests that the camera was in auto ISO mode).
Other settings surprise me; the photo is dark and the reason for this is the F-stop, which here we find is 4.5. Aperture (which is rated in F-stops) should be mimimal (i.e F-stop 2) in dark conditions. Additionally, your shutter speed is quite fast, and this will also lead to darker photos - longer exposure time means more light lands on the CCD sensor and is captured.
So basically...
-lower your aperture (to F2)
-Make sure you use flash, and don't get too far away from your subject
-Make the shutter speed slower
This is nothing to do with being digital, if you were using a film camera with these settings you would turn out the same results. I know that the P72 may not have all the manual controls possible, but you could try night mode (set the camera mode to SCN mode and open the menu - choose the moon icon)
altezza
Dec 28 2004, 22:50
Looks fine but it's a bit like pictures that were taken by conventional camera.
Alpha2004
Dec 29 2004, 23:36
stick with kodak or canon next time
but yeah, maybe the camera is defected or something. This is unacceptable for a 3mp camera, and I dont know what could be causing it...unless its a defect/its just the way it is.
edit:i touched up your photo, and it looks fine now, more or less.
heres a comparison between a 1.2 mp (built-in) pda camera and your pic
your is still noticeably better, which is good

if you have ms office 2003, open up ms picture manager and play around with auto-correct and auto brightness, for pics you want to fix up. Some cameras make really bad pics in places with low light and flash enabled..meh
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.