File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey, /photo/.

I'm pretty fucking pissed off right now.
I went with a couple of my friends to this beach,
thats five hours away from my house.

Not only did we get stuck in traffic, the pictures look like shit.

I have a Kodak Easyshare C310 camera 4MP.
Normally it takes nice pictures, but this time they sucked total monkey dick.

What's the problem?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Moar shitty pictures..
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I'd post more, but they're me with my family and friends.
>> Anonymous
The problem is that you have a shittastic camera. Oh, and you can see the beach from my house.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>What's the problem?
You're a bad photographer who thinks the camera's responsible for making the photograph look good.

Also, you were probably shooting with the wrong settings (looks like insanely high ISO), but I can't tell because your EXIF got eaten somewhere along the line.
>> Anonymous
>>64136
I don't see how these pictures could've been better if he used some Canon 1Ds with a filthy expensive lens. Higher resolution, yes; better, no.
>> Anonymous
>>64138
Doesn't look like he is aiming for "good" pictures in the /p/ sense of the word, what with nice composition, etc. I'm guessing if it weren't for the obscene amounts of noise, he'd say that the pics posted were "good."
>> Anonymous
>>64137
I was using the Auto Flash mode, with +2.0 Exposure Compensation.
>> Anonymous
>>64143
That's your problem. When you boosted the exposure, your camera boosted what's called the ISO speed, which essentially means how sensitive it is to light. A side effect of a high ISO speed is the little colored dots on the picture.

Also, they were either shot at the wrong picture quality setting (make sure your camera is set to highest quality and largest picture size), you used digital zoom, or the camera smudged up the picture to try to hide the noise.

Digital zoom shouldn't be used because all it is is cropping the picture and then stretching it to be the size of a normal picture. Doing so is a recipe for disaster.
>> Anonymous Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I has a Kodak EasyShare C433
i take pictures for fun
>> Anonymous
i agree looks like grain from high iso, attention to composition would be good
>> Anonymous
>>64146

Great, thanks for the tips and help.
Yeah, I used zoom for most of those pictures.

So, when I'm at the beach, and I'm planning to take a quick shot, the composition should only be high, if it's really dark?

Also, should i use Auto flash, or fill?
>> Anonymous
fill flash would be used generally for subjects that are backlit or for night portraiture, and most likely about 8ft away would be the limit.
As your model camera uses center-weighted metering auto flash will fire if it determines the center of the frame is under-lit.

as>>64161pointed out the digital zoom will introduce the most noise in your pictures, although the +2 EV will introduce noise as well.
-- if that was as brightly lit as it appears you would've been fine at +0EV and your camera most likely would've set its auto ISO to 100 (that model range automatically selects ISO 100-400)
-- As your model camera has a fixed lens you have a choice - zoom with your feet or get the grain.
Sorry to say -- your camera is designed for general snapshots. You may be able to compose some great photos with it, but you'll have to work within its limitations.
>> Anonymous
>>64161
Dude...composition is what's, you know, in the picture.

And just get a new camera, man. You can get a somewhat decent P&S for $150 or less.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>64168
I dunno. Brightly-lit sand on a beach is one of the classic you-need-to-adjust-exposure-compensation examples. So the +2EV might be legitimate. He doesn't seem to be having a metering problem after all. I think it's just a combination of the digital zoom and the intrinsic shittiness of that camera's sensor.
>> Anonymous
>>64161
Generally auto, I would think. Like another poster said, just use "fill" if you're close to a subject.

>>64182
I'd question the "intrinsic shittiness" of the sensor. Sure, it's small, but being only four megapixels it shouldn't have as much of a problem with noise as it seems to.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>64184
We're not talking a 4MP SLR sensor here. We're talking a 4MP sensor from an entry-level camera introduces in 2005.
>> Anonymous
>>64182
correct me if i'm wrong - but doesn't +2EV make the camera CCD more sensitive to light, thereby inherently introducing more noise into the photo?
Stated another way: if the photo taken at +0EV appeared underexposed, compensating by +1EV or +2EV would make the next photo of the same subject appear properly exposed?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>64192
Yes.

If there's something extra bright in the picture (e.g., bright sand, snow, etc) then the camera will underexpose it by default.
>> Anonymous
so the problem is as>>64136indelicately put it, and>>64137concurred, even properly composed pics with this camera will suffer from the camera's limitations (fixed lens, digital-only zoom, little if any control over camera settings, etc)
>> Anonymous
>>64191
I've seen much, much better, even at the highest ISO settings, from other four megapixel point-and-shoots. I wasn't comparing it to a four megapixel DSLR, but to other small sensor four megapixel cameras I've seen the output of. At image sizes like that, even small sensors aren't disposed to the sort of noise that's in the OP's pictures. That's my point.
>> Anonymous
My 2MP camera on my cell phone takes way better pics w/o even having ISO or any manual settings.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>64216
>from other four megapixel point-and-shoots.
The digital zoom compounded it. Took the noise and blew it up and then smeared it around a bit in a misguided attempt to make it less noticeable.

Also, not just a four MP camera, an *old* and a *cheap* four MP camera.

Also also also, are you sure the cameras you're comparing it to are 1/2.5" sensor cameras like this one and not, say, 1/1.8" cameras?