Help!! Last year's indoor photos were the worst!

[ladyleslie]

So we were on the DCL line last year and all of the indoor photos (kodak easyshare ) were either way too dark or way too bright (flash?) ....

The outdoor pictures came out fantastic - but the indoor - I couldnt frame a single indoor pic or use one in a scrapbook..... it was so bad

So if you had to recommend a camera that took fabulous indoor pics - that was under $300 but I didnt need to be a tech wizard to use it - what camera would that be???

[zackiedawg]

Sadly, there really isn't any particular P&S camera that can take excellent indoor photos just on the merit of the camera's abilities and automatic settings. Some are slightly more capable than others, but no P&S camera is great in low light...at least just by pointing-and-shooting - and certainly not for under $300. It mostly comes down to the photographer...it really is the difference-maker. Probably not the answer you want to hear!

Seriously though, you don't need to become Ansel Adams...just a very small, basic knowledge of photography will go a very long way towards helping out your results. For indoor scenery shots, whenever possible, you want to put a camera on a tripod or level surface, and use the self timer to shoot. Using the camera's P mode is better than Auto, because it lets you manually set the camera's ISO (which is sort of like turning up the gain on the sensor - to try to boost the light, which also unfortunately causes nasty ugly noise and smeared details as the camera tries to remove the noise) to the lowest number. Then the camera is forced to use a slower shutter speed to pick up more light, and give you a nicer result. Though against instinct, you want to disable the flash in these modes, and just let the camera pick up whatever ambient light is in the room. Sometimes cameras have a 'Night scene' mode which will do something similar...all of these are best used on a tripod. If you do have to take action, movement, or scenes without a tripod, then knowing to crank up the ISO, and learning a good, steady stance can make your results usable. If taking shots of people, using the flash can be good for getting faces and details.

Now, for some cameras that might be ever-so-slightly better than what you have in low light conditions...I'd suggest taking a look at Panasonic TZ series cams, Sony's TX series cams, Fuji's F70, or Canon's SX or SD line. They should all be better than your current cam, but they will still all greatly benefit from the right techniques and a steady hand or tripod. Most of these models will be more than $300...however most also offer a 'bottom' model which is a little less capable and featured, but lands within your price range. The Fuji has a special low light mode that shoots a lower resolution, but merges pixels together to absorb more light because each group of pixels acts like a single larger pixel. Sony's TX and HX series cams have two special low light modes that will actually take a series of 6 photos consecutively in about 1/2 second, then stacks and merges all 6 photos together into 1 right in the camera, which amplifies the ambient light picked up in the shot while also keeping excellent detail and removing noise from the shot (since noise patterns are random, the noise 'moves' between each of the 6 shots...merging the 6 together lets the camera remove all the randomly placed noise in each shot). These two might be worth the closest look - the Fuji is inside your price range, and the Sony TX1 and TX5 should both be accessible in your price range.

[Frantasmic]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/ (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q210grouptravelzoom/)

Check this thread out.

[photo_chick]

I hold the unpopular opinion here that there are a few point and shoots that can actually get the job done if you know how to get the most out of them. One or two of them can do it better than entry level DSLR's. But you gotta remember that most of getting the shot is the photographer and not the camera.

Check out something like the Fuji S2500. It can get the shots, but it won't do it on auto. You will have to learn how to set some things manually to get what you want. My daughter has an older model of this camera, the S1000, and gets great low light shots with it. It might be what you're looking for, it might not.

[seashoreCM]

It can get the shots but won't do it on auto
On the Fuji S1000 (or S2500) what are typical settings (aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc.) that tend to deliver the best low light performance?

Here are a few tips that might help.

If you can, try RAW (as opposed to JPG) output, which in some cases (makes and models) allows deliberately underexposing to achieve a higher shutter speed and then sprucing it up using Photoshop.

Everyone mentions holding the camera more steady, which some of us cannot do although a tripod will help immensely.

Zoom all the way out to maximize the aperture. This relies on a large enough megapixel rating to crop the picture to the desired field of view.

If you are buying a new camera, you really need an f/1.8 or bigger lens, and accurate focusing (this part is manual) in order to get good low light action shots.

[Pea-n-Me]

So if you had to recommend a camera that took fabulous indoor pics - that was under $300 but I didnt need to be a tech wizard to use it - what camera would that be???
Whoever invents such a camera will be bathing in zillions. ;)

[zackiedawg]

I hold the unpopular opinion here that there are a few point and shoots that can actually get the job done if you know how to get the most out of them. One or two of them can do it better than entry level DSLR's. But you gotta remember that most of getting the shot is the photographer and not the camera.

Hey, it's not THAT unpopular an opinion...you said essentially the same thing I did, in fewer sentences! :) Though I don't agree on the entry-level DSLRs, which I think would still be better than any P&S model, I do agree that the photographer makes the difference, and decent low-light results can be had with a P&S camera, by knowing the right settings and shooting techniques.

[photo_chick]

On the Fuji S1000 (or S2500) what are typical settings (aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc.) that tend to deliver the best low light performance?



In general you set up the same as you would on a DSLR. A camera is a camera and they all make exposures the same way. Short lens and wide aperture. Set the shutter speed to the minimum you need for the shot then go with the lowest ISO possible. It goes to ISO 1600 (and has less noise than my Rebel XT at 1600) with ISO 3200 in the extended range (that's the S1000. Teh 2500 has 6400 in the extended range as well). The aperture opens up to f/2.8, which is better than most kit lenses. It's a very capable little point and shoot.

DSLR's have their advantages, but point and shoots are not as useless as many would like to think.

zakiedawg.. there are only one or two high end point and shoots that i'd put against some of the entry level DSLR's. And even then, we're talking like the Canon XS with a kit lens comparison. Not a Rebel T2i comparison.

[seashoreCM]

I often run into indoor settings such as f/2.8 (max on mine) at 1/20'th second (hit or miss the way I hold the camera) and 800 ISO (noticeable graininess).

I end up taking several shots hoping that one will come out with minimum camera movement blur.

Lower light than that I don't have a prayer of getting a good hand held shot.

Only recently heard of unexposing and then post processing to brighten it up so will have to try that.

When I see that many DSLR's come with lenses no faster than f/2.8, I think their owners have the same dilemma.

[zackiedawg]

When I see that many DSLR's come with lenses no faster than f/2.8, I think their owners have the same dilemma.

To an extent, yes...DSLRs with kit lenses actually are even worse - most are F3.5 at best...so the kit lens is rarely the cure to low light ails. The big difference of course is that most of the newer DSLRs can shoot up to ISO6400 and still have more detail and less noise than a typical P&S at ISO800...so that gives you 3 stops back with the DSLR over the P&S.

zakiedawg.. there are only one or two high end point and shoots that i'd put against some of the entry level DSLR's. And even then, we're talking like the Canon XS with a kit lens comparison. Not a Rebel T2i comparison.

No of course...I understood your meaning, and the most basic DSLRs from a few years ago weren't exactly low light/high ISO kings...if anything, you might have had a touch more detail with the DSLR, all else being equal, and the best of the 2/3 sensor P&S models could come pretty close or equal.

In fact, if you don't mind using a little technology, even some ultracompact P&S cameras can shoot up to ISO1600 or more as well as an entry-level DSLR of 2 years ago. My little TX1 can shoot nearly clean, highly detailed ISO3200 shots handheld, without NR blurring or much noise at all...and at full 10mp resolution. It isn't going to replace a DSLR, and you can't shoot sports at night, but for indoor and scenic shots, it'll handle it just fine! Especially considering the camera is so small it will hide unnoticed in a chest pocket. Technique and technology both have quite a bit to do with it...here's ISO3200 right from the camera:

http://g3.img-dpreview.com/2ED57EB7439B4E68BE25A9A7E0E5922A.jpg

Not too bad for something with a 1/2.5 sensor. Believe me, I'm not one to profess that only a DSLR can be a real camera - I truly believe the photographer plays the biggest part, mostly through knowledge of photography and by learning and using all of the features and abilities and technologies a camera has to offer, whether an ultracompact or a full-frame DSLR! I know some photographers that could wipe me and my DSLR up off the floor using nothing but a P&S.

[photo_chick]

I often run into indoor settings such as f/2.8 (max on mine) at 1/20'th second (hit or miss the way I hold the camera) and 800 ISO (noticeable graininess).



You're still fighting the noise... it gets a lot more fun when you embrace the high ISO settings and work with the noise instead of trying to eliminate it. I went through that a couple years ago.

[NateNLogansDad]

Please don't take any of what's being said, or what has been said, the wrong way. Everybody has a very valid point... a very good amount of the time the camera just isn't being used to it's fullest potential. Up until a year ago, I had never read the manual with any camera or any other electronic device I purchased. I pulled the camera out, set it to auto, charged the battery and took some pictures. If I wanted better pictures, I bought a newer camera. Easy enough. I really wish I had took the time to learn the cameras I had, and the basic skills that I could have used to make my snapshots so much better.

A small example. A few weeks ago I was complimented on my recent pictures I posted on facebook while at a party by the couple hosting the party. The hostess of the party complained that her brand new camera must be defective because it just can't take a good picture. When I asked her if she read the manual she looked at me like I had 2 heads. I played with a few of the settings and snapped some pictures of her daughter blowing out the candles on the cake. We uploaded them to her computer and they really looked really good! She was thrilled and is now supposedly going to learn how to use it for real.

I guess what my long, drawn out, rum soaked explanation is trying to say, is that you may be able to get more out of the camera if you take the time to figure out what each little thing does. Or, you can always drop $300 on another camera and hope for the best... but just a heads up, those bright pictures caused by the flash are probably still going to be bright if you use the flash on the new camera....just a thought.

[disneyboy2003]

Please don't take any of what's being said, or what has been said, the wrong way. Everybody has a very valid point... a very good amount of the time the camera just isn't being used to it's fullest potential. Up until a year ago, I had never read the manual with any camera or any other electronic device I purchased. I pulled the camera out, set it to auto, charged the battery and took some pictures. If I wanted better pictures, I bought a newer camera. Easy enough. I really wish I had took the time to learn the cameras I had, and the basic skills that I could have used to make my snapshots so much better.

A small example. A few weeks ago I was complimented on my recent pictures I posted on facebook while at a party by the couple hosting the party. The hostess of the party complained that her brand new camera must be defective because it just can't take a good picture. When I asked her if she read the manual she looked at me like I had 2 heads. I played with a few of the settings and snapped some pictures of her daughter blowing out the candles on the cake. We uploaded them to her computer and they really looked really good! She was thrilled and is now supposedly going to learn how to use it for real.

I guess what my long, drawn out, rum soaked explanation is trying to say, is that you may be able to get more out of the camera if you take the time to figure out what each little thing does. Or, you can always drop $300 on another camera and hope for the best... but just a heads up, those bright pictures caused by the flash are probably still going to be bright if you use the flash on the new camera....just a thought.

This is SO true! I used to be like that, too. I'd drop another $300 every 2 years or so for a new camera, only to get the EXACT same kinds of photos. :sad2:

What's worse is that nowadays it's soooo easy for folks to spend $500-$1000 on a dSLR (because they're "better" cameras), only to end up with the same photo problems, or *gasp* worse-looking photos!

I agree that spending an extra $300 on a brand new camera won't necessarily get you better looking indoor or flash photos. I'll bet that everything you need for good indoor & flash photos are already available on your current camera.

Buying a brand new brush doesn't mean you'll paint better pictures, especially if you already had a decent brush to begin with.

btw, you mentioned Kodak Easyshare, but you didn't mention which one. I think Kodak makes like 100+ cameras that are all named "Easyshare".

[NateNLogansDad]

What's worse is that nowadays it's soooo easy for folks to spend $500-$1000 on a dSLR (because they're "better" cameras), only to end up with the same photo problems, or *gasp* worse-looking photos!


So I wasn't the first one?

[mrodgers]

I often run into indoor settings such as f/2.8....

.....When I see that many DSLR's come with lenses no faster than f/2.8, I think their owners have the same dilemma.
Note that f/2.8 on a dSLR camera lens is not the same as f/2.8 on a smaller sensor non-dSLR camera.

My camera is max f/3.5. I've read and also calculated out that it is equivalent to more like f/8 on a dSLR.

This is all off the top of my head, but I believe it is something like this... The aperture value is a ratio taking the focal length into concideration (f is the focal length, f/2.8 is the ratio which calculates to your actual aperture opening size in mm.) Your focal length is a function of the sensor size, as is a dSLR is also. You have to calculate it all to a "35mm equivalent" value to figure out the comparable aperture values.

An example of focal length using my camera is.... My camera is a 10x zoom and focal length is 6.3 - 63 mm. My wide angle at 6.3 obviously isn't as wide as say a dSLR 18-55 mm kit lens if you would compare the same image. My focal length range calculates out to 30-300 mm based on 35mm frame format. Calculating it all out, my 6.3-63mm is roughly the same as I think 25-250 mm on a dSLR.

It is all very confusing comparing settings of compact, superzoom, and dSLR cameras all because of the sensors in the cameras.

[ladyleslie]

#1 - an easy to use camera that takes great indoor pictures under $300 is not some obvious easy recommendation

#2 my current kodak easyshare DX7590 with (and i dont know what the below actually means)

Exposure compensation -- +/- 2.0 EV in 0.3 EV steps
Aperture -- wide (f/2.8-8.0) and tele (f/3.7-8.0)
Shutter speeds -- automatic - 1/8-1/1700 seconds; manual - 16-1/1000 seconds
ISO equivalents -- automatic - 80-160; manual - 80, 100, 200, 400, 800
Auto-focus -- multi-zone, center weighted, selectable: left, center, right
Exposure metering type -- auto - TTL-AE matrix metering; selectable: multi-pattern, center-weighted, center spot
White balance -- auto, daylight, tungsten, fluorescent, open shade
Flash compensation -- +/- 1.0 EV in 1/2 EV steps
Flash mode -- auto, red-eye, fill, off - for the right light every time

could actually take great indoor picutres if I

#3 read the camera's manual ( and figured out what all the above means and how to use it)

So that being said - if i took a couple of hours a week to figure this stuff out - any chance i might score great indoor pictures by my cruise on August 28th? And can any one recommend a "how to use your camera settings for dummies" or its equivalent?

[Frantasmic]

#1 - an easy to use camera that takes great indoor pictures under $300 is not some obvious easy recommendation


#1 - an easy to use camera that takes great indoor pictures automatically under $300 is not some obvious easy recommendation


I think this is the point that most people are trying to make.

See if there is a short course for your camera's make. Google "short course" plus kodak easyshare DX7590.

Actually, any beginning photography book would help whether the book is geared toward digital or film cameras: the principles are the same.

[NateNLogansDad]

I know that camera can take decent pictures. My mother in law has the same one but in silver and does just fine with it.

The knob near the LCD screen with the P A S M Auto (and the little pictures) gives you some decent flexibility if you know how to use them. There's a book that comes highly recommended here on the photo boards called "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson which I think would help you understand why the pictures turned out the way they did. Between that and the manual, you should be set. You can always post a picture here and ask what went wrong, but if you don't totally understand the answer, it's not going to help you while you're on the ship taking pictures.

By the way, when you start hearing about tripods you don't necessarily need one that's as tall as you. I have one for a camera that size that I paid $5 for. It's about the length of a pen and has flexible legs for sitting on top of a table, car, wall, etc. Google "Flexible mini tripod" to see what I'm talking about.

[cpbjgc]

There are a few books out there. The one I liked when i started to learn about how to use my camera (an advanced point and shoot canon with features similar to the ones you listed for yours) is Digital SLR and Photography fro Dummies (http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Digital-SLR-Cameras-amp-Photography-David-D-Busch/9780764598036-item.html?ref=Search+Books%3a+'photography+dummies '). Very easy read and probably available at your local library.

[coloneldebugger]

There are a few books out there. The one I liked when i started to learn about how to use my camera (an advanced point and shoot canon with features similar to the ones you listed for yours) is Digital SLR and Photography fro Dummies (http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Digital-SLR-Cameras-amp-Photography-David-D-Busch/9780764598036-item.html?ref=Search+Books%3a+'photography+dummies '). Very easy read and probably available at your local library.

Here's a real quick and simple run down on some of the fundamentals on apature/iso/shutter speed. If you aren't familiar with those things take a look, I think all it can do is help. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=414088)

Then in the end, get your camera, twist the dials, press the buttons and see what happens. That's the really the best way to learn.

[DizzyV6P]

Some hints I found helpful in learning how to take pictures.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/camera-adjustments.htm

Lots of great articles from him as well.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm

[mrodgers]

See if there is a short course for your camera's make. Google "short course" plus kodak easyshare DX7590.
Just so happens that the first excellent website that I used to learn about photography was exactly "short courses", specifically ShortCourses.com (http://www.shortcourses.com/), The on-line library of digital photography.

[Bstanley]

From Ken Rockwell's site:
I'm creating art. I'm not trying to duplicate reality.

It's important to know what you are trying to achieve with your photography. More often than not I am NOT trying to create Art with my photography, I'm trying to capture a scene for a 'memory'.


Then in the end, get your camera, twist the dials, press the buttons and see what happens. That's really the best way to learn.

coloneldebugger - Brilliant! - seriously, that's one of the beauties of Digital Photography. It used to be that you had to spend a fair amount of time and money to learn what effect all the settings had. Today it's just time - there's not a square mm in my backyard that I haven't photographed 12 ways from Sunday - but I don't have any saved pictures of it right now :-)

[VVFF]

Note that f/2.8 on a dSLR camera lens is not the same as f/2.8 on a smaller sensor non-dSLR camera.

My camera is max f/3.5. I've read and also calculated out that it is equivalent to more like f/8 on a dSLR.

This is all off the top of my head, but I believe it is something like this... The aperture value is a ratio taking the focal length into concideration (f is the focal length, f/2.8 is the ratio which calculates to your actual aperture opening size in mm.) Your focal length is a function of the sensor size, as is a dSLR is also. You have to calculate it all to a "35mm equivalent" value to figure out the comparable aperture values.

An example of focal length using my camera is.... My camera is a 10x zoom and focal length is 6.3 - 63 mm. My wide angle at 6.3 obviously isn't as wide as say a dSLR 18-55 mm kit lens if you would compare the same image. My focal length range calculates out to 30-300 mm based on 35mm frame format. Calculating it all out, my 6.3-63mm is roughly the same as I think 25-250 mm on a dSLR.

It is all very confusing comparing settings of compact, superzoom, and dSLR cameras all because of the sensors in the cameras.

Your explanation about focal length is correct but F2.8 on a DSLR is exactly the same as F2.8 on a point and shoot. The difference in depth of field is entirely due to focal length, not a difference in equivalent aperture.

[Br'erBriere]

I have had the same trouble of getting indoor and outdoor shots.

As previous posters have said (and recommended to me in the past), a level surface and/or tripod will do wonders when your camera is in "P" more or "M" mode with with flash off and F apeture as low as possible (F3 OR F2.8), ISO as low as possible (ISO 80) and longer shutter speed (3 seconds).

I tested this out in my living room with only one small light on as well and then again with just the tv on at night and had great results. My camera is still dated so I bought a new one.

All my research brought me to the conclusion that a bridge camera (point and shoot size, but DSLR functions and control) is the best. So i bought the Canon S90 which got great reviews everywhere. I cant wait to test it out and post my thoughts on here.

[mrodgers]

As previous posters have said (and recommended to me in the past), a level surface and/or tripod will do wonders when your camera is in "P" more or "M" mode with with flash off and F apeture as low as possible (F3 OR F2.8), ISO as low as possible (ISO 80) and longer shutter speed (3 seconds).
Just to note, if you are using a tripod (or stabilizing the camera some other way), there is no need for the aperture to be as "low" as possible.

The only thing you want is the ISO to be as low as possible. The lower the ISO, the less noise you have. The other settings, aperture and shutter, are useful for the creative process and if camera is stabilized, they can be anything you want.

Aperture is the opening size of the lens, but what it affects is what you want to be creative with. The aperture controls how much of the scene is in focus, called the depth of field (DOF). The wider the aperture opening is (lower number because it is a fraction, not just a number) the less of the view is going to be in focus. This is why you see pictures of Mickey Mouse and the background behind him is a creamy blur. A wide aperture does this. On the contrary, when you want an entire scene in focus as much as possible, a landscape photo for example, you want a small aperture.

If the camera is stabilized, then shutter speed does not matter, thus you don't necessarily have to shoot with a wide open aperture.

Just thought of this.... Go to The SimCam (http://www.photonhead.com/simcam/shutteraperture.php)website. There is a photo and you can select different aperture and shutter settings and see what the results would be. Start out setting the shutter to 1/500 and aperture at f/2.8. You will see the subjects of the photo with a blurred background. Then set the aperture to f/16 and increase the shutter speed setting and you will see that the background is more in focus. You can play around with the settings and see what the difference would be. I use to know of a better "virtual camera", but can't find it.

[Pea-n-Me]

Note that f/2.8 on a dSLR camera lens is not the same as f/2.8 on a smaller sensor non-dSLR camera.

My camera is max f/3.5. I've read and also calculated out that it is equivalent to more like f/8 on a dSLR.

This is all off the top of my head, but I believe it is something like this... The aperture value is a ratio taking the focal length into concideration (f is the focal length, f/2.8 is the ratio which calculates to your actual aperture opening size in mm.) Your focal length is a function of the sensor size, as is a dSLR is also. You have to calculate it all to a "35mm equivalent" value to figure out the comparable aperture values.

An example of focal length using my camera is.... My camera is a 10x zoom and focal length is 6.3 - 63 mm. My wide angle at 6.3 obviously isn't as wide as say a dSLR 18-55 mm kit lens if you would compare the same image. My focal length range calculates out to 30-300 mm based on 35mm frame format. Calculating it all out, my 6.3-63mm is roughly the same as I think 25-250 mm on a dSLR.

It is all very confusing comparing settings of compact, superzoom, and dSLR cameras all because of the sensors in the cameras.


Your explanation about focal length is correct but F2.8 on a DSLR is exactly the same as F2.8 on a point and shoot. The difference in depth of field is entirely due to focal length, not a difference in equivalent aperture.
Sensor size is part of the DOF equation.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

http://photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/

[VVFF]

Sensor size is part of the DOF equation.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

http://photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/

Correct, I guess I need to clarify further. It felt like the post I quoted was claiming that you would need a longer exposure on a P&S to get the same exposure as a DSLR at the same aperture and other settings. That's what I was commenting on.

[photo_chick]

Note that f/2.8 on a dSLR camera lens is not the same as f/2.8 on a smaller sensor non-dSLR camera.

My camera is max f/3.5. I've read and also calculated out that it is equivalent to more like f/8 on a dSLR.

This is all off the top of my head, but I believe it is something like this... The aperture value is a ratio taking the focal length into concideration (f is the focal length, f/2.8 is the ratio which calculates to your actual aperture opening size in mm.) Your focal length is a function of the sensor size, as is a dSLR is also. You have to calculate it all to a "35mm equivalent" value to figure out the comparable aperture values.

An example of focal length using my camera is.... My camera is a 10x zoom and focal length is 6.3 - 63 mm. My wide angle at 6.3 obviously isn't as wide as say a dSLR 18-55 mm kit lens if you would compare the same image. My focal length range calculates out to 30-300 mm based on 35mm frame format. Calculating it all out, my 6.3-63mm is roughly the same as I think 25-250 mm on a dSLR.

It is all very confusing comparing settings of compact, superzoom, and dSLR cameras all because of the sensors in the cameras.


The illumination at a given aperture is the same. You're applying the formula incorrectly.

[Pea-n-Me]

Glad we all agree. :rotfl2:

[NateNLogansDad]

Why not try this just to see what happens with the current camera. You said the pics with flash were too bright. Try adjusting the flash composition down so it's not as bright.

I'm sure some people are going to jump up and say to do it the right way, but I think she's confused enough for today. :lmao:

[Pea-n-Me]

I think she's confused enough for today. :lmao:
What makes you say that? :rotfl2:

(J/K, OP. There's often good hearted disagreement here on the Photography Board, that's why were laughing, not at you.)

[NateNLogansDad]

What makes you say that? :rotfl2:

(J/K, OP. There's often good hearted disagreement here on the Photography Board, that's why were laughing, not at you.)

Thanks for clearing that up! I didn't think that it could be taken the wrong way.