Do digital camers have different speeds or something? I took pictures of my car today and it was sunny out but for some reason my pictures always come out fuzzy.
I thought this time the pics would look good but they still look dreary.
In lower light conditions my digital camera takes worse pics. The best pictures from a digital camera I have seen were from this guys at work. He paid about 3 grand for it, but the pictures looked just as good blown up to full size on the computer screen as they did shrunk down. The reason is most digital cameras have pixels shaped like a circle, whereas this camera had pixels shaped like hexagons or octagons. The advantage was there is were blank space between the pixels to make it look grainy unlike cameras with circular pixels.
Are those the original versions of the image? What camera are you using?
Like Brian said, it looks like a real low res shot - that or you have the QUALITY setting set too low and it overcompressing your images (1024x768 at 281kb is kinda large for that resolution, though). Check your quality setting (set to HIGH) and make sure you are shooting in AUTO mode.
Not to hijack the thread, but what the hell is it with the built-in JPEG compression in cameras? It plain sucks.
Regarding Kenny's photo... Some digital cameras I've owned produce photos like his when there is a lot of glare, which looks to be the case here. In that case I got the best results with a tripod and a remote switch (or the timer), with a very high speed.
Yeah, the best one I own is a Nikon, and those produce uncompressed images as 5MB TIFF files, which is rather unusual, but they look damned good. Actually Nikon's minimal compression isn't bad, it squishes those 5MB files down to about 720K, but anything else isn't worth it, especially with memory cards being so cheap these days.
Linear Mode
