Photos VERY grainy...? I am a very ameture photographer, but know enough to see the difference between good and bad photos. I received this camera as a gift, and as a "photographer" I like to get up close to my subjects. The photos seemed like decent quality, until I tried to set one as my desktop background. The photos were extremely grainy, my 10 mp Kodak pics looked clearer! What am I doing wrong? Is anyone else having a problem with this camera? Please help!Thanks! Canon PowerShot A1100IS 12.1 MP Digital Camera with 4x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom and 2.5-inch LCD (Green) Photos VERY grainy...? I am a very ameture photographer, but know enough to see the difference between good and bad photos. I received this camera as a gift, and as a "photographer" I... » Read More Photos VERY grainy...? I am a very ameture photographer, but know enough to see the difference between good and bad photos. I received this camera as a gift, and as a "photographer" I like to get up close to my subjects. The photos seemed like decent quality, until I tried to set one as my desktop background. The photos were extremely grainy, my 10 mp Kodak pics looked clearer! What am I doing wrong? Is anyone else having a problem with this camera? Please help!Thanks! Canon PowerShot A1100IS 12.1 MP Digital Camera with 4x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom and 2.5-inch LCD (Green) « Show Less
973154
-Using an image quality and size setting other than Large Fine will result in lower resolution images or can introduce annoying "artifacts" (e.g., blockiness). -Using the digital zoom will also reduce resolution. Turn off digital zoom and instead crop images on your computer when necessary. -Using too high of a an ISO (sensitivity) setting will also make the image appear grainy. This is true of all cameras though poitnt and shoot cameras typically suffer to a much greater degree due to their smaller sensors. Try and keep the ISO setting at or below ISO 400.-Additionally, this camera's High ISO mode - ISO 3200 - automatically reduces the camera's resolution to just under 2 megapixels. "Emergency use only." -Using an image quality and size setting other than Large Fine will result in lower resolution images or can introduce annoying "artifacts" (e.g., blockiness). -Using the digital zoom will also reduce resolution. Turn off digital zoom and instead crop images on your computer when necessary. -Using too high of a an ISO (sensitivity) setting will also make the image appear grainy. This is true of all cameras though poitnt and shoot cameras typically suffer to a much greater degree due to their smaller sensors. Try and keep the ISO setting at or below ISO... » Read More -Using an image quality and size setting other than Large Fine will result in lower resolution images or can introduce annoying "artifacts" (e.g., blockiness). -Using the digital zoom will also reduce resolution. Turn off digital zoom and instead crop images on your computer when necessary. -Using too high of a an ISO (sensitivity) setting will also make the image appear grainy. This is true of all cameras though poitnt and shoot cameras typically suffer to a much greater degree due to their smaller sensors. Try and keep the ISO setting at or below ISO 400.-Additionally, this camera's High ISO mode - ISO 3200 - automatically reduces the camera's resolution to just under 2 megapixels. "Emergency use only." « Show Less
973155
I am having this same problem, which I didn't previously have with my nikon...I typically use in auto mode....any tips for settings that will render most photographs useable (right now none of my photos are useable).Beware--I'm a frustrated novice!
973156
Another reviewer mentioned that there's a thin plastic protective coat over the lens that some people are not removing before using. Is this possibly your issue?
576525
Robert, I have scanned pictures from magazines but not photographs. These pics from the magazines are pixalated slightly but adequate. Poor quality pic to start with when scanning a magaizine pic. I use the scanner constantly and am more than happy with it since I'm always on the road. It travels nice and scans without any issues. If you're looking for top of the line scanned pics I think you'll be slightly disappointed. More than adequate for my needs though. Your question sparked my interest. I changed my settings to JPG @ 600dpi, just adequate not superb!
832912
1. Although I haven't experienced it, the "excessively red" phenomena has been discussed a lot in "Sony Talk" forum at DPREVIEW website: Search for the term "oversaturation," at either dpreview or Google it (both lead to the same discussion thread: currently 50 entries). 2. The "Manual" that you referenced is merely a starter version, with little useful info (only 20 pages in English); instead, the "User Guide" is really extensive, and comes on CD with all HX100's inside the BOX. You can also access the online version of the CD (and save it to your computer), via Google search: "Sony HX100v user guide" (select the .pdf version, as most easily readable). It's 274 pages, but convenient to save to desktop and access as you need it: Read it in small chunks, practicing with the camera, and reading some more...I've read the .pdf version twice, and still refer to it. My best advice is to read the vast number of discussions at dpreview, in the "Sony Talk" forum, to LEARN from the largest collection of online owners of the HX100v: I read it daily for info on use of features, and to see photo examples of what others can do with this camera. The really avid new owner will go to the trouble of searching waaay back in Sony Talk, to discussion pages in June or early July, when the camera was still new...and vast numbers of discussions focussed on specific camera features. Think of it this way: Most everything that an HX100v newby faces has already been discussed at length at dpreview!
1419976
Thank you for the advice. I played with the ISO, MP and color settings a little bit today and got some pictures that came out a little better. Sadly, I am comparing the pictures to my 8 year old Canon S50 and the S50 takes better pictures. Indoor flash pictures are particularly disappointing. It is hard for me to accept this. The reason I want to upgrade the S50 is for the smaller size, wider angle, zoom and HD video. I expect the pictures to be at least as good if not better after so many years.The S95 is a great suggestion. I may look into a Panasonic too. Now back to the search for the S50 successor. Thank you for the advice. I played with the ISO, MP and color settings a little bit today and got some pictures that came out a little better. Sadly, I am comparing the pictures to my 8 year old Canon S50 and the S50 takes better pictures. Indoor flash pictures are particularly disappointing. It is hard for me to accept this. The reason I want to upgrade the S50 is for the smaller size, wider angle, zoom and HD video. I expect the pictures to be at least as good if not better after so many years.The S95 is a great suggestion. I may look into a Panasonic too. Now back to the... » Read More Thank you for the advice. I played with the ISO, MP and color settings a little bit today and got some pictures that came out a little better. Sadly, I am comparing the pictures to my 8 year old Canon S50 and the S50 takes better pictures. Indoor flash pictures are particularly disappointing. It is hard for me to accept this. The reason I want to upgrade the S50 is for the smaller size, wider angle, zoom and HD video. I expect the pictures to be at least as good if not better after so many years.The S95 is a great suggestion. I may look into a Panasonic too. Now back to the search for the S50 successor. « Show Less
2721
I have this printer and the photo quality depends a lot on the paper you use. Use one of the recommended HP papers and the photos will look surprisingly good. I also have a big, expensive Canon Pixma Pro 9500 Photo printer that drives me insane. It goes through the 10 color cartridges so quickly (they dry out) I'm constantly replacing them at great expense, so I actually prefer to use my HP printer for most photos.
1193375
I've had no problems with poor quality scanned photos. The default is set to 300dpi, have you tried increasing it to 600dpi? That's what I always use and that works for me. I believe the max is 1200dpi. You may want to play around with that setting and see. Also don't be fooled by the scan preview, it's not an exact representation of what the scanned photo/doc will look. Hope that helps.
272781
Make sure you dont have this camera set to automatic ISO, set it on 100 or 200 ISO(cant use 100 ISO in simple mode) if you have to...any ISO above 100 actualy will KILL your sharp picture in a heart beat...the other problem is, the apture and shutter speed has to make up for what LOW ISO is missing, (you need slower Shutter and larger apture size) will have to make up for the ISO sensitivity and youll get more blur, a tripod helps, even a mono pod to steady the camera a bit...no matter how good your shake control is, it wont be perfect by a mile... I checked the Kodak and found a few quality control problems on the internet reviews, not on this camera have i found any issues with quality...
311371
Yes I also noticed that. I had purchased this camera last month and returned mine for an exchange due to possibly being defective (after an email exchange with Canon support). Unfortunately they then emailed me that they no longer had it in stock and didn't know when they were going to get more. They could only offer me a refund. They finally showed it back in stock but then I was amazed at the price! I even emailed them to find out why but just got a non answer (to be expected I guess) about how their suppliers set the prices. As you say, this price is higher than Canons, so it makes you wonder what they are playing at. I guess they don't want anyone to buy it from them...! Yes I also noticed that. I had purchased this camera last month and returned mine for an exchange due to possibly being defective (after an email exchange with Canon support). Unfortunately they then emailed me that they no longer had it in stock and didn't know when they were going to get more. They could only offer me a refund. They finally showed it back in stock but then I was amazed at the price! I even emailed them to find out why but just got a non answer (to be expected I guess) about how their suppliers set the prices. As you say, this price is higher than Canons, so it makes you... » Read More Yes I also noticed that. I had purchased this camera last month and returned mine for an exchange due to possibly being defective (after an email exchange with Canon support). Unfortunately they then emailed me that they no longer had it in stock and didn't know when they were going to get more. They could only offer me a refund. They finally showed it back in stock but then I was amazed at the price! I even emailed them to find out why but just got a non answer (to be expected I guess) about how their suppliers set the prices. As you say, this price is higher than Canons, so it makes you wonder what they are playing at. I guess they don't want anyone to buy it from them...! « Show Less
2239986
don't bother--have taken many pics with drugstore 110--that was a while ago--always used Kodak film--pics always came out great--this film no! check out film from Germany etec--good luck.
1130072
I am no camera expert by any means, but at times the flash is too powerful, and the low light pictures are better. I generally use Picasa to edit, and it will brighten the pictures and they look good. In extreme low light with the flash off, they are pretty grainy and Picasa cannot help them. I have only printed 4 x 6 images though, and they are fantastic the majority of times. Hope this helps!
1816399
I'm habing the same issue. Have tried seeting camera to MXP and FXP and am getting lots of grainyness and aritfacts. Anyone have and solve this issue?
827159
I actually returned the camera. My pictures were out of focus. I tried several settings and different lighting and it was inconsistent. I didn't have that problem with the other point and shoots I've owned. I only uploaded a photo to Facebook once and it wasn't difficult. You connect with wifi.
1732919
I've no clue, & I know this doesn't have anything to do with it but 1. this isn't a normal Fuji camera made for the normal market; it's a walmart/kmart special, & honesly, my Kodak from about 8 years ago DESTROYS my Fuji in picture quality. There's NO setting on the Fuji that produces a decent quality photo. :( Mine just sits & collects dust...
686881
Tracy I would keep looking for another camera. I've adjusted settings on this camera, even setting it to sport mode to remove shake, but pictures continually blur. It's difficult to take good shots even when people are just incidentally moving their arms or changing positions. I've noticed in the review section others having the same difficulty with this camera. It's not user error it's something inherent in the camera.
220161
Thanks very much. By the way, we have a Canon G12. I feel it too distorting both colours and proportions and of course slow between 2 clicks. What would you suggest to improve on "fidelity" and speed: A. Canon S100 over Nikon P7100 (and Olympus XZ-1?)?B. Olympus E-PM1 over Nikon J1? C. or Nikon V1 solves everything? PS. I have no Nikon lenses so I am not stuck on Nikon. Thanks
1092788
Quick question for all of you who know a little bit more. This is mostly aimed at the guy who used WMM. " Did you lose any quality converting it? " Obviously we all bought this camera b/c it has decent quality but if you lose it what the point. Thanks for the help, Cheers!
767144
I have the same blurry problem, I think that I got a faulty camera. About 1 in 4 pictures are usable, this camera was a waste of money. Mount Fuji! eat my shorts! My cannon elph sd200 which is 3 years older takes far superior pictures and is 3.2 Mega pixels. Causing me to learn, its not the megapixels that matter.