Most cameras are capable of pretty impressive images. Often it's a matter of a steady support and some extra light. many complain they're not getting what they feel they should so far as image quality.

Lets try to work the problems through. If anyone would like to send (email) me the original and unedited picture file i can read the EXIF data and posibly help correct the problem.

Digital cameras have a sweet spot, a combination of settings that gives the best possible image. Often the automatic controls just ignore this and you wind up with crap.

We can do this through the thread or if you wish as a private deal. Whatever floats your boat. I'm not an expert but i have a pretty good understanding of cameras.

(The EXIF data may include equivilent film speed (ISO) aperture, focal range, camera type and model, flash info and exposure information)

mine is a point and shoot Bease, what can be done with it?

That is a good idea Beas and should be very helpful.

Depends on the model. Even a point and shoot has an EXIF file attached to the original picture file. Some point and shoots have automated focus and exposure.

With auto focus, if the camera is too close your out of luck. The best bet is to shoot at the minimum focus distance (your manual will tell you). Shoot the picture at the maximum rez and crop

If you have optical zoom than go full telephoto. Digital zoom is really just cropping inside the camera

Auto exposure will vary the shutter speed or the ISO (the digital equivilent of film speed). The shutter speed may wind up so slow that camera shake or movement of the subject will blur the picture.

When the subject isn't bright enough the camera will sometimes use amplification, this is fine in moderation but unless the camera is state of the art, amplification causes noise which makes the image appear fuzzy and grainy. Again image amplification or ISO is the same idea as using a faster film speed at lower light levels.

The best method for overcoming low shutter speed is a stable camera. Set the camera on a tripod, bean bag or even a book. If you're trying to hand hold, tuck your elbows in tight against your chest and brace your torso.

High ISO (amplification) isn't required if you have enough light. First off, on camera flash sucks. Use available light sources, a work light or lamp bouced off a ceiling , wall or white card or cloth work well. use white card or reflectors to fill in shadows.

In some instances a fill flash is helpful but not as the main or key light. The newer cameras may program the flash as a fill. This will cause an automaticcamera to use lower shutter speeds anfd maybe even too much image amplification (ISO)

File Name DSC00471.JPG
Camera Model Name DSC-P43
Shooting Date/Time 8/31/06 3:41:30 PM
Tv (Shutter Speed) 1/10
Av (Aperture Value) 2.8
Exposure Compensation 0
ISO Speed 100
Image Size 2304x1728
Flash On
Color Space sRGB
File Size 1544 KB
Owner's Name

This is part of an EXIF file from a crappy flash picture taken with my cheap point and shoot sony.

The Film speed equivilent is locked at 100 which is not great. To get enough light even with the flash the shutter was automatically set to 1/10. At 1/10 of a second the camera better be on a bean bag or tripod and the subject can't move. of a second.

The lens opening or aperture is non adjustable at F 2.8

note.
Flash units used to be used to light the scene. The result was flat, harshly lit pictire where everything in the background was black. todays camera wants to expose for the available light and use flash as a fill. This is kinda hit and miss. If the ambient lighting sucks then so does the picture.

There are ways around this but only with more expensive and separate flash units.

Ya gotta get the ambient lighting brighter. (bounce a work light, put bigger bulbs in fixtures etc)

Quote::

There are ways around this but only with more expensive and separate flash units.

How about cheap little remote flash slaves? Are they useful to sidelight a scene? Like maybe a Sunpak DS 20?