digital cameras and flash = poor image quality??

Hi,

Is it normal to have 'soapy bubbles' on digital images taken with a flash?

I'm getting these image artefacts quite regularly now (for a sample of what
I mean, have a look at http://geocities.com/olympus_sample_pics/ *note* the
detailed images are ~700K each). When I first purchased the camera I went
on holiday, and none of the holiday pics have these artefacts.

Olympus service are telling me this is quite normal for digital cameras, but
I find it hard to believe as I get very few acceptable images when using the
flash. According to Olympus this is caused by reflected light.

Is it something more prone to Olympus cameras than other brands?

I am fairly new to digital cameras and am interested in some experienced
feedback.

The camera is a point and shoot style mju400.

Thanks,
Michael

I've got a stylus 400 (same as the mju) and I find that the flash
performance is inconsistent. Frequently, close up flash pictures come out
washed out. Can't say I have ever had the artifact issues, but the washout
problem is bad enough that I am starting to look for something else (maybe
prosumer or dslr).

"michaelb" wrote in message
u...
Hi,

Is it normal to have 'soapy bubbles' on digital images taken with a flash?

I'm getting these image artefacts quite regularly now (for a sample of
what
I mean, have a look at http://geocities.com/olympus_sample_pics/ *note*
the
detailed images are ~700K each). When I first purchased the camera I went
on holiday, and none of the holiday pics have these artefacts.

Olympus service are telling me this is quite normal for digital cameras,
but
I find it hard to believe as I get very few acceptable images when using
the
flash. According to Olympus this is caused by reflected light.

Is it something more prone to Olympus cameras than other brands?

I am fairly new to digital cameras and am interested in some experienced
feedback.

The camera is a point and shoot style mju400.

Thanks,
Michael

Michael wrote:
Is it normal to have 'soapy bubbles' on digital images taken with a flash?
I'm getting these image artefacts quite regularly now (for a sample of what
I mean, have a look at http://geocities.com/olympus_sample_pics/ *note* the
detailed images are ~700K each). When I first purchased the camera I went
on holiday, and none of the holiday pics have these artefacts.
Olympus service are telling me this is quite normal for digital cameras, but
I find it hard to believe as I get very few acceptable images when using the
flash. According to Olympus this is caused by reflected light.
Is it something more prone to Olympus cameras than other brands?
I am fairly new to digital cameras and am interested in some experienced
feedback.
The camera is a point and shoot style mju400.

Your samples were not viewable. In general, if you get light spheres in your
shot, it is from dust in the air within 15 inches of the flash.

---Bob Gross---

Thanks Bob.

Not sure what you mean by 'not viewable'. The link takes me to geocities
and clicking one of the four thumbs brings up the full resolution picture
....

So I take it the spherical, semi transparent artefacts are normal for
digital photography? I guess my issue is that dust is everywhere, so many
flash pics will show this artefact ... not as usable/mature a technology as
I expected. Will have to keep the old SLR around for a while longer ...

Cheers,
Michael

"Robertwgross" wrote in message
...
Michael wrote:
Is it normal to have 'soapy bubbles' on digital images taken with a
flash?
I'm getting these image artefacts quite regularly now (for a sample of
what
I mean, have a look at http://geocities.com/olympus_sample_pics/ *note*
the
detailed images are ~700K each). When I first purchased the camera I
went
on holiday, and none of the holiday pics have these artefacts.
Olympus service are telling me this is quite normal for digital cameras,
but
I find it hard to believe as I get very few acceptable images when using
the
flash. According to Olympus this is caused by reflected light.
Is it something more prone to Olympus cameras than other brands?
I am fairly new to digital cameras and am interested in some experienced
feedback.
The camera is a point and shoot style mju400.

Your samples were not viewable. In general, if you get light spheres in
your
shot, it is from dust in the air within 15 inches of the flash.

---Bob Gross---

In article ,
says...
So I take it the spherical, semi transparent artefacts are normal for
digital photography? I guess my issue is that dust is everywhere, so many
flash pics will show this artefact ... not as usable/mature a technology as
I expected. Will have to keep the old SLR around for a while longer ...

Cheers,
Michael


They are normal for any small camera that has the flash mounted very close to
the lens.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

I went to the link with the scaled down images. Two were not available it
said. Very noisy images. I have had 5 digital cameras 1999 and still use
three of them to this day. A Kodak dc265, Canon powershot s200, Canon G1,
D60, 10D. I kept the s200 and D60, 10D. I do not have a problem with the
bubbles except in this one picture in this link
http://www.northtexasbridal.com/Moor.../IMG_3919.html
I suggest you buy a Canon
--
David Holliday
HollidayPhoto
www.HollidayPhoto.com



"Larry" wrote in message
ews.com...
In article ,
says...
So I take it the spherical, semi transparent artefacts are normal for
digital photography? I guess my issue is that dust is everywhere, so
many
flash pics will show this artefact ... not as usable/mature a technology
as
I expected. Will have to keep the old SLR around for a while longer ...

Cheers,
Michael


They are normal for any small camera that has the flash mounted very close
to
the lens.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

"Justin W. Holmes" wrote in message ...
I've got a stylus 400 (same as the mju) and I find that the flash
performance is inconsistent. Frequently, close up flash pictures come out
washed out. Can't say I have ever had the artifact issues, but the washout
problem is bad enough that I am starting to look for something else (maybe
prosumer or dslr).

Maybe somebody else can contradict me on this, but I personally have
never used a camera, digital or otherwise, that isn't extremely prone
to washing out the image in an extreme close-up taken with the flash.
Flash just isn't very suited to very close up work. I doubt very much
buying a different camera is going to solve this problem, except
perhaps if it gives you more manual control thereby allowing you to
minimise the effect by cranking the exposure way down. I don't like
the way my pictures look when I do this; because the backgrounds fade
to near pitch black and whatever is in the foreground will still look
washed out. I have only got into digital camera recently but my
solution to this problem on film has always been to completely avoid
any attempt rely on a built-in flash when shooting anything very close
to the lens.

Like I said, perhaps my knowledge is limited and someone will
contradict me, but the flash is not a cure-all and some compositions
just cannot be taken well without more ambient light than for others.

DB.

"michaelb" wrote in message
u...
Thanks Bob.

Not sure what you mean by 'not viewable'. The link takes me to geocities
and clicking one of the four thumbs brings up the full resolution picture
...

The link takes me to a page that says the site data transfer has been
exceeded. Anyway, I tend to agree with Bob. Bubbles or spheres are
definitely not normal with flash, whether built-in or external.

Mark

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:56:06 +1000, "michaelb"
wrote:

Thanks Bob.

Not sure what you mean by 'not viewable'. The link takes me to geocities
and clicking one of the four thumbs brings up the full resolution picture
...

So I take it the spherical, semi transparent artefacts are normal for
digital photography? I guess my issue is that dust is everywhere, so many
flash pics will show this artefact ... not as usable/mature a technology as
I expected. Will have to keep the old SLR around for a while longer ...

Cheers,
Michael

They do look like dust motes, SLR's and some prosumers have less of a
problem due to a slightly higher position of the on board flash.
Obviously an external high mount, or side/hand held flash will have
even less problem.

I think/guess the small seonsors _may_ also contribute to the problem
as the motes are still in the focal area... with a shallower DOF
(depending on lots of stuff) the motes will blur totaly out of focus
to the point of disapearing (or becoming a lot less obvious)

I was really worried that some photos I had took were going to be
trashed because there was a huge finger mark on the lense of my 300D
which was there from a prvious shoot involving baby oil... Turned out
that I cant see any marks in the resultant shots when viewed on a
pc... So all this worry about scratched lenses, I wonder just how bad
the front glass can be before it is finaly un-usable "in the real
world" as apposed to test charts and work where even the slightest
loss will be apparent.


--
Jonathan Wilson.
www.somethingerotic.com

I agree. The problem I described was not with flash washing out close
objects, but rather some spherical artefacts others in the NG think are
reflection of dust particles ...

"Dogger the Filmgoblin" wrote in message
om...
"Justin W. Holmes" wrote in message
...
I've got a stylus 400 (same as the mju) and I find that the flash
performance is inconsistent. Frequently, close up flash pictures come
out
washed out. Can't say I have ever had the artifact issues, but the
washout
problem is bad enough that I am starting to look for something else
(maybe
prosumer or dslr).

Maybe somebody else can contradict me on this, but I personally have
never used a camera, digital or otherwise, that isn't extremely prone
to washing out the image in an extreme close-up taken with the flash.
Flash just isn't very suited to very close up work. I doubt very much
buying a different camera is going to solve this problem, except
perhaps if it gives you more manual control thereby allowing you to
minimise the effect by cranking the exposure way down. I don't like
the way my pictures look when I do this; because the backgrounds fade
to near pitch black and whatever is in the foreground will still look
washed out. I have only got into digital camera recently but my
solution to this problem on film has always been to completely avoid
any attempt rely on a built-in flash when shooting anything very close
to the lens.

Like I said, perhaps my knowledge is limited and someone will
contradict me, but the flash is not a cure-all and some compositions
just cannot be taken well without more ambient light than for others.

DB.