Leslie wrote: 
Yes. If you have manual options, take it off of auto, fix the ISO at something like 200, open the aperture as wide as it will go and slow down the shutter as much as you need to to get the shot. 9 out of 10 will be blurry because you shake or the baby moves, but sometimes it works out.

 JrzyTmata wrote: 
He was probably talking about me... 
 
 

 miamizsun wrote: 
her

 katzendogs wrote: 
his big beautiful head is why

 Leslie wrote: 
Thank you you two! This makes sense and I will investigate.

 Manbird wrote: 
When there is not enough light (as Manbird says) and your lens speed is slow, then your camera will bump up the ISO, resulting in the color "graininess" your photo exhibits.

 katzendogs wrote: 
I think you're talking about the jpg artifacts rather than the obvious motion blur. Often caused by inadequate lighting. My cheapo Olympus will do that in low light. Use your flash indoors. 

OK. For a long while I have found that the photo's  I have taken are grainy. I'm wondering if this is because over the years I have taken the camera in from cold ac to ambient conditions and visa versa. Any thoughts on this?
Here is an example of grainy to me. i admit it is not the steadiest of shots but you all can see what my issue is.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Thanks for that.

Basics of Photography: The Complete Guide

from the friendly folks over at Lifehacker

 miamizsun wrote:  I've never used Lightroom.  Looks like it might be fun to play with - neat feature list.

I have two laptops running Ubuntu, but neither one is getting much use right now.  They're a bit long in the tooth.

 ptooey wrote: 
new windows box here too. i found "lightroom" (i think it is made by adobe too) on my desk and i have installed it, just haven't had the time to diddle with it.

btw, are you using ubuntu at all?

 swell_sailor wrote: 
works out better in warm weather - shrinkage ya know.

 miamizsun wrote: 
As long as they aren't giggling. 

 miamizsun wrote: 
Thanks.  I swing both ways.

I was using GIMP almost exclusively up until early December, but I've got a new Windows box, so I've been using Photoshop some since then.  I actually rarely use RAW.  I used to shoot in it quite a bit, but found I didn't do much with them that I couldn't with .jpgs.  I do, however, shoot RAW with my infrared camera.  The custom white balance is almost a necessity with that.
 
I know I'm definitely in the minority with this, and I'll get a talking to from the Mac crowd, but I feel that there are some things that GIMP does better than Photoshop - particularly when doing an auto levels adjust.  I just think the colors turn out a bit better with less tweaking (just my opinion, of course).  Mind you, the interface isn't nearly as slick, but for the money...

 swell_sailor wrote: 
i'm starting to shoot and snap in the raw, however i've noticed it distracts my models.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Is this the right thread for that kind of talk?

 ptooey wrote: 
your photo "processing" looks great, i take it you're doing this with gimp and are doing the raw thing? just curious.

 miamizsun wrote: 


GIMP, for the win.

I was looking at some digital image editing/tweaking software.

Here's a good list of FREE software that you all may take an interest in.

I'm playing with LightBox now, bebe steps you know.