Jitterbug, you know what I did? I bought a little camera card/disk/stick reader so I don't have to hook my camera up to the computer, I just take the little card out and put it in my reader. My all-in-one printer (printer, scanner and fax combined) has slots for camera cards too. It was so much easier for me to do that than goof around with the camera. You just access the cards like you would a CD or DVD you put in your hard drive. Here's another thought ... did you download the software for your camera onto your computer? Every camera needs specific software downloaded from the manufacturer's site. It helps your computer read your camera and will provide you with step-by-step commands for transferring the pictures onto your computer. You can download the software for your computer at the link below. Once you download the pictures to your computer, you should be able to upload them to Photobucket. I hope this helps! Here is a link that might be useful: Kodak C340 Easy Share Software

You express your needs very well. The key issue with digital cameras, is the mega-pixel value. The higher the mega-pixel value, the better quality picture you will get for the most part. But, the important determining factor most people use, is whether or not they plan on having prints made and what SIZE. The size of your prints AND their quality is largely dictated by the mega-pixel value. In short, if you only require prints no bigger than wallet-sized or slightly larger, a good 5 mega-pixel camera will suit your needs very well. If you intend to make prints of a size of 8 by 5 and larger, I would recommend a higher megapixel value than 5mp. The reason for this, is that with, let's say, a 3mp camera, and you have 8 by 5 prints made, the prints will come out sort of blurry and lack the crisp & clear details you need. The term for this defusion is pixelation. What that means, is that the lower mp camera cannot "capture" the large amount of detail & crispness that you may want for larger prints. A lower mp camera may take pictures into the camera at a size of 900kilobytes, which does not translate well onto a larger print. Of course I am speaking of generalities here. Many of the folks here in the forum probably learned the hard way by buying a cheaper camera & then regreting it later. The quality of many/most of the pictures here are for the most part excellent! Prices on digital cameras have fallen dramatically in the last few years, so you should be able to obtain a good camera for your needs. Another issue that is sometimes completely overlooked, is what program to use to adjust your pictures to their best appearance AND SIZE. A quality program makes this task a great deal easier. This can be seen by the time your have some super shots in your camera, and then after being reworked, they look really bad. A reasonably good program can be found from several companies. Myself, I have been using Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0. It can be obtained for a reduced price and has filled my needs very well for processing pistures of coins which I take through a stereo microscope! Stunning pix can be obtained with a rather easy learning curve. If you want the Cadillac of photo editors, Adobe Photoshop is one of, if not the best of the many offered. But quality comes with a price, So don't waste money on a secondrate editing program, or you will not realize the results you desire! Another issue that many overlook, is the "size" of the picture when it is taken into the camera. For example, my primary digital camera is a 5.0mp Kodak. The "raw" piture inside the camera is over 12 megabytes! Much too large to email easily for all parties! Unless you have a special reason to distribute the pictures in their original size, it is redundant to a degree. My own formula for resizing pictures out of the camera, is to touch up anything like focus, brightnesss & contrast AND reduce them down to a much more managable size of 400 - 450 kilobytes. The reason for this reduction, is to make them more managable for emailing and storage in your computer. If someone sends you a picture, which do you appreciate the most, one or more that just take a few moments to download into your email at a smaller size like 400kb, OR a piture that has not be reworked at all and takes 10 minutes just to downlaod into your computer...in short, downloading a 12mb picture on a dialup, 56k, computer can take considerable time waiting for it to download. Large pix of 12mp for example usually take up the full screen and sometimes even more. The bottom line for this is that you should rework the original pictures from the camera to obtain the best appearance AND reduce them to a size that are easily managable. I am sure others here can recommend a couple of excellent cameras at your price range and advise you on the minimum mp value you have to buy to maitain your standards of quality. This interaction/cooperation of forum members is invaluable and can save you money! best wishes & good luck! I hope I answered some of your questions. And thank you to all of you who post such beautiful roses! : ) Sincerly, "Smitty"

When swapping the settings on your camera I assume you have tried the very highest settings? This will give you as good a photo as possible from the camera. Regarding the software and viewing the photo. Are the 'swirls' emanating from a central point and moving out like ripples? Is so this may very well be to do with your flash. Most digital cameras have the flash activated by default and so many users never turn them off. A camera flash is only any good for a few short feet, after that they are basically useless I find. Try taking some shots without the flash, you will need to support the camera or practise standing very still because the shutter will stay open longer in lower light. If you are trying to save a few important photos already taken you might try to resample a shot and set the pixel density to 150 or even 300 to see if that helps eliminate the ripples and wavy lines. JASC may use a different term for resampling, Corel uses Resample, Paint uses Attributes. Same soup just different gravy :-)

Just MHO, I wouldn't buy that camera for bird photos. Not if you think you might get serious about photography. Depending on your budget, consider Canon S3 IS or S5 IS (the S2 IS takes good photos also). Panasonic FZ20 or FZ50. The S3, S2 and FZ20 are older models that can be bought for around $250. The Canons work well with tele converters (you might want to get into photographing birds at greater distances. The Canons have 12X zoom lens and shutter speeds 1/3200 fast enough to capture the beat of hummer's wings. There is a learning curve with these cameras but study and practice will pay off with really nice photographs. When starting with a new camera, the thing is not to give up. There is no film to buy or processing fees so you can take a thousand practice photos for almost nothing. Visit the bird watching forum and ask this same question mentioning hummingbird photos. Ask the folks which cameras they use and if they will show you a couple hummer photos. There is a thread now about new cameras. Happy hunting. Marnie Here is a link that might be useful: Bird forum