This is one trick I learned while I was still using film cameras.  Digital cameras are now a lot more common than film cameras, but I still use technique to tweak my pictures.  I’m actually surprised that a lot of digital photographers who use computers to enhance their pictures don’t know this.

The problem stems more from the white balance of a camera.  For most users this is set to auto mode.  And this results in pictures with funky colors, this fault is specially evident with skin tones.  The solution is to adjust levels using an image editor.  In most instances this would be Adobe Photoshop.  I use an open source software called GIMP which comes with Ubuntu Linux.  Either way, the method is the same.

After loading the picture in the image editor, go to “Levels.”  On Photoshop, it’s under the Image menu.  On GIMP, it under “Colors.” Among other things, the levels dialog box shows a graph of the gradation of color.  Say for instance, for red, the graph would show the amount or volume for a tint of red, from darkest red to lightest. On the Levels dialog box, there’s a drop-down menu for Channel (for “All”, red, green and blue).  For each of these values, you move the left and right slider so that the these sliders are at the edge of the graph.  This means that for the left slider, no graph values remain on the left.  And for the right-hand slider, it is at the right side limit of the graph.  Much like book-ends.  Repeat this for the red, green and blue values.

The resulting picture is more vivid and with better contrast than the original.  However, this is not needed for all cameras.  Some cameras have built-in levels which is computed while you compose the shot.  In most instances, there’s very little gain from this exercise.  Most specially for pictures with levels encompassing the whole spectrum.  Or if the camera white balance was set correctly.

Still, I take a look at the levels every time I load up a picture for enhancement or editing on Photoshop or GIMP.  Force of habit, I guess.

In an understated bid at a crack at the top of the DSLR market, Sony has unveiled it’s top-of-the-line (alpha) DSLR-A900. Boasting a top of the heap 35mm full frame 24.6MP CMOS, the A900 is one step up from the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III with 21.1 MP full-frame CMOS sensor.

The reason I say it’s understated is because Sony advertises this as designed to “meet the demands of serious enthusiasts.” I wonder why Sony would have the most sensitive full-frame CMOS sensor in a camera and not go loud in the drum-beating. The only reasons I can see in that marketing strategy is if they are already working on the next big thing. Or if they know something’s coming up from Canon or Nikon.

Among other things that this camera lacks is a built-in flash. The specs on the Sony page clearly says so. Seems this is going to be more common in high-end DSLRs, as rumor has it that the next two cameras Canon is set to release also don’t have any built-in flash. I can understand that as it would be a balancing act with regards the power requirements on the battery: with more power needed for the capture, processing, and saving to file, the flash would be a relatively big drain on available resources.

And it also doesn’t have an in-camera sensor cleaning system. This is practically a standard feature in other cameras of its class. And no Live View nor a video mode.

Other standard features clearly signal this is more of a pro-user camera rather than for an advanced enthusiast. With the on-chip dual noise reduction, dual BIONZ image processing engines, 5 fps burst shooting speed, shutter speed of 1/8000 to 30 seconds plus bulb mode, 3-inch LCD, and HD output (through HDMI).

The camera will be in stores in November at a hefty $3,000 (approx.) price tag, clearly this is a pro-user trying hard to pass itself off as a hobbyist-camera.

It would be interesting to see what Sony would do for an encore.

« Older Posts