enhancing pictures

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 04:17:41 +0000, jazu wrote:

> Please have a look at this pic :
> http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Nor...hoto485924.htm
>
> My question is. Do you really need Xk$ camera to achieve such a result? I
> mean if I see this way the picture and these are just a pixels X,Y and
> color. Is possible to use say 300$ bucks camera and enhance pic using some
> software?

If I understand your question, the answer is 'yes and no'. 1) you can't
make a silk purse out of a sow's ear - you gotta have something to work
with. 2) a several thousand dollar camera will not make up for poor
composition. 3) there are reasons most professionals spend a lot of time
editing their shots. 4) raw data files seem to give you more latitude and
more to work with.

"jazu" <nofreakingspam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:FP2ih.500272$1T2.147510@pd7urf2no...
> Please have a look at this pic :
> http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Nor...hoto485924.htm
>
> My question is. Do you really need Xk$ camera to achieve such a result? I
> mean if I see this way the picture and these are just a pixels X,Y and
> color. Is possible to use say 300$ bucks camera and enhance pic using some
> software?

No. An expensive camera can be just as hard to use, and can take just as
bad a picture as a cheap one.

The impact of the particular image you provided comes from it's subject
matter, composition, color, and a certain mojo that no one has been able to
capture in a bottle. These take years for a photographer to become good
at - particularly the mojo. Many people never get the mojo, no matter how
much they spend on equipment, and some of those frustrated souls are jealous
of those who get effective results with modest equipment.
---
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

"acl" <achilleaslazarides@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1166658988.268356.5750@f1g2000cwa.googlegroup s.com...
>
> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>> The data says a polarizer was used, and the angle of view is
>> about 90 degrees from the sun, so maximum polarization.
>> So it may not be digitally enhanced. Note, color slide film
>> would likely be more saturated colors than this.
>>
>
> But look just above the horizon. There's a halo (the sort of thing that
> appears when too much Shadow/Highlight is applied to darken a sky (or
> when the sky is selected, too much feathering is applied, and Curves or
> Levels used to darken the sky). So probably the sky was darkened, and
> some hue shifting/increase of saturation was also done (but maybe not)

Look at the top rock peak ... then go from left to right for about 1/3 of
the span of the peak and then drop straight down to the snow streak and you
will see a blue artifact around the snow. The blues have been boosted (too
much for my taste). I call these "post card" pictures because they are
attention getters but don't wear well.

> at - particularly the mojo. Many people never get the mojo, no matter how
> much they spend on equipment,

That's my portfolio:
http://www.trekearth.com/members/jazu/
do you think I have at least a little mojo?

"jazu" <nofreakingspam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:V3Hih.510337$5R2.475836@pd7urf3no...
>> at - particularly the mojo. Many people never get the mojo, no matter
>> how much they spend on equipment,
>
> That's my portfolio:
> http://www.trekearth.com/members/jazu/
> do you think I have at least a little mojo?

Absolutely - you've got some mojo action going on there and are well past
the beginner state. Several of your images are outstanding, the tree house,
and the one from your office window. There are very few with composition
related errors - objects near the edge (the guitarist), unfortunate line-ups
between subject and background (children in front of wedding car), but none
of them are snapshots. Even your Semiahmoo Bay image, which at first seems
to be a snapshot, has several thoughtful elements to the composition,
including the catching of the speedboat between the two piers.

As a matter of fact, although this undercuts my earlier point, many people
would say that you are good enough that you may benefit from a better
camera, and the ability to make large prints Anyway, not that you need
advice from me, but keep doing what you're doing, and don't concern yourself
overly much with equipment.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

>> http://www.trekearth.com/members/jazu/
>> do you think I have at least a little mojo?
>
> Absolutely - you've got some mojo action going on there and are well past
> the beginner state.
Thank you so much for good words.

> As a matter of fact, although this undercuts my earlier point, many people
> would say that you are good enough that you may benefit from a better
> camera,
I hope I will. My new rebel xt is on its way.
I appretiate your time you spent watching my pictures and your all valuable
imput.
J

> A more expensive camera will give you more ways to mess up a good
> picture, or to get one that you couldn't get any other way.

Ain't that the damn truth!

If you're not planning on selling your photographs, a $300 6mp camera will
give you great stuff. I read a signature on a posting somewhere that " A
camera just records an image. The photographer sees the picture." A well
composed photo from a $300 camera will beat a lousy one from a $$$$$ camera.
Rob

"jazu" <nofreakingspam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:GQIih.506867$1T2.454053@pd7urf2no...
>
>>> http://www.trekearth.com/members/jazu/
>>> do you think I have at least a little mojo?
>>
>> Absolutely - you've got some mojo action going on there and are well past
>> the beginner state.
> Thank you so much for good words.
>
>> As a matter of fact, although this undercuts my earlier point, many
>> people would say that you are good enough that you may benefit from a
>> better camera,
> I hope I will. My new rebel xt is on its way.
> I appretiate your time you spent watching my pictures and your all
> valuable imput.
> J
Enjoy your Rebel. It will give you a lot of options you didn't have with
your "cheaper" cameras. Be aware of one thing though, you may have to learn
photography all over again. Your composition will be the same, just how you
work the camera will change. I personally got very lazy with my point and
shoot digitals. Now I have to remember all that f-stop/shutter speed stuff
again. I'm looking forward to seeing you new stuff.
Rob

Scubabix <Scubabix@comcast.net> wrote:
: > A more expensive camera will give you more ways to mess up a good
: > picture, or to get one that you couldn't get any other way.

: Ain't that the damn truth!

: If you're not planning on selling your photographs, a $300 6mp camera
: will give you great stuff. I read a signature on a posting somewhere
: that " A camera just records an image. The photographer sees the
: picture." A well composed photo from a $300 camera will beat a lousy
: one from a $$$$$ camera.
: Rob

Agreed!!!

I have seen photos taken with tiny "toy" cameras that evoke the comment
"WOW" and I have seen photos taken with some of the most expensive and
complicated cameras that are so bad that even shreaders won't touch them
for fear of contamination. :)

But the more controls and adjustments available, AND the photographers
knowledge of how to use these controls may increase the odds of each image
to be at least acceptable and possibly even "wow".

But don't discount the influence of "pure luck". I once saw a photo that
amazed me. A traveling family handed a cheap disposable camera to a 2 year
old to keep her quiet while "mom and dad" concentrated on taking
"fantastic photos". When they got home they discovered that several times
the childs photos actually communicated more emotion than the ones taken
by the parents of the same subjects at the same time. I never did hear if
this was just the luck of a child with no experience (and thus not knowing
that "you can't do that") or the emergence of the next photographic genius
of the century. :)

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL