enhancing pictures

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?

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 04:17:41 GMT, "jazu" <nofreakingspam@nospam.com>
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?
>

Enlarge the picture a bit and watch it get grainy. Hard to say what
it was like when it first came out of the camera.

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.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 05:07:40 GMT, Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 04:17:41 GMT, "jazu" <nofreakingspam@nospam.com>
>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?
>>
>
>Enlarge the picture a bit and watch it get grainy. Hard to say what
>it was like when it first came out of the camera.
>
>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.

I agree. Another thing...I hate it when they over-saturate the colors
in a picture like the one cited. My philosophy on enhancement is that,
if you can tell that enhancement was done, then it is too much.
Enhancements should do just that: Enhance, not overpower the picture.

Gary

> if you can tell that enhancement was done, then it is too much.
> Enhancements should do just that: Enhance, not overpower the picture.
>
Do you think that the picture I posted the link in top post is enhanced or
original?

j

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 05:40:41 GMT, "jazu" <nofreakingspam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>
>> if you can tell that enhancement was done, then it is too much.
>> Enhancements should do just that: Enhance, not overpower the picture.
>>
>Do you think that the picture I posted the link in top post is enhanced or
>original?
>
>j
>


I think the color saturation has been increased and teen sharpened a
bit too but I'm not certain, because some of the artifacts could have
come about when it was prepared for the web. It doesn't look natural
to me.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 04:17:41 GMT, "jazu" <nofreakingspam@nospam.com>
wrote:
>
>My question is. Do you really need Xk$ camera to achieve such a result?
>................................... say 300$ bucks camera and enhance pic using some
>software?
>
There are a ton of 6mp cameras that sell for well under $300 that can
produce 8X12-inch prints comparable to your image example. Down load a
simple free image editor such as DC Enhance and pick up an inexpensive
Epson or Canon printer and you will be in business.

After you have gained a little experience you will be able decide if a
more complicated camera is needed for your photo requirements.

Dave
--------------------------------------
The proof is in the print.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 05:40:41 GMT, "jazu" <nofreakingspam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>>
>Do you think that the picture I posted the link in top post is enhanced or
>original?
>
>j

It looks like the saturation was pumped a little.Digital cameras and
ink jet printers can be setup to produce "vivid" images that look much
like Kodachrome slides.

Dave

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 05:40:41 GMT, "jazu" <nofreakingspam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>
>> if you can tell that enhancement was done, then it is too much.
>> Enhancements should do just that: Enhance, not overpower the picture.
>>
>Do you think that the picture I posted the link in top post is enhanced or
>original?

Definitely enhanced! Even the BEST pictures out of my Canon 20D on the
BEST days wouldn't come close to that amount of saturation.

When I am tweaking my own scenery pictures, I crank up the saturation a
little and look at the result critically. I ask myself if it still
looks 'Natural'. If I am in doubt, I back off the saturation a step or
two.

It may sound silly, but it's the same philosophy I have about women and
makeup: If it is pbvious that they are wearing makeup, then it is too
much. (Tammy Faye Bakker please take note!)

Gary

Gary Edstrom wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 05:40:41 GMT, "jazu" <nofreakingspam@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>if you can tell that enhancement was done, then it is too much.
>>>Enhancements should do just that: Enhance, not overpower the picture.
>>>
>>
>>Do you think that the picture I posted the link in top post is enhanced or
>>original?
>
>
> Definitely enhanced! Even the BEST pictures out of my Canon 20D on the
> BEST days wouldn't come close to that amount of saturation.

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.

Roger

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)