enhancing pictures

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jazu, Dec 20, 2006.

  1. jazu

    jazu Guest

    jazu, Dec 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jazu

    Charles Guest

    On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 04:17:41 GMT, "jazu" <>
    wrote:

    >Please have a look at this pic :
    >http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/North_America/United_States/photo485924.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.
     
    Charles, Dec 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jazu

    Gary Edstrom Guest

    On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 05:07:40 GMT, Charles <>
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 04:17:41 GMT, "jazu" <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Please have a look at this pic :
    >>http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/North_America/United_States/photo485924.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
     
    Gary Edstrom, Dec 20, 2006
    #3
  4. jazu

    jazu Guest


    > 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
     
    jazu, Dec 20, 2006
    #4
  5. jazu

    Charles Guest

    On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 05:40:41 GMT, "jazu" <>
    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.
     
    Charles, Dec 20, 2006
    #5
  6. jazu

    dave Guest

    On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 04:17:41 GMT, "jazu" <>
    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.
     
    dave, Dec 20, 2006
    #6
  7. jazu

    dave Guest

    On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 05:40:41 GMT, "jazu" <>
    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
     
    dave, Dec 20, 2006
    #7
  8. jazu

    Gary Edstrom Guest

    On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 05:40:41 GMT, "jazu" <>
    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, Dec 20, 2006
    #8
  9. Gary Edstrom wrote:

    > On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 05:40:41 GMT, "jazu" <>
    > 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), Dec 20, 2006
    #9
  10. jazu

    acl Guest

    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)
     
    acl, Dec 20, 2006
    #10
  11. jazu

    ray Guest

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

    > Please have a look at this pic :
    > http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/North_America/United_States/photo485924.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.
     
    ray, Dec 21, 2006
    #11
  12. jazu

    Mike Russell Guest

    "jazu" <> wrote in message
    news:FP2ih.500272$1T2.147510@pd7urf2no...
    > Please have a look at this pic :
    > http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/North_America/United_States/photo485924.htm
    >
    > My question is. Do you really need Xk$ 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/
     
    Mike Russell, Dec 21, 2006
    #12
  13. "acl" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > 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.
     
    Charles Schuler, Dec 21, 2006
    #13
  14. jazu

    jazu Guest

    > 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, Dec 22, 2006
    #14
  15. jazu

    Mike Russell Guest

    "jazu" <> 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/
     
    Mike Russell, Dec 22, 2006
    #15
  16. jazu

    jazu Guest


    >> 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
     
    jazu, Dec 22, 2006
    #16
  17. jazu

    Scubabix Guest

    > 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
     
    Scubabix, Dec 23, 2006
    #17
  18. jazu

    Scubabix Guest

    "jazu" <> 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, Dec 23, 2006
    #18
  19. Scubabix <> 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
     
    Randy Berbaum, Dec 24, 2006
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Eugene F.

    Enhancing reception of Edimax EW-7126 [?]

    Eugene F., Aug 4, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    856
    Eugene F.
    Aug 5, 2005
  2. Nod

    Enhancing skies

    Nod, Jul 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    392
  3. Ben Theil

    GIMP - Portrait pictures editing/enhancing

    Ben Theil, Feb 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    4,667
    notbob
    Feb 16, 2004
  4. Mike Henley

    Best automatic photo enhancing software

    Mike Henley, Nov 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    4,074
    veprit
    Aug 1, 2012
  5. Replies:
    65
    Views:
    1,524
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Jan 16, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page