Figs

Original or altered (meaning photoshop "enhanced")?

.:Chris:.

Are you asking whether or not it's been edited in photoshop? If so, I'd guess yes. It looks as if the levels have been adjusted.

Figs

That's what I meant. I just didn't know how to word it. Pretty much I'm wondering if the picture itself was altered in anyway in Photoshop.

HoosierDaddy

I am 100% positive thats altered. You can't even really make out the tires, that lets you know the contrast has been messed with.

Ronald Mcdonald

It looks like it's been through some sort of photo editing program, yes.

DC Dave

yup its been edited

.:Chris:.

I thought about that too, but I'm not 100% sure about it. Check out the dynamic range of the entire scene. There's a portion of the background that seems over exposed but the foreground shadow areas (tires and surrounding area included) are underexposed. Maybe the scene had too much dynamic range for the camera?

To the OP: Are we going to get a firm answer on this or are you just looking for some opinions?

Figs

I was curious to see what everyone thought. Here's the original picture...

Figs

What do you guys think about this picture? Same color car as post above this one.

.:Chris:.

• It's got a pretty high level of contrast.
• It's got the right white balance.
• It's a bit over-exposed probably (there's very little detail in the tire/wheel well area. This may be due to your contrast change, you could very well have clipped the shadows)
• It's over sharpened. Once you start to introduce white artifacts in any area that's detailed/textured (ie. pavement) you've over sharpened IMO.
• The joint in the masonry wall does nothing for the picture. If you're really dead set on this shot, clone it out. It looks like it's growing out of the car.
• The white areas of paint/peeling add to the feel of the picture, but they're distracting. They detract from the main subject, the car. Clone them out or reduce their brightness/contrast/saturation/whatever.

Is that enough, or should I continue on?