There probably isn't any one thing so much as there are many different things that contribute to the crispness. Quality of equipment plays some role, the ability of the photographer plays a part, how the image is processed, then post-processed plays a part. How lighting is controlled plays a role. The subject itself and the surrounding background can play a large part. How much compression of the image is introduced between the time the image registered on the camera's image sensor and when the viewer sees it is critical as well. I can elaborate on this point further if you'd like.
Surt is correct below. When you view an image on your computer screen, assuming you're seeing the "whole" picture, you're actually only seeing a relatively small amount of the pixels that are contained in the image, as computer screens aren't that big or high resolution. By the time you view an image I post in a thread here, it is substantially smaller than the original. I lot of photos in internetland look phenomenal when viewed on a computer screen, but if they were printed at a decent size, they wouldn't look nearly so good.
Nice work on your 'busa photo. I'm more from the "less is more" camp, and tend not to heavily process most of my work. It's a fine line between "looks great" and "looks fake", and unless one's artistic vision doesn't care about realism (perfectly acceptable, of course), it can be easy to overdo post-processing with Photoshop, et. al.
This is a technique I've not utilized yet. Thanks for sharing. Very nice work b.t.w. Please share more.
This photo has a deeper meaning than many are going to catch. Very nice composition Captain!
Last edited:
