I understand that many plants can exhibit wonderful varieties of color, but that image has clearly been enhanced (for purposes of detail, clearly). Enhancing pictures is not something I dislike, however the picture in question has an almost artificial quality about it which I do not like. Appears almost kiddish, like a box of fruity pebbles.
If the print version resembles that at all, then I see a quality issue. Maybe I'm the only one- ah well, wouldn't be the first time.
Cannabis calendars are nice, however. At least they're one more stream of income, because it's really about paying the bills, not giving away wonderful pictures of flowers to adore. If it was, these things would not cost $7.95. That's not a bad price, well, not compared to $20. I wouldn't buy one, because I think it's rather useless, but hey, don't let that stop you from owning 16 photos of cannabis in 7" calendar form.
Submitted by Jon Stotz () on Sat, 10/31/2009 - 11:41.
computers are great =]
I understand that many plants can exhibit wonderful varieties of color, but that image has clearly been enhanced (for purposes of detail, clearly). Enhancing pictures is not something I dislike, however the picture in question has an almost artificial quality about it which I do not like. Appears almost kiddish, like a box of fruity pebbles.
If the print version resembles that at all, then I see a quality issue. Maybe I'm the only one- ah well, wouldn't be the first time.
Cannabis calendars are nice, however. At least they're one more stream of income, because it's really about paying the bills, not giving away wonderful pictures of flowers to adore. If it was, these things would not cost $7.95. That's not a bad price, well, not compared to $20. I wouldn't buy one, because I think it's rather useless, but hey, don't let that stop you from owning 16 photos of cannabis in 7" calendar form.