Some pretty interesting responses here. The one that made me scratch my head was the idea that this picture is "enhanced." I'm not quite sure what that word means in this context. Enhanced in what way? I suspect the answer is that those who saw "enhancement" in this picture live in areas where the light and vegetation are less dramatic. I notice that Chris, even though he decided to whack off the right side of the picture, didn't see "enhancement" in it. He's familiar with the natural "enhancement" in Florida's nature scenes. As those who downloaded the original file know, there was no enhancement. You can't "enhance" a raw file. I listed the minimal ACR changes I'd made in the post with the URL for the download, and anyone who downloaded the file was able to return the raw file to its original condition.
There were four things at work in the "enhancement:" First, 36.3 megapixels can capture more detail than 12 or 16 or whatever smaller number you might settle on. Second, the D800 has the best color capabilities I've seen on any camera. Third, the lens I used is a new generation winner that can make use of the D800's incredible capabilities. Fourth, and most important, the light was perfect (Marc Shaffer to the contrary notwithstanding) as I drove by, stopped, lowered my driver's-side window, and made the shot.
I may go bald scratching my head over Steve's weird idea that somehow we need to compare the D800 to a mythical 36 mpx camera that may appear in the future. I never suggested that the D800 is better than something that may come along down the road, but Steve seems hung up on this mystery. Frankly, Steve, I don't understand what such a futile consideration has to do with respect to the picture I posted. By the way, I doubt there'll be another 36 mpx camera in the future. The next jump probably will be to 48 mpx, which will double the resolution of my 12 mpx D3. Oh, and your question: "Haven't most professional photographers post-processed their work throughout history. . ?" completely ignored the most influential photographer of the twentieth century: HCB, who, as I pointed out, didn't bother with post-processing. Yes, Ansel and Gene Smith were into post-processing in a big way. And, yes, most photographers did their own darkroom work. But most of them did their own darkroom work because there wasn't an alternative.
Several folks have posted cropped versions of the picture, and that's fine if that's what turns you on, but I framed the picture the way I wanted it, and as I said earlier, I didn't post this picture for comments on technicalities. I got something out of it that went beyond its prettiness and I wondered if it was just me, or if there was something there for others.