25 precious photographs from the web:

[JeffR]

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/photography-deluxe-25-precious-photographs-from-the-web/

Some of these are really incredible.

[DS1]

1. Some HDR in there

and while I'm a fan of it, I think it should be labeled as such.

Nice pictures, tho

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. I agree...most of them are HDR

[regnaD kciN]

7. I disagree...

I see no reason why HDR photos should be "labeled as such," unless one also requires that every other post-processing move (other than just posting JPEGs straight from the camera) be declared. One could make just as strong a case that, say, a simple levels adjustment or saturation boost is just as much manipulation as HDR.

[hvn_nbr_2]

11. Probably a dumb question: What is HDR? nt

[regnaD kciN]

12. High Dynamic Range...

It's generally a case of taking two photos (using a tripod, so that they align perfectly) of the same scene, one exposing for the shadows, the other for the highlights, and then blending them on the computer to make one image. Alternately, instead of two different photos, it's possible to take a RAW image and process it twice (once for highlights and once for shadows) into two different TIFFs or JPEGs, then blending them. The end result is supposed to be an image where you don't get any blown-out highlights or crushed shadows. When it's done well, it can look great. More often, though, it tends to look artificial when done imperfectly -- like you took a regular photo on the computer and turned the contrast way down. As I said below, it's one of the trickiest techniques to pull off well; I still haven't managed to do it to my satisfaction.

[Blue_In_AK]

3. Beautiful shots, yes,

but I agree, many were obviously manipulated to the max. Sometimes I play around with my photos and get colors like this, but I always back out because they look too "unreal" for my tastes. Maybe I shouldn't be so cautious.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

4. you, I, we, are probably being old fashioned

I guess
I mean many of these pics would be outstanding without all that manipulation.
so why?
I dont get it.

just an old fart grumbling in the corner.

[Blue_In_AK]

5. It's probably kids

with their videogame graphics mentality. Grumble, grumble.

[regnaD kciN]

6. HDR is one of the trickiest techniques to get right...

...and I've generally had a horrible time getting it to work. I respect anyone who can get results that don't look patently phony (as in "photography on acid"). And, in the admittedly rare cases when it's done absolutely right, I find it a huge step over conventional digital photography.

Then, again, I'd point out that most of the photos in that display aren't helped by being shrunk down to 500 pixels wide and (to my mind) oversharpened once they've been resized. Take "Tulip Fields" for example -- seeing it full size (link is here) makes it look, although still romanticized, quite a bit more realistic than the smaller version.

[Blue_In_AK]

8. The larger one is much better

although it still looks "unreal" to me. I guess it's just a matter of personal preferences.

[regnaD kciN]

9. I would have dialed down the reds and pinks...

...in the flowers themselves, but, otherwise, the only real complaint I have about that photo was that I wasn't the one who took it! ;-)

[Adsos Letter]

10. HEY!!!

...that looks like one of Blue's moose shots...