Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
A number DO look like real pictures that have undergone HDR filtering. Which does create some incredible results.
eech, that's what I hate about the digital world. It's HDR this, HDR that.
the appearance of HDR can be had very easily in film photography and post-processing in the dark room, without canned 'hdr filters'. different color filters can bring out different contrast levels, different techniques such as dodging and burning, and other filters that won't change color but contrast. Combine all to get some of the most beautiful pieces of artwork imaginable. I don't think digital is art because it can take the skill out of the picture. Some say it requires skill for the program, but with the advent of undo and redo, and general knowledge of the programs abilities and your gold. with film, unless your prepared to spend multiple days on a single photo, you better know how everything is going to affect the final print.
I love film and cannot wait to work in a color processing darkroom. I want to eventually build a darkroom in my house whenever I finally own a home, even though at that point digital is going to have pretty much taken over. Want to work with a medium format Hasselblad as well, hopefully I get the chance some day.
Originally posted by: thecrecarc
Ahem, the title is "Top 40 Prettiest Pictures" NOT "Top 40 Prettiest Pictures in Nature" or "Top 40 Prettiest Pictures without photoshop". It doesn't have to be real to qualify...
without post processing (both digital and film in the darkroom), you wouldn't have nearly any of the greatest photographic pieces of art. I would never say no post-processing, as often times the limitations of the medium can limit of the beauty without the proper post-processing techniques to add that touch of personality. It's what sets the average photographer and the artistic photographer apart, how much work they actually put into each photo.