Originally posted by: Henrythewound
31 has to be Mt Mazama (crater lake)
Originally posted by: Specop 007
WOW
You're a bit slow on the uptake, or you don't like to read threads before posting.Originally posted by: ryan256
These are some great pictures. Although I was sure I had seen #26 before & I was right. Look closely and you will see the signature DigitalBlasphemy.com
Same to you.Originally posted by: Anubis
26 is rendered, from digital blasphemy, hell you can see the watermark
Originally posted by: rise
no, it says "digital blasphemy" right on the image...Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: Henrythewound
26 is a digital blasphemy image, you can see the tag
indeed.
this is why high-res shots are needed. without them, it's hard to see the detail that allows one to see if its digitally created. taking a look at that one again, and it definitely appears to be digitally created.
Originally posted by: Savarak
http://thefairest.info/ has them all with bigger versions... of course the originals are from other locations like db
Originally posted by: yamadakun
Why are saying they are fake? They look real.
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I'm not a fan of most of these "pictures". It's more art than photograph.
If you need to use optical or computer tricks to make a good picture, you failed at the photographer's job of finding a real shot that looks beautiful on its own. Tricks such as editing out flaws, digitally moving and enlarging the Moon to make it look more dazzling, overuse of HDR photography, all are lame to me. Take the picture as your eye saw it. Some HDR may be necessary since a camera doesn't have the same dynamic range as your eye, but overuse of it corrupts the picture.
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Originally posted by: Savarak
http://thefairest.info/ has them all with bigger versions... of course the originals are from other locations like db
Dude, you might want to put NSFW in there somewhere. I clicked on it and the first pic on the front page was electrifying bewbies.
Originally posted by: destrekor
Most photography of importance (as artwork) has typically been post-processed in the dark room, however, it is for, as you describe, to compensate for the shortcomings of the medium as compared to the eyes. digitally altering to compensate for lack of foresight.. that's one thing, and I completely hate against. But changing exposure levels on specific parts of a photo by under or other exposing those parts as compared to the rest of the photo (dodging and burning), is completely acceptable and most of the greatest art photographs have done that. filters to alter contrast or color based on the mood desired, serene versus tranquility, power versus subtlety.. all things that can be achieved to capture the mood (due to the fact that the natural mood you feel from a photograph of a scene is typically not the same as how you experience the scene and feel the vibe from it when you see it in person. something film cannot capture. you have to be submersed.
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: destrekor
Most photography of importance (as artwork) has typically been post-processed in the dark room, however, it is for, as you describe, to compensate for the shortcomings of the medium as compared to the eyes. digitally altering to compensate for lack of foresight.. that's one thing, and I completely hate against. But changing exposure levels on specific parts of a photo by under or other exposing those parts as compared to the rest of the photo (dodging and burning), is completely acceptable and most of the greatest art photographs have done that. filters to alter contrast or color based on the mood desired, serene versus tranquility, power versus subtlety.. all things that can be achieved to capture the mood (due to the fact that the natural mood you feel from a photograph of a scene is typically not the same as how you experience the scene and feel the vibe from it when you see it in person. something film cannot capture. you have to be submersed.
I am against most of those things. I like technically accurate pictures. The scene should sell itself, you shouldn't have to distort reality.