Top 40 Prettiest Pictures

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: destrekor

here's a question.. do you like the famous black and white photographs? like ansel adams?
like all the color photographs that are billed as art? they all have something in common: darkroom post-processing through use of filters, or maybe even filters on the lens of the camera itself. Dodging and burning are likely to have been used too. Film just cannot capture what our eye sees, so without aid, even photographs from professionals can lake the dynamic lifelike character the scene would have in person. This is why I prefer film for artwork purposes, due to the fact that foresight is typically required for the photograph to be capable of becoming art.,

A lot of the famous B&W pictures are too artsy for me. I already mentioned the problems with the dynamic range of the camera, so some correction is normal. It's only when the photographer knowingly doctors the photo beyond what is required to fix the photo do I become annoyed with it.

The pictures I take never employ the use of advanced postprocessing (I only crop/resize). I do not believe in altering the factuality of the scene. Some people see no problem with such fraud (such as taking a photo of a cabin with the Moon in the background and then enlarging the Moon and moving it closer to the cabin.)

I like my photos to accurately describe what it was like to be there.

 

[n7]

Some truely gorgeous ones

I wish i had those all @ 2560x1600...

 

[Exterous]

Some are available in 1600x1200 - and yes, truly amazing pictures

 

[lokiju]

Nice.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: destrekor

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.

here's a question.. do you like the famous black and white photographs? like ansel adams?
like all the color photographs that are billed as art? they all have something in common: darkroom post-processing through use of filters, or maybe even filters on the lens of the camera itself. Dodging and burning are likely to have been used too. Film just cannot capture what our eye sees, so without aid, even photographs from professionals can lake the dynamic lifelike character the scene would have in person. This is why I prefer film for artwork purposes, due to the fact that foresight is typically required for the photograph to be capable of becoming art.,

color and B&W are totally different, im not a fan of the overuse of HDR, which alot of these pics show, it doesnt mean they arnt nice, its just personal pref.

digital allows you to do things you cant in a normal DR, be it color or B&W, tho more so for color, i can and do print color and B&W from a darkroom where you can only do so much i enjoy the process much more,

color printing is much more about getting the color accurate, rather then making things look amazing,

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by: Savarak
http://thefairest.info/ has them all with bigger versions... of course the originals are from other locations like db

i heard there were nsfw images that pop up, so nsfw... didnt know there were any, sorry!

I was looking though there and found a picture about a quarter mile from where I used to live...

Text

And a picture of Multnomah Falls..

Text

compared to one of my own shots...

Text

Some cool photos in the OP....

 

[bigrash]

beautiful! :thumbsup:

 

[LordMorpheus]

This site is using thefairest.info (project of the xkcd guys).

I don't see any credit given.

It's not completely up to date with thefairest.info, but it's close enough that there can be no doubt that it's just ripping the top 40 list off.

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by: JohnAn2112

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.

Doh! I'm clicking furiously and I'm not seeing said bewbies!

Here you go...

NSFW

 

[Thegonagle]

:thumbsup: Up!

Those are amazing!

I really like 20. (The sun and moon one whose validity has been challenged.) I don't see why it couldn't be real. It's almost like a capturing a lightning bolt--a matter of time and place. (It appears similar to other photos I've seen of Antarctica or Greenland.)

 

[RaistlinZ]

I made #34 my desktop wallpaper. I wish I had all of them in high resolution though. They're all wallpaper worthy. :thumbsup:

 

[Lithium381]

i expect a sonic boom from # 35

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: LoKe
This one is fake for sure.

i thought the same thing

 

[rollerball]

its not too bad wallpaper for me!

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: rollerball
its not too bad wallpaper for me!

proper english, please.

 

[2Xtreme21]

*BUMP*

Most of them have links to their full-res sources now.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Thegonagle

I really like 20. (The sun and moon one whose validity has been challenged.) I don't see why it couldn't be real. It's almost like a capturing a lightning bolt--a matter of time and place. (It appears similar to other photos I've seen of Antarctica or Greenland.)

How can you NOT tell that it's fake? It's so obvious it makes me cry when people say that they can't tell. There is no place on Earth where the Moon looks that much bigger than the sun.

If your observation ability was a little bit better, you'd also be able to see that the picture is number 21, not 20.

 

[coldmeat]

i really like the colors in #24, its too bad it doesnt have a higher res

 

[imported_LoKe]

Originally posted by: Thegonagle
I really like 20. (The sun and moon one whose validity has been challenged.) I don't see why it couldn't be real. It's almost like a capturing a lightning bolt--a matter of time and place. (It appears similar to other photos I've seen of Antarctica or Greenland.)

It wasn't simply challenged, but rather proven. I can't remember where, but it's a guaranteed chop.