BBC Landscape pics of 2009

On 2009-10-19 22:48:21 -0700, Grimly Curmudgeon
said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm
Holy ****e. What a mess.

I guess they love HDR.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009101923191129560-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-10-19 22:48:21 -0700, Grimly Curmudgeon
said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm
Holy ****e. What a mess.

I guess they love HDR.

Indeed - some fine examples of the awful images HDR can produce.

David

David J Taylor wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009101923191129560-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-10-19 22:48:21 -0700, Grimly Curmudgeon
said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm
Holy ****e. What a mess.

I guess they love HDR.

Indeed - some fine examples of the awful images HDR can produce.

I can imagine them being considered "striking", but only
by someone who's never seen extreme tone mapping before.

(there's nothing *intrinsicially* wrong with HDR IMHO).

Who were the judges, and what were the criteria?

BugBear

On 2009-10-20 06:20:45 -0700, bugbear said:

David J Taylor wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009101923191129560-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-10-19 22:48:21 -0700, Grimly Curmudgeon
said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm
Holy ****e. What a mess.

I guess they love HDR.

Indeed - some fine examples of the awful images HDR can produce.

I can imagine them being considered "striking", but only
by someone who's never seen extreme tone mapping before.

(there's nothing *intrinsicially* wrong with HDR IMHO).

Who were the judges, and what were the criteria?

BugBear

Agreed there is nothing intrinsically wrong with HDR. It is a useful
tool in the right circumstances, where lighting and subject are
problematic. However it has become the trend to avoid the subtle
capture of a wider dynamic range, and overdo the processing to create
the surreal Thomas Kinkaide nightmare we see so frequently now.

HDR has unfortunately become an artistic cliche which detracts from a
pleasing image. It needs to return to its role of subtle image
adjustment tool.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-20 06:20:45 -0700, bugbear
said:

David J Taylor wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009101923191129560-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-10-19 22:48:21 -0700, Grimly Curmudgeon
said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm
Holy ****e. What a mess.

I guess they love HDR.

Indeed - some fine examples of the awful images HDR can produce.

I can imagine them being considered "striking", but only
by someone who's never seen extreme tone mapping before.

(there's nothing *intrinsicially* wrong with HDR IMHO).

Who were the judges, and what were the criteria?

BugBear

Agreed there is nothing intrinsically wrong with HDR. It is a useful
tool in the right circumstances, where lighting and subject are
problematic. However it has become the trend to avoid the subtle capture
of a wider dynamic range, and overdo the processing to create the
surreal Thomas Kinkaide nightmare we see so frequently now.

HDR has unfortunately become an artistic cliche which detracts from a
pleasing image. It needs to return to its role of subtle image
adjustment tool.

I thought the winner in the phone section (!) was the best of the
bunch--black and white, little apparent manipulation. I've seen some
very nice results from HDR, but I felt that all the winners would have
been improved by not applying it, other than the two BWs.
Allen

On 2009-10-20 07:45:57 -0700, Allen said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-20 06:20:45 -0700, bugbear said:

David J Taylor wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009101923191129560-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-10-19 22:48:21 -0700, Grimly Curmudgeon
said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm
Holy ****e. What a mess.

I guess they love HDR.

Indeed - some fine examples of the awful images HDR can produce.

I can imagine them being considered "striking", but only
by someone who's never seen extreme tone mapping before.

(there's nothing *intrinsicially* wrong with HDR IMHO).

Who were the judges, and what were the criteria?

BugBear

Agreed there is nothing intrinsically wrong with HDR. It is a useful
tool in the right circumstances, where lighting and subject are
problematic. However it has become the trend to avoid the subtle
capture of a wider dynamic range, and overdo the processing to create
the surreal Thomas Kinkaide nightmare we see so frequently now.

HDR has unfortunately become an artistic cliche which detracts from a
pleasing image. It needs to return to its role of subtle image
adjustment tool.

I thought the winner in the phone section (!) was the best of the
bunch--black and white, little apparent manipulation. I've seen some
very nice results from HDR, but I felt that all the winners would have
been improved by not applying it, other than the two BWs.
Allen

The "Kllnsey Show feel race" shot may be B&W, but there was obvious HDR
processing applied before the B&W conversion making it even worse than
some of the color renditions.
The B&W phone shot just seems to be a dumb accident converted to B&W to
save something. Its only redeeming quality is that it got nowhere near
Photomatix.

The problem with this competition seems to be the judges.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In message 2009102008282293099-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
writes
On 2009-10-20 07:45:57 -0700, Allen said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-20 06:20:45 -0700, bugbear
said:

David J Taylor wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009101923191129560-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-10-19 22:48:21 -0700, Grimly Curmudgeon
said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm
Holy ****e. What a mess.
I guess they love HDR.

Try these:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/pi.../Mountain-Magi
c-Photographs-of-mountainscapes-in-Britain-by-Van-Greaves.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/yg8wt7b

"Amazing pictures of Britain's landscapes and mountains can be seen in a
new book by Van Greaves featuring some of the most breathtaking images
of nature ever recorded on British soil "

Regards,
--
Neil

Neil wrote:
In message 2009102008282293099-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
writes
On 2009-10-20 07:45:57 -0700, Allen said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-20 06:20:45 -0700, bugbear
said:

David J Taylor wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009101923191129560-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-10-19 22:48:21 -0700, Grimly Curmudgeon
said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm
Holy ****e. What a mess.
I guess they love HDR.

Try these:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/pi.../Mountain-Magi
c-Photographs-of-mountainscapes-in-Britain-by-Van-Greaves.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/yg8wt7b

"Amazing pictures of Britain's landscapes and mountains can be seen in a
new book by Van Greaves featuring some of the most breathtaking images
of nature ever recorded on British soil "

Nice cite of a good site!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/6316605/Mountain-Magic-Photographs-of-mountainscapes-in-Britain-by-Van-Greaves.html?image=2

The tiny works, but I am wanting to see if the URL remains intact via
Thunderbird. It's broken according to T-bird, though some newsreaders
will have put it back together even when on two lines, when it's in
brackets.

--
john mcwilliams

In article , david-
lid says...
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009101923191129560-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-10-19 22:48:21 -0700, Grimly Curmudgeon
said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm
Holy ****e. What a mess.

I guess they love HDR.

Indeed - some fine examples of the awful images HDR can produce.

David

Phew, glad others think this too..

--
Tony.

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:54:23 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

Neil wrote:
In message 2009102008282293099-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
writes
On 2009-10-20 07:45:57 -0700, Allen said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-20 06:20:45 -0700, bugbear
said:

David J Taylor wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009101923191129560-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-10-19 22:48:21 -0700, Grimly Curmudgeon
said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm
Holy ****e. What a mess.
I guess they love HDR.

Try these:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/pi.../Mountain-Magi
c-Photographs-of-mountainscapes-in-Britain-by-Van-Greaves.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/yg8wt7b

"Amazing pictures of Britain's landscapes and mountains can be seen in a
new book by Van Greaves featuring some of the most breathtaking images
of nature ever recorded on British soil "

Nice cite of a good site!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/6316605/Mountain-Magic-Photographs-of-mountainscapes-in-Britain-by-Van-Greaves.html?image=2

The tiny works, but I am wanting to see if the URL remains intact via
Thunderbird. It's broken according to T-bird, though some newsreaders
will have put it back together even when on two lines, when it's in
brackets.

Came out fine in Forte Agent.