Top 40 Prettiest Pictures

[buck]

Peter Lik did 9 and 31 for sure. Those two for sure aren't chopped. I got a book of his stuff for my birthday this year, what a amazing photographer. They are all pretty even though some are fake.

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: Henrythewound
31 has to be Mt Mazama (crater lake)

It sure it, pic by Peter Lik.

 

[ViviTheMage]

wow, I want full res images of these and some details would be great!

 

[Kev]

so where can you get high res versions of these?

 

[TheSlamma]

37. is The Dragons Backbone.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
WOW

Yeah, I was on my gryphon flying around in Terroka forest, and some of those pics look like it's from WOW.

 

[SSP]

lol, #20 is a Terragen render. Along with some digitalblasphemy wallpapers, and the extremely small resolution on most of them.... thats not a very good list of "pictures".

 

[MyThirdEye]

they look drawn to me.

pretty pictures, to say the least.

 

[Fenixgoon]

chop or not, they look great

 

[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

 

[Anubis]

26 is rendered, from digital blasphemy, hell you can see the watermark
im pretty positive 20 is rendered also

 

[JujuFish]

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

You're a bit slow on the uptake, or you don't like to read threads before posting.

Originally posted by: Anubis
26 is rendered, from digital blasphemy, hell you can see the watermark

Same to you.

 

[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!

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: rise

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.

no, it says "digital blasphemy" right on the image...

uh, how couldn't you tell i did say that in the first place. digital blashpemy is where I've gotten some of my past backgrounds. its obvious I knew works on digital blasphemy are all digital
?

 

[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.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: yamadakun
Why are saying they are fake? They look real.

Most of them are quite obviously doctored in some way. It's plainly obvious.

 

[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.

 

[destrekor]

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.

so you would rather see no editing? 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.

 

[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!

 

[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.

 

[Cdubneeddeal]

Let me know what you guys think of these. I'm not a pro photographer nor did I have a DSLR to take these.

Text
Text

 

[OdiN]

No Ansel Adams??

No B&W?

FAIL!

 

[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.,

 

[GTaudiophile]

Haha. The stuff I see on photo.net is much better...on average.

 

[monk3y]

Awesome pics.