Take a look at this photo from a contest run by one of the local papers.
Neat picture, but it bears a striking resemblance to a Kinkade painting. Weird and kinda freaky, eh?
I dunno, my inner 'net curmudgeon is screaming, “Photoshop!”
It is a neat picture, but it’s unnaturally crisp in a way that ordinary photography just shouldn’t be. I’m sure a professional photographer will be along in two minutes to explain to me exactly how one could do that without relying on digital filters, but to my amateur eyes it just doesn’t look right.
What? Oh, just google (or go to flickr) and type HDR. You are going to see a lot of pics like this one.
Needs more glurgey sparkle. 
That is a neat photo, almost doesn’t look real.
Cool photo. Doesn’t look a Kinkade at all to me.
Not enough cottages being devoured by raging infernos?
No way man. Maybe the color is a trifle too saturated, but that’s a neat photo.
I am not a photographer, but I’d be happy to have taken that picture.
I am not a painter either, but I’d be embarrassed to paint like Kinkade.
I love that photo. I don’t know what several of them by the same photographer would look like together, but multiple pics is Kinkade’s downfall: together they look like a mall Santa display, one alone is just about okay.
Not me! I mean, I can see that the man had nothing on the greats, and he had a knack for taking ‘cheeseball’ to an insane level. Still, though, as someone with zero ability to draw at all, I would like to be able to paint like him. I would only show my work to people that I know have never been inside a museum.
Okay, fair point. I guess I’d like to be able to paint like Kinkade; I just wouldn’t paint the same stuff as he does.
What would I paint? Hobbits! Nothin’ but Hobbits, baby. Jesus Hobbits. NASCAR Hobbits!
If I understand HDR right, isn’t that the rendering of a composite image from multiple exposures? I guess that could be what I’m seeing, because this didn’t strike me as something from a single exposure, as the entire image has such crisp focus and contrast. I wouldn’t consider an image produced from this technique to be an example of traditional photography, though, which was what I’d thought at first glance anyway. It’s cool, but…not quite natural.
But, it is gorgeous, and not quite saccharine enough to fit in with Kinkade’s paintings.
My professional photographer brother who is staying with me for the holidays took one glance at it and said, “Oh it’s HDR,” so he certainly concurs with the original statement. He also said that it’s very overused currently. 
I’m and artist and photographer. Some of HDR’s work definitely reeks of Kinkade, but not all. I would never compare this particular work to Kinkade.
As far as Photoshop is concerned: I really resent the implication that any photo that’s been Photoshopped is deceptive and fraudulent. The software can be an amazing tool to transform a photo, as part of the creative process. I use Photoshop a lot, as an extension of my photography, and there’s nothing deceptive about it.
And by the way, you cannot tell from that photo at that size, seeing it on your monitor, that it had been Photoshopped. And so what if it had? I imagine that when photography was in its infancy, an artist may have looked at a photo and shouted, “He used a camera!”
I’d thought that referring to “my inner 'net curmudgeon” and use of a well-known Internet meme would’ve made it obvious that I wasn’t being entirely serious, but I guess not. I’d assumed people would be familiar with it here, but on other forums anytime a picture pops up people decry it as photoshopped no matter how ridiculous that claim might be. It’s a joke, not a slur against the photographer.
I didn’t really think it had been produced entirely with Photoshop, but I did recognize that some method I was unfamiliar with had been used to produce the end effect. Others explained that method. I thought it was cool even if it isn’t done with nothing but a camera, and ignorance has been fought.
…:dubious:…
What do you suppose HDR stands for? 
-FrL-
While I wouldn’t say that any photograph that has been photoshopped is deceptive and/or fraudulent either, but I would argue that there is a point when a picture ceases to fall in the photography category and moves into the graphical arts category. I’d say the same about film photography based artwork that has undergone more than just the basic darkroom tweaking (example).
To me, the picture linked in the OP looks like it has too high of a dynamic range to have been produced from a digital camera. The amount of tweaking that would need to occur to get that result moves the picture from the photography category to the graphical arts category. There’s nothing wrong with that at all, except when it’s being hailed as a photograph. To me, that says that the artist is implying he got something darn close to the picture he submitted to the contest right out of the camera. That’s something I find deceptive.
You know, FDR’s cousin? Hanklin Delano Roosevelt. Famous photographer. He did all those 1930’s-era Dust Bowl photographs with English cottages and lighthouses in them.
Since the dynamic range of a digital camera (10-12 bits) exceeds that of a monitor (6-8 bits) by quite a bit (yes, I know), I don’t see how you can claim this. This photo looks like on of the typical over-processed photos people love. Too much sharpening, too much contrast, too much saturation.
Still, people love Kinkade, so i guess there’s a market of this sort of thing.
While its difficult to see in even the enlarged image, it looks as if a blown up version of the picture would have decent detail in both the very bright and very dark portions. I’m looking specifically at the waterfall in the upper left corner and the rocks in the bottom left corner. You’re correct that I can’t no this for sure by looking at the picture, but I also didn’t claim to know it. I just said it looked like something that a digital photographer would not be able to produce without some serious manipulation.
Speaking as a working photographer, I do have the say the photo looks digitally enhanced and it does look like HDR, but I’m not going to bet 100% that it is HDR–just that that look is consistent with HDR and tone-mapping. I’d like to see a full-resolution or at least full-screen version of the photo before making any final judgments, but I’d wager there’s more than a typical amount of post-processing applied to this image.