Join 3,555 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Small collection of National Geographic photos
August 22, 2008 5:17 PM   Subscribe

Nothing but a few pretty pictures.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (29 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

 
Nice! Thanks.
posted by Daddy-O at 5:21 PM on August 22, 2008


it's like something out of a Duran Duran video... or maybe a magazine... they should totally like print those in some kind of magazine and mail it out once a month

kidding... they're really nice and more refreshing than some of the links in the past day or two
posted by inthe80s at 5:33 PM on August 22, 2008


Very nice!
posted by Mokusatsu at 5:40 PM on August 22, 2008


I hate when sites take content from legitimate publications and re-publish them for traffic.
posted by splatta at 5:48 PM on August 22, 2008 [5 favorites]


Great! But I still don't quite understand why American and British sites don't post these things in much higher resolution (with an option for lower if you have a slow connection/computer).
posted by Dumsnill at 5:52 PM on August 22, 2008


The dragonfly shot is amazing.
posted by hipaa_chik at 5:54 PM on August 22, 2008


Don't think this post is gonna last.
posted by fixedgear at 6:01 PM on August 22, 2008


Don't care, already downloaded local copies for desktoppage. Thanks!
posted by ZakDaddy at 6:12 PM on August 22, 2008


awful post
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:29 PM on August 22, 2008


Wow, though, I love how MeFi can turn me on to such awesome sites!

http://www.binscorner.com/pages/i/iq-test-for-all-those-who-think-they-are.html
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:31 PM on August 22, 2008


The dragonfly image is faked.
posted by Oyéah at 6:39 PM on August 22, 2008


PS The Grand Canyon image is also faked, there is no Grand Canyon, it is God's little trench he dug, during a rainstorm, 3 thousand years ago.
posted by Oyéah at 6:40 PM on August 22, 2008


jaw on floor
posted by puckish at 6:41 PM on August 22, 2008


Help! All I see are these motivational posters!

Nice, though.
posted by not_on_display at 7:08 PM on August 22, 2008 [1 favorite]


All I see are these motivational posters!

Indeed, Brandon Blatcher, as the OP, was clearly motivated to post this.

It is true, though, that this kind of site is really cheesy: pilfered images + crappy ad links...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:26 PM on August 22, 2008


:shrugs:

A minute of beauty, with photo credits. That's about the extent of the line of thought.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:16 PM on August 22, 2008


Nice photos! no ads for me,(none) my no script is on. I have boated on the Davis Gulch/Glen Canyon, what a gas! we camped under an arch,stereo on the boat sounded great.
posted by hortense at 8:18 PM on August 22, 2008


Ah, HDR, how you enchant us all
posted by Lukenlogs at 8:29 PM on August 22, 2008


The problem is those HDR ones invoke an "uncanny valley" response in me. Some of them look like natural light, but some of them clearly have been messed with. Either HDR or oversaturation or something.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:50 PM on August 22, 2008


The dragonfly one doesn't look particularly fake, just a slow synch flash (I forget the exact term for it, but basically the exposure goes long enough to capture existing light and then the flash goes off to freeze motion.)
posted by agress at 9:10 PM on August 22, 2008


On the other hand, the one with the volcano screams digital composite to me. Because you're not gonna get streak-free stars without motion compensation for the camera (think astronomy pics,) and if you move the camera like that you're not gonna get anything resembling a sharp shot of the non-moving ground.

Or I could be totally wrong, in which case I'd love to know how it was done in one shot.
posted by agress at 9:14 PM on August 22, 2008


streak free because the exposure time was likely only a few seconds, not the minutes to hours it takes to get long star trails
posted by cubby at 9:24 PM on August 22, 2008


Good point. I guess I need to remember that places like those have way less light pollution than your average US metro area, cause I can't get anything near that sort of star field in under 10 seconds, even with at f/1.4
posted by agress at 9:38 PM on August 22, 2008


How luminous is lava, anyway? I'm trying to figure out how you'd expose for that.
posted by ook at 10:29 PM on August 22, 2008


The lava shot is likely done with a time exposure at night, followed by a daytime exposure.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:02 PM on August 22, 2008


i wonder where the Burma shot was taken (the one with the golden stupa; it couldn't be anywhere else)
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:09 AM on August 23, 2008


How luminous is lava, anyway? I'm trying to figure out how you'd expose for that.


Quickly.
posted by CynicalKnight at 12:15 PM on August 23, 2008 [2 favorites]


Some nice photos, but not FPP worthy.
posted by HotPatatta at 5:29 PM on August 23, 2008


Good photos, why all the hate?
posted by traver at 1:11 AM on August 25, 2008


« Older Norfolk & Holmes is no ordinary estate agency....  |  His is the most vigorously def... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments