TheDman

It's stars reflected in rippling water. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that. If you think there should be a perfect reflection of the milky way in the water, then you're not...

What makes you think it's a star track reflection? I don't think the stars all move vertically. Looks more like rippling water to me. And you still haven't mentioned anything that wasn't really there.

The fact that you think HDR means "fixing it later in post" tells me you don't know anything about HDR photography. Many of the HDRs you see you don't even know are HDR, because they're done well....

What was added that wasn't really there?

A selection brush wouldn't make nearly as precise a selection as the luminosity selections done in this article. I have a feeling the people who think NX2 could do the job aren't fully grasping...

When I look at this page, it doesn't seem to indicate that such selections are possible:
http://www.nphotomag.com/2013/01/11/nikon-capture-nx2-tutorial-how-to-use-selections-and-masks/

Can you select a midtone range in NX2?

DPI has nothing to do with resolution, density, or anything else. Cropping either the jpg or the raw file will be exactly the same, as both files are the same pixel dimensions.

The difference would be much less apparent if they were printed. The further away from 1st generation you get, the more detail you lose. I don't think the images supplied are small at all - they're...

Where did you get 'making prints' out of my inital reply, which was "The web isn't 72 ppi"? Ok, here you go. 1 ppi. You're right, looks terrible. Gee, what would have given me that impression?...

That's the same thing as saying if you combine a cup of coffee with lo res jpg compression, you get a bad image. One of those things is completely irrelevant, and you seem to not understand that.

Being 72 ppi doesn't make it heavily compressed. ppi doesn't have anything to do with compression. An ultra-high resolution file can be 1 ppi.

The web isn't 72 ppi. In fact, it's not any ppi. And judging images is always best when they are first generation, so I would rather judge digital files on a computer than after being printed.

No, that is not what I said. I said anyone who uses phrases such as "straight out the camera, no PP" or "only natural light, not harsh studio light" doesn't have a good understanding of either...

If you do it right, it looks exactly the same. That's the point of HDR - overcoming dynamic range limitations.

You're missing the point, which is anyone who thinks photos out of the camera are unprocessed are betraying their ignorance, as are people who think studio lighting is harsh. Both are statements...

Exactly. Or "I don't know the first thing about post-processing so I will make it sound like I chose not to do it". Sort of like portrait photographers who proudly exclaim that they use "only...

Photoshop skills are skills too. Whenever I see complaints like this it really comes off as sour grapes that the OP doesn't have the same skills. Great, then go beat all those Photoshoppers with...

The only reason you think that is because when HDR is done well, you don't even know it's HDR.

It does not do this. Your screen does not care one iota what DPI you've specified. It only comes into play when printing (and even then, only when you're not auto-scaling to fit a specific size).