One last comment. Before your history there were some painters that did an excellent job of capturing the landscape. In particular, Albert Bierstadt documented the American west. His goal was to accurately produce images of the landscape. In other words, photography before the camera. His paining of the Mount of the Holy Cross in Colorado, showing the snow cross in the mountain crevasses, created such a stir in the east that many people came out west to see the "miracle" in the mountains.
Again, great article. Thanks.
The other technique I use is HDR. The range of light, from brightest to darkest, that a camera sensor can capture is far more limited than the human eye. HDR, or high dynamic range, overcomes this limitation. Multiple shots are taken of the same frame, some over exposed and some underexposed. the shots are then combined in the computer later into an image that can more accurately reflect the scene observed by the photographer. I say "can" in the previous sentence because HDR can easily be over done, resulting in artificial looking images. For this reason, many photographers shy away from HDR calling it "artificial". Yet these same photographers are often willing to make black and white photos. Because history favors B&W, thanks to Ansel Adams and Edward Weston, etc., that technique is more acceptable to many.
Today is not the mid-1900s and the tools at our disposal are not the same. Panorama stitching and HDR are modern techniques that greatly expand what we can do with a camera.
Great overview. You hit many of the suggestions that I give on my site:
I just say things a little differently.
Two areas I would add are the use of panorama and HDR techniques. I have a 12mg pixel camera which offers a lot less large printing ability than I am used to from my 4x5 days. To make up for this limitation I use multi-frame panoramas. The idea is to take multiple shots in multiple rows and then stitch them together into a much larger image.
codebunny: It's probably a good thing, or at least no worse.
I started using Bibble with version 4 and the whole version 5 series isn't as good. Usability has gone backwards and it takes ages to release support for new cameras.
The speed is impressive and I like the Noise Ninja integration. But aside from that I prefer RawTherapee which is free.
I just did a search on the CES site and neither Corel nor Bibble are going to have a booth at CES or the PMA part of CES. What a shame. Who makes announcements at a show an then doesn't have a floor presence?
To reinforce what has been said, I used to love the Micrografx Picture Publisher product until Corel bought it and then let it die. They claimed the "important" features were rolled into other products. I looked and found some in one Corel product and others in other Corel products and some in NO Corel products.
I too wish Adobe faced some serious competition. I now use Gimp and other open source products for most of my graphics/photo work.