Thought you might like these - although toward the end of the 45 photos, some are "digitally overprocessed" or not correctly exposed (but these photos are mostly "whiz-bangers" in roughly the first half of the group, with some also later on). The slide show is at: http://wilderness.org/content/stunning-wilderness-photography --DR
Only one or two out of all of them *might* be worth putting on paper. It's mostly just standard stock-photography fare. Most of them badly done, oversaturated, many of them not even leveled properly, 1st time beginner's mistakes. I've taken photos in most of those regions noted, I can easily out-match all of them shot for shot. The "winner" certainly didn't deserve that spot, that's for damn sure. I wouldn't even waste a test print on something like that. The composition and exposure is nothing but beginner's tourist snapshot tripe. I guess this is what happens when things like Flick become a standard for photography. You people are so easily impressed. It's no wonder that online image hosting sites became so popular. You people will settle for anything. But then, how could you ever know the difference.
<snip whining> Bullshit! Whilst some of them are pretty pedestrian, there are many real winners in there. I seriously suspect the trolling cow's intentions and abilities. I particularly liked No.24, and would be surprised if the prhotographer didn't compose it with erotic intentions. (If you can't see it, I'm not explaining.) Drop dead, cow, or do better, you supercilious twat.
