persechini

Thanks for the clarification.

Not implying that big lenses don't come with the territory :-). However, someone who is currently using a 55-300mm lens may not realize what they are getting into when purchasing such a lens. I learned this the hard way.

<p>Thanks for all the interesting responses.<br> I realize that for me they are two issues:<br> (1) What is a photograph, or how does a photograph distinguish itself from other types of digital images? I am probably old fashioned in this regard, but concede that a separate category would be problematic. As someone said, a highly unnatural image can be created without HDR. Where would those go? In any event, I am sure this is a highly controversial question in the "What is art?" category.<br> (2) How was the image I am looking at made? This is simpler to address. In fact, there are already guidelines (<a href="/photodb/manipulation">http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation</a>) recognizing that it would help folks learn from expertly produced images if what are referred to as manipulations are described in some manner. With respect to HDR, I would especially like to know when it has been applied where it is NOT obvious. A cursory examination of a few images suggests that few follow these guidelines, but I could have been misled by this small sample of images.</p>

An issue to consider is weight. If you want to hike around freely and shoot as you go, the 200-500 mm Nikon may be too heavy. I have owned a number of lenses over the years and find the heavy ones literally a pain to hike with, so I eventually sell them, in spite of their virtues.

It seems that if images are shot in raw mode with a well chosen exposure we have quite a bit of leeway for image manipulation via the tone curve (?) without the need for HDR. Hence wondering about the idea of an HDR category. On the other hand, if employed with subtlety I guess HDR can result in a naturalistic image, but couldn't this also be done with a single exposure via the tone curve?

<p>It seems as though HDR and enhanced color saturation images look better on screen than more naturalistic images, which tend to appear "drab" by comparison. Interestingly, these same "drab" images look fine to me as prints.<br> Perhaps more experienced hands can recommend Lightroom settings that will display images to their best effect on screen, without going overboard. I also wonder if experienced folks routinely use separate settings for on screen display and prints.<br> I further wonder if there shouldn't be a separate category for HDR landscapes, which although often quite attractive are not naturalistic, i.e., they often look VERY different from what the photographer actually saw. While this is obviously an artistic choice, is it possible that ratings, which I hope to use to improve my photography, might be biased towards HDR images?</p>