I'm glad that you liked them.
Skamaraju,
Yes the last ones were ccaptured by the 300/4..
Damn Brit,
I don't do much PP, just last week learnt about HDR..however, what I really did in the above landscapes is
1. shot them in RAW
2. Using a free s/w RAW Therapee, I made 3 copies of each imag at +2, 0 and -2 EV
3. Generated an HDR in Photomatix Pro (which I had downloaded via torrent)
4. Tone mapped the image in such a way that it apperared as real as Poss..
5. If still it looked unreal, then merged the HDR image with the original correctly exposed image in Photomatix, result surely looks real and significantly more DR is achieved.
It is not an HDR technically, just an EDR (extended Dynamic range) as it was shot from a single RAW file..
JMR,
No, I didn't intend that magenta. What I think it is that when I make 3 copies of the image n generate HDR, it increases noise and CA areas of the image. I think this won't happen if you capture multiple shots instead of a single RAW file (though I'm not sure)..Also, in the 2nd last landscape where it is evident, is shot at 18mm with the kit lens- not the best combination. I feel I really stretched the limit of the kit lens and also of the RAW file
I've been doing macros for a month or so and I'm pretty comfortable with them, but the landscape- It was my 1st time on the field..(as in special attention for landscapes) also, 1st time I used a telephoto to shoot mammals. Earlier I used to complain about the insufficient reach of the 300/4 for birds, but now I realise its sufficient for mammals..the deers were 300ft from me..of course, i did crop the telephoto images to some extent..