digg

Join DiggAbout

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at flickr.com

Believe it: This is a Photograph [HDR PIC]

flickr.com — This is absolutely stunning. Almost looks like an illustration.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ispeakasian, on 01/21/2008, -29/+207This kind of picture is actually quite easy to make. I read an article in a magazine (either PC Mag or Pop Sci, I forget which...then again it might have been online. Who knows.) on how to do this. Just take several pictures of the same scene (make sure you use a tripod) with different exposure levels. Then just merge them with Photoshop or something capable of merging pics. And voila! Amaze your friends.
    • Hayaemsay, on 01/21/2008, -22/+9Wait, you just flatten them again? Surely this can be done entirely in photoshop then, if you're just changing the exposure...

      ...Thanks for the tip anyway.
      • mazerrackham, on 01/21/2008, -0/+59It's not that simple. You're essentially compressing the exposure range so that the darkest parts of the photo don't look so dark, and the lightest parts don't look so light. It is supposed to be more akin to the range of tones the brain processes when looking at a scene, but that modern photo sensors aren't capable of reproducing. This one is a cool effect, but it looks overdone to me.

        As for it being simple -- it can be, but when it is done well it takes quite a bit of detail work. Stuckincustoms (a renowned HDR proponent on flickr) has a tutorial of his workflow on his blog (http://stuckincustoms.com/2006/06/06/548/ ).

        You could accomplish the same thing in photoshop with layer masking if you were meticulous enough.
      • Firehed, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4You use layer masks (or the HDR tool) to let the exposure on some layers come through more... but yeah, it's a relatively simple thing.
      • spudnic, on 01/21/2008, -0/+8You can't increase exposure of areas in photoshop, if the data isn't there in the original photo, you can't put it in.

        In simple terms this is what high dynamic range photos do, you have a photo in which light areas are correctly exposed, but the dark areas are underexposed, and another where light areas are over exposed and dark areas correctly exposed, merge the two and you have a photo where the detail of both light areas and dark areas is visible.
        • Spuy767, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Hi, I'd like to introduce you to the RAW format.
          • Fordi, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2RAW doesn't have data from different exposure levels, which means that the fringe -level data can't be trusted as detail.

            What different exposures gives you is the ability to select off 'blown-out' (overexposed) and 'blacked-out' (underexposed) areas.

            A good autobracketer uses an energy function to determine which of N exposures contains the most detail. It then equalizes each photo so that the photos each occupy 100/N percent of the colorspace in their most detailed areas. It then assembles the photos using this data into a smooth and detailed image, with all color ranges containing the visible detail the human eye would have.

            Ideally speaking, each pixel of a CCD would have an analog range that's converted into a dynamically scaled digital signal, kind of like each CCD element having a photoreactive lens that can report how dark it's gotten, or a layered set of semi-transparent CCD elements that can be preprocessed into a 30 bpc image (or 8 bpc, if you want a JPEG and don't mind compressing the range).
        • fluorite, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1RAW does not get around the low signal to noise ratio in shadow areas. HDR does, by using longer exposure to bring out shadow detail.
    • osbjmg, on 01/21/2008, -38/+11Quite easy? Show us some quick snap shots of yours.
    • SleepingOrange, on 01/21/2008, -26/+172It is that easy. osbjmg..... None of us do this technique because it's pretty lame.

      step 1: own a camera capable of bracketing exposures (ie canon rebel or Nikon D40)
      step 2: know how to take a bracketed exposure (+1, 0, -1 ev or greater)
      step 3: take a bracketed exposure
      step 4: download photomatix basic (free)
      step 5: merge 3 or more bracketed shots in photomatix.
      step 6: upload to flickr
      step 7: get dugg by generally clueless diggians.
      • Brenner14, on 01/21/2008, -2/+44Dugg for "diggians."
      • breezytrees, on 01/21/2008, -2/+5no expensive camera necessary. My $200 sony w80 has the feature you speak of and it takes beautiful photo's.
      • shaka999, on 01/21/2008, -0/+22I guess that beats out what it takes for a "normal" picture.

        1) Own Camera
        2) Take Picture
        3) Upload to Flickr

      • Jookly, on 01/21/2008, -3/+45If people like the look it doesn't make them clueless, its art man.
        • DucoNihilum, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1The fact that they think this is something revolutionary and something never done before makes them clueless.
      • duccodude, on 01/21/2008, -3/+13where's the profit step?
        • quisph, on 01/21/2008, -0/+8Hopefully, it's dead from 10 years of overuse.
        • 31213121, on 01/21/2008, -2/+131) Notice that profit step isn't used anymore
          2) Start using it again
          3) ???
          4) PROFIT!
      • noisician, on 01/21/2008, -2/+16how is this technique lame? looks like a good result to me.
        sure, we they don't lal need to be posted to digg, but that doesn't mean it's not a great technique.
      • raynar, on 01/21/2008, -11/+1All you do is open a photo, change the (whatever it is in curves) to -128, save it. change it to -64, save as a different name. change to 0, save...keep going until you have 5 pictures.

        Open them all, do the 'merge to hdr' in photoshop, and choose the darkest picture to be -2, next darkest to be -1,and so on. Finally hit ok, and there you have it. Tweak colors, post on flickr, and you're done.
        • MikeGrenade, on 01/21/2008, -0/+7That's pseudo-HDR and the quality doesn't even approach a true HDR photo. True HDR brings out details in shadows and highlights which are otherwise completely missing (And would NOT be recovered with curves in photoshop).
          • raynar, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Maybe its levels, not curves. Whatever, play with it and you'll see.

            Plus, these HDR photos look like crap.
          • DucoNihilum, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1You totally missed the point altogether.

            It is ONLY recoverable with TRUE HDR, as in, more than one exposure!
      • stealth45, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4The d40 doesn't have a bracketing feature, you have to do it manually.
        • garf12, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2Which is retarded! I have the D40x and was really pissed when I learned of this.
          • SurrealDream, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1You technically could still do it, but you'd need to manually change the exposure setting before each capture, so if you nudge the tripod or even slightly alter the angle, they won't align and all that effort will have gone to waste :(
    • uker, on 01/21/2008, -12/+1i sincerely dont think it to be a photoshop.
      • NathanielJ, on 01/21/2008, -0/+21I heard that Tokyo was actually drawn with pencil crayons.
    • MrHooper, on 01/21/2008, -13/+13wow, you read an article! I guess you have some great images then. Can we see? While you are right in describing the generalities of the process, getting this kind of graphic treatment is nowhere close to easy. Kind of like saying, painting like Rembrandt is easy, because I read an article about paints, and all you need is a canvas and some brushes. I'm not saying this work is at that level of expertise, but I am saying your comment is at that level of insight.
      • DucoNihilum, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1The composition of the photo, setting, etc was the difficult part..... The actual creation of the HDR WAS in fact easy.

        I took a few just recently of me in a plane. They didnt turn out great, but it's HDR.
    • VenDrake, on 01/21/2008, -15/+27Lemme get this straight:

      1. Take the exact same picture several times
      2. Combine the pictures into the one picture.
      3. ???
      4. Profit!
      • CondiRice, on 01/21/2008, -8/+23. You put the lime in the coconut

        now lemme get this straight!
      • lazersailer, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3But PhotoGnomes don't exist.
      • buckrogers1965, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Wow, that is so funny. And original.
    • xsidekick409, on 01/21/2008, -2/+30This technique is far from easy, and most images made through merging to an HDR image look super realistic rather than the digital painting quality this image has. Finding the correct light for a nice HDR image is harder than it looks. The best light for these images occurs twice on a completely clear day, dawn and dusk, for 30-60 minutes.
      So basically, pressing a button and merging a few images together in a step by step process is easy, but if you believe thats all that goes into making a great photograph, you won't produce something like this.
      • emorphien, on 01/21/2008, -0/+14Dawn and dusk are considered the best lighting for all styles of photography, but there's nothing that makes them particularly important for HDR. HDR works just as well midday, at midnight or indoors. It's all about finding the right dynamic range in the scene and then merging properly.

        I'd also say it's easy to do. To do well, and have a photograph worth some merit is more challenging, but that's always the case.
    • bebop717, on 01/21/2008, -12/+1Example of a great HDR artist
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/mariposa-de-amor/1511 ...
    • smrekar, on 01/21/2008, -0/+17buried for lack of understanding.
      MErging to HDR is easy, there are plenty of tools. tonemapping is not easy. I would love to see some of ispeakasian's HDRs. It is like saying racing indy cars is easy, it is just like driving but faster. the concept is easy to understand, the process is not easy to do.
      • Chirp08, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2yes there are many extremes of hdr, this is one of them. I think the best HDR images are where the result is so subtle that photo just has that extra clarity and depth, but you can't be positive its HDR or not.
      • DarkSamus, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1having driven indy cars professionally i can tell you that it's fairly easy so next time you talk, look around to see if there are any racers around
      • palmer, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Should've buried it as inaccurate, for calling it an HDR picture. It's actually low-dynamic-range, obviously, because its range was drastically compressed to produce this look. Not to mention that JPEG doesn't hold HDR images and browsers don't handle them either.

        It's unreal how pervasive ignorance is.
    • centran, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2If this was done in Photoshop then it wouldn't look like that. Well, you could make it look like that but with great effort.
      The easier way and the way the photography is to use a program called photomatrix.
      I normally hate that program cause is makes it too easy and people come up with horrid images. However, this guy did a good job.
    • Topher06, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Yes, that is how you make an HDR photo, however this one looks very much manipulted to give it that illustrated effect.
    • theprez, on 01/21/2008, -3/+1Or you could take 1 RAW image and do the rest in Photoshop. And I don't think it's as "easy" as you think.
      • b0rna, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1No you cant. A RAW image is still just one frame, with one exposure.
    • rootneg2, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1This one is actually a little sloppy, although very good for being (apparently) shot handheld. There are a lot of bizzarre edging artifacts in the detail.

      For HDRs you really need to use a tripod (and use the timer, so as not to bump) or a camera that saves raw image data.
    • papaslurp, on 01/21/2008, -0/+8Making a souffle is actually super easy, I saw a recipe for it one time. You just combine the ingredients and bake it.
    • GawtMilk, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1HDR is fine. The problem is that people do "fake" HDR by downloading Photomatix, stop looking for composition and interesting scenes, and start taking photos of the local apartment block / sculpture at sunset with a tripod. It's one of the problems with Flickr...people don't know what the hell they're doing*, follow other peoples styles, then get spammed with "WOW BEST SHOT EVER JOIN MY GROUP BEST SHOTS EVER! YOU'VE BEEN GOLD STARRED!"

      *Case in point.
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/mariposa-de-amor/1511 ...
      • hobbers, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1lol, wow. i do a few hdr shots here and there. and i can attest to that being a ***** photo. basically you can slide the modifiers all over the place and just get random looking pictures like that. There's no composition or anything, just a giant burned out shot. Yet people still love it? Are those comments all fake? I don't get it ... Maybe I should start posting my stuff on flickr and make money from advertisements by directing people to my website.
    • shinigami052, on 01/21/2008, -0/+0Heh "easy" is not the way i'd describe the process to doing this. It may have been easy to read it in a magazine but it is not easy to get the picture to look like that.
  • danielce, on 01/21/2008, -59/+28But still it's a very cool photo, and if you haven't made any it seems rather ostentatious to claim that its soooo easy.
    From now on I will HATE you forever "Ispeakasian," you and your family!
  • chaddles, on 01/21/2008, -23/+978Believe it: This is a heavily retouched Photo
    • orangetiki, on 01/21/2008, -10/+6thank you
    • xsidekick409, on 01/21/2008, -11/+3My question is how? Did he develop his own filter? Did he paint it on his own? Does the filter already exist in the program?
      • rudezombie, on 01/21/2008, -0/+11As explained above, using a tripod, you take several photos of the same scene at different exposures. Then, feed them all into a program like Photomatix and it automatically blends them all together. It's an extremely easy effect to create, to be honest. The real trick is actually to avoid having the end result look like the image posted, and toning down the colors & saturation to make it look vibrant, but somewhat natural. Like so: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bregosanto/2206805085 ...

        Personally I think it's kind of a cheap overused trick, but occasionally it can produce some neat results.
        • centran, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2He used the trick properly. While I normally prefer natural looking hdr; this guy did a good job tone mapping.
          It is not too much where it seems other worldly. The buildings do not have a halo effects around them. The sky is well done(for this type of photo). My only complaint is th noise("grain")
      • elipabst, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3No, it's an HDR image, which is essentially merging several individual photographs of the same scene taken with different exposure settings. You then get interesting effects like this. However, most of the time when you see an HDR image you can tell because the contrast would be impossible to get with a single exposure.
    • YouandWhoseArmy, on 01/21/2008, -2/+8It's a digital image which is very different than an actual photograph.
    • theRIAA, on 01/21/2008, -5/+12this isn't retouched, it's 3 pictures combined
      • khellendros1984, on 01/21/2008, -3/+11You don't call that retouched?
        • burrgrinder, on 01/21/2008, -6/+0It's retouched, but not "photoshopped" as you could do this without a computer. Sort of a grey area.
        • MrFisty, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Huh? I work in graphic design and I'll clarify it for you: you use Photoshop on an image, that image is now Photoshopped. And you could probably do it without a computer, it would just take six times longer and cost you a ton of cash if you happen to be a freelancer.
          • crash331, on 01/21/2008, -0/+7I have to disagree with you here, as will anybody that uses RAW format. Simply opening an image in photoshop and tweaking the exposure, contrast, saturation, etc. is not "photoshopped". Sure, you used photoshop to do it, but the accepted use of the term photoshop means that you altered the photo in some way so that it deviates from reality.
          • GawtMilk, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1It is Photoshopped. Much like adjusting the contrast, tonal range, etc in a dark room means it's been given "Darkroom Treatment". Just beacuse people associate Photoshop with adding people to crowds, pasting in a better exposed moon in night photos or duping photos of the war in Iraq, it doesn't mean you should help perpetuate their idiotic perceptions.
        • L0g1X, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1It IS retouched.
          This is not a HDR photo. This is a HDR photo tone mapped to a non-HDR photo. Tone mapping is photo editing.
          Take 3 exposure > Combine to HDR > Tone map (compressing of the tones to reveal the most details) > Save as non-HDR file
    • Bornhuetter, on 01/21/2008, -2/+10The reflections are all wrong
    • Daggity, on 01/21/2008, -4/+11...Naruto?
    • eggiro, on 01/21/2008, -11/+5Filter > Artistic > Film Grain
      Crtl - J
      Filter > Artistic > Paint Daubs
      Lower Opacity
      Go to background layer.
      Filter > Noise > Add Noise
      Adjust Brightness/Contrast

      It MAY be real. But it definitely could've been done in PS.
      • SleepingOrange, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1buying photoshop and a nice camera.... $2000

        Posting crap on digg and looking like a complete tool in the process.... priceless
    • FullTangViper, on 01/21/2008, -3/+2no it's 3 real images comined using a program, it has not been altered but it wasn't a sing;e photo.
    • RedHerringHack, on 01/21/2008, -2/+3Do you know what HDR even is? You take 3 photos, -2 , 0 , +2 exposure. Then you paint with the three layers, adjusting transparency. The amazing thing is that it was shot *handheld*. Very nice shot.
      • pilotlicense, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1I agree with you that it's a beautiful shot, but cameras these days will take those three photos at the same instant (called bracketing, I'm sure you already knew). So the fact that it was handheld isn't quite so impressive in my opinion.
      • palmer, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3Apparently YOU don't know what HDR is, or you'd know that this picture (and all those like it) are NOT HDR. In fact, they're LDR, because their dynamic range has been drastically compressed to produce that cartoonish image. JPEG does not support HDR, nor does your browser.
        • bioalchemist, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1What are you smoking? High Dynamic Range means that you can see areas of extreme brightness correctly exposed while at the same time seeing detail in areas of extreme shadows that have been correctly exposed. It has nothing to do with the fact that the image itself does not display those extreme tonal ranges.
  • LmaoTzu, on 01/21/2008, -52/+12Believe it: You saw this on Reddit over 9000 minutes ago [I LIKE TO COPY STUFF]
  • chris9902, on 01/21/2008, -12/+6It looks like concept art.
  • vroom101, on 01/21/2008, -13/+7oh how i wanna believe! -- truly, i am trying! -- buuuuuuuuuuuuut . . .
  • MrTonic, on 01/21/2008, -5/+312Just another HDR-image. Yea, It's good looking and good work, but it is not something "new" nor something to "believe". And when you say it's a photograph, well... it is not. It is made from photos, and edited.
    • SleepingOrange, on 01/21/2008, -7/+4HDR is easy to do....

      http://www.hdrsoft.com/download.html
    • Misogyny, on 01/21/2008, -3/+12What determines a photograph? If I make a double exposure in the camera is it still a "real" photograph? What if I use a filter, or some other in-camera modification? What if I use PS to clone out some distractive element or fix my exposure? At what point does the data from the CCD stop being a photograph and starts being something else?
      • wicketr, on 01/21/2008, -9/+4My GENERAL rule, is if it still looks real and no objects have been added/moved, then i'll still consider it a photograph. It it looks like a ***** cartoon, then it's not a photograph anymore.
        • GawtMilk, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1That's a lame rule. Long exposures from a cheap camera at high ISOs will merit results similar to this without any HDR programs.
      • joshuaer, on 01/21/2008, -1/+4When you do more then general clean up in photoshop that's when!
    • AROZ, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Damn right, it's unfortunate to see uncreative stuff be so popular. Apply that basic technique to any scene and get wild colours and people to gush.
  • implied, on 01/21/2008, -14/+3Prove it
  • Zippo, on 01/21/2008, -6/+62If you look at the original, full-size photo ( http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2111167098 ... ) you can tell that it really is a photograph. Heavily adjusted and modified, but a photo never-the-less. Pretty cool.
    • kuyman, on 01/21/2008, -0/+9Someone didn't use a tripod :)
      • hobbers, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1He has another shot that says it was a hand held HDR. Looked good for hand held. But it's still pretty ***** alignment between the exposures. Here's one I did that lined up really well.

        http://tinyurl.com/2vtlck
    • ZeRux, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3Doesn't look that much different to me than the HDR version.
    • ThreeDee912, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Talk about camera noise and chromatic abrasions...
    • AdmiralKarelia, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1I never thought I'd find a picture that's too big. Damn.
  • crazyeyezkilla, on 01/21/2008, -29/+11hdr is lame. buried.
    • SleepingOrange, on 01/21/2008, -5/+1http://www.hdrsoft.com/download.html

      ^ lame because it is as easy as owning a bottom of the barrel DSLR and downloading a free program to do it.
      • dreesemonkey, on 01/21/2008, -3/+2No, it's lame because everyone with your ULTRA SWEET AWESOME DOWNLOAD NOW FREE software can do it. And it's overdone.
    • swordedge, on 01/21/2008, -2/+2Records, FM, Digital radio, CD's are all lame, 78's rule!
      and if you believe that I have some beach front property to sell you
      I expect to be able to buy cameras that can do HDR upon taking the picture. The spec is out there and it is a matter of time before it gets here. HDR or High Dynamic Range is simply allowing more then 256 shades of red, blue and green. Our eyes can see far more than 256 shades so HDR tries to put that onto paper.
      • crazyeyezkilla, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1I know what HDR is. Even with the bracketed exposure, you're still limited by the tonal range of the paper or your monitor or whatever. HDR doesn't let you view any more colors or tones than usual, unless you have a special monitor. If it's done right, it just looks like a a well-exposed photograph, but 9 times out of 10 it just looks like some CGI *****.
  • 10goto10, on 01/21/2008, -1/+30I've seen illustrations that looked less like an illustration than this photoghraph.
    • jd33, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2I've seen illustrated photographs that looked more like photographed illustrations than this photo that looks suprisingly illustrated.
  • ValVedRaY, on 01/21/2008, -16/+5BELIEVE IT!.... lol reminds me of naruto hah
  • entrophize, on 01/21/2008, -6/+87I believe it's a photograph.

    I also believe this:

    - software: Photomatix Pro 2.5.3 on MS-Windows XP

    ...come on. It's only a photograph until some kid shops it up.
    • leoedin, on 01/21/2008, -3/+43 photographs actually! Read the blurb.
    • kaplanfx, on 01/21/2008, -0/+8It's had computer processing, but not what you usually think of when you talk about "shopped" photos. It doesn't seem to be modified other than the HDR technique. Photomatix combines the 3 different exposures.
  • Shirleycakes, on 01/21/2008, -28/+84Ahh, HDR - The crutch of a bad photographer that allows a boring photograph to become "art".
    • Misogyny, on 01/21/2008, -11/+26Photography, the crutch of a bad artist that allows a boring subject to become "art". It's not the tool, it's the user.
    • SleepingOrange, on 01/21/2008, -10/+5that is the truth.
    • JimmyIkon, on 01/21/2008, -1/+15Does that mean that photography is the crutch of a bad painter?
      • fejai, on 01/21/2008, -3/+0I don't see how that statement makes any sense; a cheesy effect in one medium vs. comparing one medium to another? Care to explain?
        • JimmyIkon, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2It's a rhetorical question. You can use any tool/effect you want. The goal is to create something interesting. HDR can be used to bring more detail out of an image. That said, I'm not a big fan of overdoing it, but some people like that effect.
    • bieber, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3If their work has no merit other than the medium it's created with, then yes, it does :/
    • MikeGrenade, on 01/21/2008, -2/+2I'm not so sure Shirleycakes is condemning HDR so much as some of its users. Did they cut reading comprehension from gradeschool after I graduated or what?
      • Shirleycakes, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Yes, they did. Thank you for reading between the lines.
    • bbqsalad, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3I have seen a lot of good and a lot of bad hdr's. I do see it used a bit much sometimes and on some photos where it shouldn't have. But the same goes with any type of post work.. Contrast, Saturation, Over and Under exposing... There is a lot of people into digital photography and people want to experiment. This is definitely a nice HDR by my standards. Wanna link us to some of your non-boring "art" ?
    • Soave, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1HDR looks great when you use it in a realistic fashion. If you use it extremely heavily, it can look like crap. But if you use it to more accurately recreate what your eyes sees, then it's great.

      That said, HDR can be used to make some awesome surreal photographs.
  • cjmal, on 01/21/2008, -12/+9This particular image is an example of a good HDR, most of the other ones that get dugg up are crap.
    • erzz, on 01/21/2008, -4/+3You have no idea what you are talking about. This is the digital equivalent of colouring in a photograph with your crayons.
    • omgJOHN, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Your joking right? This photo looks like crap and it's obvious the guy has no idea when using HDR is actually a good idea.
    • matthew.paul, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1so true. HDR should be used to make up for a digital camera's lack of HDR, not to make it into a cartoonish crayon drawing. If HDR is done properly, you shouldn't be able to tell.
    • darny, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1you're not actually SUPPOSED to be able to notice HDR was used. That's how you know it was used properly.
  • heartcoldfusion, on 01/21/2008, -3/+40Sweet, Photomatix has taken what were supposed to be super-realistic pictures with better colors and better lighting and made them look like computer rendered scenes. And everyone seems to love it!?
    • cjmal, on 01/21/2008, -3/+2Apparently only 242 people so far, not 'everyone'.
    • bbqsalad, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2It looks good and it works for the image. Why not? Because there is some rule book for photography and post work? It should all look the same and be realistic? I say experiment and try other thing's.
  • AssShanks, on 01/21/2008, -0/+11I wonder if you can do that same effect with video? That would make for an amazing and original look for a movie! Anyone know if it would be possible?
    • DeepNarcosis, on 01/21/2008, -4/+1I believe that's kinda the look they were going for in the new Speed Racer movie, check for yourself, not sure if it's the same
      technique, but it sure looks similar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO2jcwgIi8o
    • jimbobaii, on 01/21/2008, -2/+5Some people have been using time lapse HDR photography to create interesting looking movies - here's one;

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=0iLfqpIaKCs&feature=rel ...
      • joshuaer, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3that did not look that good maybe it was just the crap ass youtube compression
    • Scrappy1850, on 01/21/2008, -5/+1a scanner darkly
      • tjm8660, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3Scanner Darkly was rotoscoping, not HDR
    • Soave, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2It's a little tougher because you have to take 3 frames for every 1 normal frame (bright, normal, and dark), so with motion it's a little harder. I'm sure it's possible though.
    • cassaffousth, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1You should use three cameras together.
  • mikehill33, on 01/21/2008, -7/+2that is awesome!
  • chingy1788, on 01/21/2008, -7/+1to make it look like art eh?
    just get some photo to art effects and apply it...
    my printer can print out with some art effect, ill just print it and rescan it in
    heh
  • typo900, on 01/21/2008, -12/+6When i was a boy, i use to run around for hours throwing strawberries at funny looking people, who i later learned were just old.
    • xister, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2That's great- what's your next story, Hemingway?
  • RashkinBlog, on 01/21/2008, -6/+5Beautiful photo! I love this still!
  • Michas, on 01/21/2008, -9/+4WTF!
  • martinherrera, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4yeah, i think the tone mapping of photomatix makes it look too fake. The HDR Merge in photoshop produces more realistic looking renders.
    • emorphien, on 01/21/2008, -1/+6Don't overdo the tone-mapping in Photomatix. The Photoshop HDR merge isn't as good as the one in Photomatix, and photomatix offers a lot more control and customization of the resulting image in a much nicer way. Images like this one are just the results of idiots going off the deep end
  • rderveloy, on 01/21/2008, -5/+69This isn't a real HDR picture. In a properly done HDR, the point is to make the image more lifelike than a regular picture, not make it look CG or like it came out of a video game.

    Don't get me wrong; this picture is really cool and I enjoy seeing pictures like this as an art style. However, please don't confuse this with real HDR pictures.

    Here are some examples of real HDR pictures:
    http://www.flickr.com/groups/realhdr/pool/
    This is one of my favorites:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/23183960@N00/79656254 ...
    • tylas, on 01/21/2008, -2/+7Thing is with art, all you have is the tools and you can use them to make what ever you want. Fortunately, there are no real rules in art. Just because he makes them look surreal doesn't make them less real, as long as he makes it with HDR pics then that is what it is. It's just a form of expression

      Your tomato is his tomatoe.... (sounds better in person)
    • Misogyny, on 01/21/2008, -3/+5HDR is a technique not an end result. Just because you may think the point is to make a more "realistic" image, doesn't make this guy's technique any less valid, or any less an example of HDR.
    • juniorb, on 01/21/2008, -3/+2Well said.
    • emorphien, on 01/21/2008, -2/+3You don't appear to understand what an HDR is. In general terms as mentioned it's a photographic technique. This is a bad example if you're interested in good photography/art but a good example of what it is capable of.
    • crossmr, on 01/21/2008, -6/+1What's the point of HDR if you're going to shrink everything down to 500x333 and not allow original sizes to be viewed..
    • centran, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3I have been saying for a long time that there needs to be two names for these types of photography.
      HDR should be the name for normal realistic hdr. Then these tone mapped photos need a different name. hdr-tm?
      A lot of the tone mapped photos are taken too a horrid extreme. This guys photo is really well done.
    • rderveloy, on 01/21/2008, -1/+5@tylas & Misogyny
      I should have clarified a bit more. In normal and professional photography, the point of an HDR picture is to obtain a more realistic representation of the light.

      From Wikipedia:
      "The intention of HDRI is to accurately represent the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes ranging from direct sunlight to shadows."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_im ...

      Note the use of the term "accurately." It is blatantly obvious that this isn't an accurate photograph. Simply maintaining that this is just an artistic representation, doesn't change what an HDRI is. As the old saying goes, "the tail does not wag the dog." Additionally, using the same tools are used to make HDR photographs doesn't make this an HDRI. A mason and a sculptor may use similar tools, but that does not make one the same as the other.

      That being said, you should have read this line from my comment more carefully:
      "Don't get me wrong; this picture is really cool and I enjoy seeing pictures like this as an art style."

      I never said I didn't appreciate the artistic value of these types of photographs. I said just the opposite. In fact, I make pictures like this as a hobby. I just think that simply classifying such photos with the broad label of HDR is a bit of a misnomer since it obviously uses a different technique than realistic HDRIs.

      Just as realism and impressionism are different art movements when it comes to paintings, I believe it's not unreasonable to distinguish different types of HDR photographs.
    • marco4, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1@rderveloy
      Based on the Wikipedia article you quote, this image definitely meets Wikipedia's definition of an HDR image. HDR is defined based on a process and a set of techniques. It is not defined by someone's opinion of realism.

      The point of an HDR image TO YOU might be to create a more realistic image, but I don't think that is everyone's intent, and certainly I don't think a non-realistic HDR image negates the "process" and the "set of techniques" that were used that MAKE it an HDR image.
  • gooovil, on 01/21/2008, -8/+1Doesn't look like from camera as we don't see the presence of noise.
    • Misogyny, on 01/21/2008, -0/+6What? Look at the hi-res file, there's noise all over the place.
  • Matt-lars, on 01/21/2008, -5/+18DOOOOOOOOOON'T STOP

    BELIEVIN!
    • typo900, on 01/21/2008, -7/+2Tony Soprano was whacked while listening to a song about not stopping in believing.
    • QueEsAmor, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4***** you, that reminded me that's my senior class song. My shame has no end.
    • Privil3g3, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2She took the midnight train going anyyyyyyywhere...

      "hey, is that journey?"
  • liferainrises, on 01/21/2008, -5/+0well well...HDR images have existed for much longer...and there are instances of images million (this is in keeping with the ostentatious claim of the submitter) times better...saw much better stuff long ago.
  • slvrbullet87, on 01/21/2008, -3/+27I believe that once you photoshop that crap out of something it quits being a photo and becomes a computer graphic
    • eSorghum, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1I believe that once you download your image data from your camera to your computer, it becomes a computer graphic. :)
  • emorphien, on 01/21/2008, -5/+14HDRs can be very nice, a lot of fun and a unique way to look at something. This however, is an example of everything that goes wrong with the more accessible and powerful photo manipulation tools available to the community these days. Although I love the digital darkroom, there was something to be said about the less accessible chemical darkroom of yore. You could say that only people with real artistic vision would try something interesting and succeed.

    Now, all you have to do is take 3 differently exposed shots of the same rather pedestrian scene, merge it in some sort of HDR tool, tonemap it to hell and back and people think it's great. Nevermind the fact that this looks like a cartoon and that the sky and other areas in the photo get screwed up by excessive tonemapping, but the composition is poor. Why is there that thing protruding in to the right edge of the photograph? One could go on.

    HDR'ing and tonemapping any old series of photos is a good exercise to learn what those tools can do, but it's not the path to good art.
    • shaka999, on 01/21/2008, -5/+3How's the air up there?

      From down here at ground level this is a pretty cool picture. Its an interesting subject and making look like a cartoon is what makes it cool. Get over yourself....
      • emorphien, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2The air up here is fine. You know the old saying "polishing a turd" don't you?

        The point is that applying a fancy filter or using snazzy post processing techniques to try to dress up a mediocre photograph. If it weren't for the fact that HDR is very in right now, and that this is also heavily tonemapped, nobody would look twice at this as a photograph.
        • jb978, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1i dont know about polishing turds - please explain
    • sassafras1232, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4The composition isn't all that bad. It's got the rule of thirds in effect for both the tip of the crane and the cab's windshields. It's got good leading diagonals in the boom and the truck body. My only complaints are the "thing" you mentioned (yes, it's terrible...) and the fact that the foreground objects interfere with the truck a bit. Although maybe the latter was intentional to add to the "busy" feeling.

      Honestly, I would have liked to see this as an actual well-lit photograph. As it stands the technical gimmickry he used totally overwhelms the image itself.
    • Jpesci, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4There are no "rules" in art. Your condescending tone that there is a right and a wrong way to do something simply isn't the case. If the artist himself is satisfied with it, that's all that matters; get off your high horse and learn to tolerate art more flexibly. If you don't like it, that's fine, but there are no clear cut rules.
      • rderveloy, on 01/21/2008, -2/+3"There are no 'rules' in art."
        Generally speaking, that's true. However, that doesn't mean you should call something it isn't.

        For example, you wouldn't classify an impressionist painting as belonging to the realism movement, would you? You wouldn't classify a modern glass skyscraper such as the Sears Tower as a classical example of gothic architecture, would you?

        I sure hope you wouldn't, as you would appear quite ignorant.

        Same thing here. High dynamic range images (HDRIs) are used to add realism and lighting accuracy:
        "The intention of HDRI is to accurately represent the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes ranging from direct sunlight to shadows."
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_im ...

        This is more of an impressionistic work of art, than a realistic photograph. Hence, it should not be called an HDRI. That doesn't mean it's good or bad, it's just not an HDRI.

        Unless you want to dig your hole any bigger, you should get off your own high horse before asking others to do the same.
        • Jpesci, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1The image was still constructed the same way any other HDR image would be, the only difference is the tone mapping he chose to use. It's a type of HDR. The wide range of light exposure is still there. Who's to say everybody has to conform to "HDR standards" the way you describe? HDR stands for "High Dynamic Range", and as far as I'm concerned, this picture has it.

          You argue that HDRIs have an "intention". Paint brushes have an intention to paint on canvases. That doesn't mean somebody can't use a paint brush to paint a ceramic figurine or something.
          • rderveloy, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1All I'm saying is that it shouldn't receive the same classification as a normal HDRI.

            "Paint brushes have an intention to paint on canvases. That doesn't mean somebody can't use a paint brush to paint a ceramic figurine or something."

            Yes, but they are called different things. That's my whole point. You wouldn't call an oil painting on a canvas a ceramic figurine would you? Could you decorate a ceramic figurine with oil paints? Yes, but then it's usually considered a piece of sculpture and not an oil canvass painting. Could you paint a picture with a ceramic figurine as it's subject? Yes, but then it's considered a painting, and not a piece of sculpture. There are obvious differences, hence the difference in classification.

            Simply because the same tools and similar techniques are used, doesn't mean they're the same. A brick mason and a wood sculptor both use a chisel, but that alone doesn't make them the same thing. Just as color photography and black and white photography both use cameras, that alone doesn’t mean they’re the same. It doesn't mean it's bad or good, just different.
  • bmorlok, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2More like a series of photos combined to have all areas equally exposed. It ios not technically "a photograph" as much as it is many different exposed photos combined.
  • breezytrees, on 01/21/2008, -1/+3Simple to make: take 3 photos. 1 at -2 exposure, 1 at 0, and one at +2... (or at -1,0,1). Use software such as hdrsoft to combine the three photos. Though preferred, no tripod is necessary. The software can line up out of 'sync' photos, so freehand HDR shots are possible.

    Digital camera's nowadays have a built in option where it automatically takes the 3 photos in succession for you. My $200 sony w80 has the feature.
    • TheSarf, on 01/21/2008, -2/+1It's called Bracketing.
    • theutopian, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1Or use a camera with RAW and only take only one picture and then process the other exposures on the computer.
      • centran, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3This is why photomatrix sucks. It allows people to do stupid ***** like that.
        While you are correct that shooting in RAW allows you to play with the exposure, the fact is that the shutter was only open for so long. You really need those different shutter speeds to create a good HDR.
        Shooting in RAW is like shooting with film. It allows you to essential change the ISO of the film. In RAW you can over-expose or under-expose each picture. With film you need to take the film out of the developer early or late so the whole roll is under or over exposed.
      • Jpesci, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1centran is right... I've tried this with RAW images and you simply don't get good results like you would with three real separate exposures.
  • HarryTruman, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2Could a kind soul possibly post a mirror? Flickr is blocked for me. =X
  • NikoK, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1What if we used these images in video games?
    • NathanielJ, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3Then we'd be back in the age of pre-rendered backgrounds.
  • uker, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1look at the conceptional colors, there is a second i agree with above opinions on photoshop. anyway, it must be made from a real photo, rather than merging different ones.
  • JonStark, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1http://bighugelabs.com/flickr/onblack.php?id=20447 ...

    this picture reminds me of FFX when Tidus and the group went inside the numerous temples in Spira
  • imcharming, on 01/21/2008, -5/+1I stayed at a hostel there just recently. Really dirty part of Tokyo. Lost of homeless people and stray cats. But the hostel was surprisingly nice despite the human feces on the small street leading to the hostel left there by said homeless people. I also saw a homeless guy peeing on the sidewalk by the main street by there. Yeah.
  • falafelkiosken, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1view it in original size to see it's real, at first I tought it was CG
  • Brenner14, on 01/21/2008, -9/+3This is a shop. I can tell by the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.
  • ammar456, on 01/21/2008, -2/+2nothing very special about it. its three bracketed shots (normal, high, low exposure) put into an HDR processor (such as photomatix). you then play with the settings to get the effect you want... you can turn them all cartoony or make them look unbelievably real... its up to you. i have a bunch done with HDR on flickr.com/ammar456 but they're closer to real shots than cartoons.
  • kolofon, on 01/21/2008, -3/+4Fugly.
  • mattyd12466, on 01/21/2008, -3/+2looks cool, but its also a very easy effect to get, tripod and a simple dslr, 3+ bracketed images, and load it all into a tone mapping app

    job done
  • kdbarto, on 01/21/2008, -1/+3If you go to the full size view you can see the mis-registration of the multiple photos. Not the best HDR I've ever seen, and still pretty good.
  • DearSergio, on 01/21/2008, -6/+3I don't believe it!!! YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!
  • SLockhart, on 01/21/2008, -5/+2I don't get it. Why wouldn't I believe it was a photo? Of course it's a photo.
  • NCWdigital, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1I like HDR photos, but you can easily take it way too far. Some people just have a heavy hand when it comes to microcontrast.
  • Llanowar, on 01/21/2008, -3/+2Oh my, this should be on Ripley...


    /heavy sarcasm
  • bebop717, on 01/21/2008, -6/+1It's good…but not half as good as this HDR image.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/mariposa-de-amor/1511 ...
    • Kachu, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3"The photo you were looking for has been deleted.
      You might like to ask Oldtasty about it!"
      Or were you talking about the little triangle with the explanation point in it?
  • ishmael2, on 01/21/2008, -3/+21HDR is one of the easiest ways to screw up a picture. It has the potential to look amazing but often times it makes stuff look like crap. This picture isn't the best example of HDR.
  • gamalkik, on 01/21/2008, -8/+9god i hate HDR....
  • krazyxstacy, on 01/21/2008, -1/+0HDR can easily be overdone, but looks very nice and realistic if done right. heres an example: http://flickr.com/photos/ammar456/2169036649/
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.