digg

Join DiggAbout

35 Fantastic HDR Pictures [ Pics ]

smashingmagazine.com — 35 extremely beautiful and perfectly executed HDR-pictures. Some of them might look surreal, too colorful, even magic or fake, but they are not — keep in mind that they've all been developed out of usual photos, and not a single image is an illustration.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • willynilly, on 03/11/2008, -34/+13Buried as INACCURATE. These are LDR, not HDR. JPEG and your browser do not even support HDR, nor does your monitor display it.

    These images have LOW dynamic range: The full range has been compressed to squeeze it into the reproducible range, and even beyond that to create a surreal quality.
    • erikerikerik, on 03/11/2008, -6/+17eh, your right, and your wrong. The images that have the moving birds, eye balls, waves etc etc are most likely "tone mapping." ( http://www.flickr.com/search/groups/?q=tone%20mapp ... ) because to get a HDR image you need at least 3 photos, under/over/properly exposed.

      And lets get back to the issue of HDR shall we? "true," HDR images are composed of 32bit color. way way WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more then what you can see. ever. period end of story. A lot of images are brought down to a manageable size ie, 16bit color. This again is pushing the our limits of what we are able to see with our puny S,M,L (+SM+Ml)cones. Also, with the 16bit color mode your already outside of the Wide-color gamut rang and into "imaginary colors"

      but who's to nit'pick their pretty so. STFU.
      • Sucka27, on 03/11/2008, -1/+14Dugg for getting 'their' and 'your' wrong more in one response than most people get all day.
        • erikerikerik, on 03/11/2008, -7/+3oi'via. what matters more, the message as a whole or the grammar that you are able to read through?
          so, please pardon my dyslexic lil butt for getting that wrong.
          gosh darn gramer'nazi.
        • yojiffyskippy, on 03/11/2008, -2/+3The poor little fella stststudders too (erikerikerik).
      • tpizz, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1If you shoot in RAW you can change the exposure in software
      • Jahweh, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Huamsn can't see in better than 32 bit colour.

        Bollocks, some scientist, or YOU got it wrong.
    • streak, on 03/11/2008, -2/+12I don't know why you're being dugg down, as you're absolutely right: no way the birds stood still in air for a series of multiple-exposure photos. Many of these "HDR" pics are clearly just photoshop manipulations.
      • directedition, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1I think it's all well and commonly understood what 'HDR' entails. The fact that it has different understandings in different disciplines is tragic. But when someone says "HDR photograph" don't act like you don't know exactly what they mean.
        • mesasone, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1I don't really think that's entirely accurate, these images aren't necessarily taken minutes or even seconds apart - my 40D shoots at around 6 FPS in high speed continuous shooting mode - assuming separate exposures as opposed to tweaking the exposure on a RAW file - the difference would be minimal and would trivial to correct, if you even bothered. It would be more inline as a light retouching than an outright photo manipulation.
        • mesasone, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Er, meant to comment on streak's response.
    • h37s3m, on 03/11/2008, -3/+6just enjoy the dam pictures
    • mdude85, on 03/11/2008, -2/+2Um, well, they're not exactly HDR in the traditional sense (because most of them are a combination of bracketing and Photoshop), but you're totally wrong about them being "LDR." That makes no sense. If anything, they would be ultra-HDR.
    • GeorgeClayton, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1What is wrong with people, these are NOT HDR images! You should be getting dug up! Guess it will take some time for people to be educated.

      I'm speaking from 8 years of experience as a CG artist; feel free to disagree if you want, but you'd be wrong.
    • GeorgeClayton, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1EDIT: Oh, I see . . LDR, ha ha, these are not Low Dynamic Range. The term dynamic refers to the exponent, for example 6 x 2^9 as a value for light could be stored as "0110 1001" Usually with HDR storage formats they make the mid-point equal to 2^0 (1), in other words 2^(n/2) [[or sometimes 2^(n/2) +/- 1]] where n = number of bits for exponent storage.
  • DarthShaun, on 03/11/2008, -6/+24Dugg due to these being very awesome images and crying over incorrect wording like a little baby might cramp my style.
    • supasurg, on 03/11/2008, -1/+3well at least he confirmed that they indeed are [pics]
  • hektur, on 03/11/2008, -3/+5Holy smokes! New desktop background(s)!
  • AHHHHH, on 03/11/2008, -14/+26Is anyone else a bit tired of HDR photos?
    • arbouler, on 03/11/2008, -4/+8yes! i hated about 2/3s of the photos on that link.
      i hate how the photos had been excessively photoshopped that they just dont look pleasant anymore. more of an annoyance.
      people should know the limits of HDR cuz they tend to turn out looking as tacky as clothes that come out from Kitson stores...
    • rawrzzz, on 03/11/2008, -1/+7No, I just hate how anyone with Photomatix can take crappy photos and then automatically declare them a professional.

      Some of these are just bad photography.
    • SpookyDIGG, on 03/11/2008, -2/+4No
    • GeorgeClayton, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1I just love the irony about how so-called professionals make themselves look when they throw around words like HDR inaccurately.
      • mesasone, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2It's a technique you dolt. When people refer to HDR in relation to digital photography, they typically are referring to the technique where they compress an extended dynamic range down to what can be represented in a common digital file. Enough of the idiotic chest thumping. I don't see any of these photographers claiming to be professionals. There are far more amateur photographers out there than professionals. It is a HOBBY enjoyed by millions around the world.
  • jd33, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1Dugg for the useful new tips to use while viewing HDR photos. Too often I was getting lost in the magic.
    But seriously, sweet collection.
  • GalacticRerun, on 03/11/2008, -1/+50Wow, just wait til the first HDR porn site gets going! It'll be like web 2.0!
  • NoNamesLeft, on 03/11/2008, -1/+17Sorry but I just don't get the whole HDR thing, I mean granted there are a couple of really nice photos in there but most of them just look over processed, like they have had the 'emboss' filter applied or something.
  • insomniac8400, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4Yea, the originals are real, but these are not.
  • GhostWithToast, on 03/11/2008, -0/+17HDR is a useful technique to get more range out of a scene but doesn't always have to be 'over processed'. A couple of these images illustrate that (eg the lake mountain reflection). That's when it is used most effectively in my opinion.
  • whiteknives, on 03/11/2008, -0/+7Great. It took long enough to get a pictures section. We need an HDR section now....
  • gcacho, on 03/11/2008, -0/+6Will Wright says he (hearts) HDR because it makes cities look like dollhouses and lego towns.
    • ellisgl, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1That's Tiltshift photography isn't it?
  • dstz, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1I didn't see the poster with that smiling dolphin jumping over violet waters in the orange sunset? should be there amongst its peers.
  • joevennix, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2That's awesome.
  • JackHoffman, on 03/11/2008, -1/+13Drop the Photomatix and step away from the computer, Sir! Almost all of those pictures are criminally overdone. It's for pictures what 0dB all the time compression is for audio.
    • LowROI, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1That's a perfect analogy!
    • yournightmare, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1What compressor do you use that allows you to set the output in dB? I've only found limiters/maximizers that do that.
  • jersey, on 03/11/2008, -1/+3Stop it with the 5 HDR posts on the front page per day. And to make it worse, it's always a mix of the same 20 images. Heres an idea: quit reconfiguring played out lists of played out HDR images, and go make some of your own.
  • yongfook, on 03/11/2008, -2/+201. Copy & Paste a bunch of pictures from Flickr
    2. ???
    3. Profit!

    Seriously, these zero-effort digg articles are annoying. Pure diggbait that probably took all of 5 minutes to sling together by trolling through a flickr HDR group. The pictures aren't even attributed properly with the author's name - just a lazy link back to the photo page.
  • kyleokeefe, on 03/11/2008, -5/+1The "fantastic" in the title wasn't needed, HDR Pictures are almost always Fantastic, I love em.
  • diwanifa, on 03/11/2008, -4/+2overly photoshopped nonsense.

    look at some eugene richards if you want some REAL photography.
  • Supernova36, on 03/11/2008, -3/+1Duggmirror is a peice of *****! sort out the images!
  • mogebier, on 03/11/2008, -3/+1Some were very nice, but most were not HDR photographs. I would bet that I could figure out the ones that were only Tone Mapped, and NOT HDR. I know I am being picky, but I hate it when people are inaccurate when describing things. It's not that hard, people.
  • TadhgF, on 03/11/2008, -1/+5Definitely photoshopped!
  • JoshuaLowe, on 03/11/2008, -1/+13HDR is the lens flare of the new millenium.
    • GeorgeClayton, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1It's not, it's immensely useful in CG & could be in photography and retouching. It's just that most people misuse the term HDR.
  • mrm3x1can, on 03/11/2008, -2/+0mirror?
  • elchupucabra, on 03/11/2008, -3/+3Buried for being another collection of the same 20 HDR photographs that make their way to Digg every other day.
  • m0d3s7m1k3, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1http://www.panthersweat.com/photo/HDR/hdr.html
  • schmiggyjk, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Ya know these are sharp and what not but the resolution sucks ass. How can you really appreciate HDR images at such a small resolution via flickr. This is half retarded. I realize that the bandwidth to host full res images may be quite a bit, but at least get us close.
  • Homerr, on 03/11/2008, -1/+5Little bit o' HDR = good.
    Uber-HDR = nasty
  • Pandalume, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1The 11th image down has a Hubble nebula Photoshopped into the sky. Or perhaps it was there all along and it took HDR to bring it out...
    • BigT383, on 03/11/2008, -0/+0Yes, it is apparently an image of the Helix nebula taken by the Hubble Telescope. It would not appear nearly that large in the sky, unless it were either much bigger or much closer.
  • SpookyPig, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2The golden gate one has been my background for a while now... but the others are soon to take its place
  • nomis425, on 03/11/2008, -1/+0simply amazing
  • Yage2006, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4It would be fantastic if they were in higher res. Like 1280x720p even.
    Otherwise not bad.
  • crazyeyezkilla, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2not fantastic.
  • yokes, on 03/11/2008, -1/+8God I hate HDR
    • Me1000, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1that is why Kevin Rose gave you the ability to bury stories
    • GeorgeClayton, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1These are not HDR images. You hate them because they suck, not because they're HDR.
  • mpinhasi, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1website suffers digg effect in 5...4...3...2...1......
  • kruzul, on 03/11/2008, -0/+0Earlier poster here
    http://www.techamok.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7002
  • digdugdog, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Thanks for letting us know the HDR Pictures are [Pics].
  • Thrilltone, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Shooting during the Magic Hour adds vividness naturally.
    Many people focus on the sky at these moments, instead of on the things that are being beautifully illuminated
    http://thrilltone.com/keys
  • ashwinmudigonda, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2Me me me...do me next:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/ashwinmudigonda/15068 ...
  • ShaffeyBoy, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2Does every collection of HDR images need to make it to the front page?
  • gullevek, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2Seeing this makes me more sure why I just dislike HDR. Those look ... aweful.
  • directedition, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3For those who still bitch about the term 'HDR', look at this way. It has WIDE dynamic range. It gets details far into the shadows and highlights. That extended range is what is meant by 'high'. This is commonly used and understood, it's tripping no one up. So stop complaining.
  • bjs3171, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1for a truly good photo, well done HDR is icing on the cake. for a crappy, boring photo, HDR just makes it even more tacky.
  • ShazerFox, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1With all the effort an HDR photo needs, why not make sure the freakin' horizon is straight?
    More proof that Photoshop and an expensive DSLR doesn't make you a photographer.
  • specialK16, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Well I don't care if they are HDR or not, some of those pictures are simply beautiful.
  • toddkay, on 03/11/2008, -1/+0Now this is some proper HDR. Amazing!

    Now can we please let this be the end of it? We all know flickr is full of both amazing and ***** HDR, so theres not really any reason to continue linking to it.
  • nirvaorg, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1was on digg like 10 times already.
  • Sp4rker, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Why isn't this in the video section?
  • Autofac, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1I hate HDR/LDR.

    I'll take the beauty I can capture on my 25 year old film camera over this manipulated BS any day.
    • brad76r, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1right... but other people clearly don't agree with you, hence your photos aren't digged, and these type of photos are.
  • loffeecover, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2HDR = High Digg Rate
  • trollick, on 03/11/2008, -1/+31. Take a boring picture
    2. Apply HDR
    3. Submit to Digg
    4. ?
    5. Profit!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 53 of 53 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.