What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
304 Comments
- chaddles, on 01/21/2008, -23/+982Believe it: This is a heavily retouched Photo
- MrTonic, on 01/21/2008, -5/+313Just 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.
- ispeakasian, on 01/21/2008, -29/+209This 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.
- SleepingOrange, on 01/21/2008, -26/+174It 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. - 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. - rderveloy, on 01/21/2008, -5/+70This 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 ... - 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. - Shirleycakes, on 01/21/2008, -28/+85Ahh, HDR - The crutch of a bad photographer that allows a boring photograph to become "art".
- 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, -2/+50OK! http://flickr.com/photos/kuyman
It really is quite easy. - Brenner14, on 01/21/2008, -2/+45Dugg for "diggians."
- Jookly, on 01/21/2008, -3/+45If people like the look it doesn't make them clueless, its art man.
- 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!?
- guythomas, on 01/21/2008, -1/+32haha! pwn3d!
- 10goto10, on 01/21/2008, -1/+30I've seen illustrations that looked less like an illustration than this photoghraph.
- 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. - bob12321, on 01/21/2008, -5/+30Dugg for "Dugg for".
- 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
- 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 - NathanielJ, on 01/21/2008, -0/+21I heard that Tokyo was actually drawn with pencil crayons.
- 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.
- 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. - inactive, 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.
- 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. - JimmyIkon, on 01/21/2008, -1/+15Does that mean that photography is the crutch of a bad painter?
- BevansDesign, on 01/21/2008, -0/+14Then go back to Reddit.
- 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. - Matt-lars, on 01/21/2008, -5/+18DOOOOOOOOOON'T STOP
BELIEVIN! - 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! - 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?
- 31213121, on 01/21/2008, -2/+131) Notice that profit step isn't used anymore
2) Start using it again
3) ???
4) PROFIT! - 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. - duccodude, on 01/21/2008, -3/+13where's the profit step?
- inactive, 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?
- 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. - kuyman, on 01/21/2008, -0/+9Someone didn't use a tripod :)
- khedoros, on 07/31/2009, -3/+11You don't call that retouched?
- Bornhuetter, on 01/21/2008, -2/+10The reflections are all wrong
- 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. - quisph, on 01/21/2008, -0/+8Hopefully, it's dead from 10 years of overuse.
- 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.
- 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.
- Daggity, on 01/21/2008, -4/+11...Naruto?
- bob12321, on 01/21/2008, -0/+7You know 9000 minutes is 6.25 days.
- inactive, 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).
- 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.
- theRIAA, on 01/21/2008, -5/+12this isn't retouched, it's 3 pictures combined
- inactive, on 01/21/2008, -0/+6What? Look at the hi-res file, there's noise all over the place.
- r0ryb0ryalis, on 01/21/2008, -0/+6Dattebayo...
- YouandWhoseArmy, on 01/21/2008, -2/+8It's a digital image which is very different than an actual photograph.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 305 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is