What is Digg?132 Comments
- WafflesID, on 11/19/2008, -4/+104 realize that HDR is the latest rage and all that, but jesus christ, let's put down the HDR button if it is going to ruin the picture.
- dist0rtedwave, on 11/19/2008, -8/+83That looks like *****
- MyTakes, on 11/18/2008, -10/+81Doesn't look that great.
- Frozo, on 11/19/2008, -7/+68HDR - FAIL!
- dicketj8050, on 11/18/2008, -5/+53meh, there are some pretty ugly blown-out spots if you look not even that close in the highlights, C-
- serif69, on 11/19/2008, -2/+46Dear "photographers",
STOP ABUSING HDR
Love,
All Creative Professionals - tinkafoo, on 11/19/2008, -2/+30STOP WITH THE OVERLY PROCESSED ***** PICTURES.
- saunders45, on 11/19/2008, -3/+23Simply bad. HDR should not = Neon Sign...
- inactive, on 11/19/2008, -6/+24This is awful. If you dugg you're a moron. If you like this, your opinions of art have been rendered moot.
- Crystallio, on 11/19/2008, -0/+16I think he meant that the photographer didn't fully capture the highlights of the scene, so there are some areas with no detail despite this being an HDR photo.
- Jowsley, on 11/19/2008, -1/+17It looks like a screen grab from Oblivion to me
- nicu426, on 11/19/2008, -8/+24If this is front page worthy, I don't think I have faith in Digg anymore.
- Triplewide, on 11/19/2008, -2/+15rubbish
- bieber, on 11/19/2008, -2/+15Wow. Not only is the HDR completely unnecessary and gaudy, but it destroys the paintings: the only thing even remotely artistic in this image :/
- nullcodes, on 11/19/2008, -2/+13THIS IS NOT REAL HDR. THIS IS NOT TRUE HDR. True HDR photography doesn't have this look. You can't tell a true HDR photo from regular photos .. other than the fact that there is a bit more detail and no overexposed or underexposed areas.
Real HDR is not this crap .. this is color enhancement not High Dynamic range photography. Actually this should be called LOW Dynamic Range .. not high.
This crap should be called pastelization (and I dont care if the term is taken). - bsou, on 11/18/2008, -5/+15God: "I'm a firing mah Lazah!"
- djsputnik, on 11/19/2008, -1/+10buried for blown out, over saturated, and general suckage.
- inactive, on 11/19/2008, -1/+9HDR is a bit overdone these days, but this one isn't even executed properly.
- ic0n0clast, on 11/19/2008, -2/+10Shrink the image down a little and it will probably look a little less *****...
- Steev0, on 11/19/2008, -3/+11There's a bunch of messed-up spots on those painting things.
- dNitza, on 11/19/2008, -1/+8Alright! Who covered the Duomo in cling-wrap? .... come one!
- lostarchitect, on 11/19/2008, -0/+6come all?
- thecha, on 11/19/2008, -2/+7My Duomo pics
http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_cha/374839766/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_cha/374839375/ - castevens, on 11/20/2008, -0/+5I guess it's time for me to spam my picture -- but I took this shot using the HDR technique and tried to process it as little as possible so as not to make it too unrealistic, and make it look more like what I saw at the scene, as ophello says. The clouds were intimidating that day:
http://bighugelabs.com/flickr/onblack.php?id=30281 ... - Suricou, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5Medieval churches were made to intimidate - built huge and lavish, to testify to both the glory of God and the immense earthly power and wealth of the churches. Modern churches arn't built with quite the same goals in mind, though some of the American megachurches manage to achieve it through sheer scale.
- Tyrant505, on 11/19/2008, -3/+7why are churches always so scary..
- BXRWXR, on 11/19/2008, -2/+6Have you ever been to Venice Clarice?
- McNally, on 11/19/2008, -0/+4There are numerous Italian cities with a duomo. It is more or less synonymous with "cathedral."
- superkendall, on 11/19/2008, -1/+5The photography is poor, or teh HDR processing is really bad - I'd guess it's more the HDR software at fault, with some pretty nasty artifacts.
The end result is interesting though, being much more artistic than realistic... it could be that was the intent. - lukemit, on 11/19/2008, -1/+4I thought it was a scene from a video game. Couldn't even tell that this was a "real" picture.
- scingram, on 11/19/2008, -0/+3I highly encourage you all to look through the rest of Trey's photostream. The image shown here is one of his earlier works. His talent has tremendously increased since then and his images are amazing (not to mention him being an incredibly nice guy).
Take a look, it's worth your time.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/ - IWDA4, on 11/19/2008, -4/+7EICHE. DEE. ARE!
- scoot2006, on 11/19/2008, -0/+3HDR -- Because apparently real life doesn't look real enough anymore. Needs more bloom!
- Crystallio, on 11/19/2008, -0/+3Milan.
- lostarchitect, on 11/19/2008, -0/+3actually, this is the Duomo in Milan.
- inactive, on 11/19/2008, -1/+4Actually, I looked at the linked version and it looked just like a video game render...and I'm running 1600x1200 rez.
- Suzilla, on 11/19/2008, -1/+4Would have been nice if poster had mentioned WHICH duomo it was. Had to slog through 100 or so digg turds to find out it was Milan.
- WafflesID, on 11/20/2008, -0/+3SEE!!
BEAUTIFUL example.
THAT is why you do HDR processing. - ketchup176, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2Did someone move a car while you were taking this, because the car on the right is transparent?
- Suricou, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2Eclipsed in fame by a turtle of same name.
- TaylorHelferty, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2HDR is beautiful - if done right - but it's no God of photography. This picture at it's original size looks god-awful. Looks alright at Large or medium size though. Still HDR is getting overrated. Not EVERY shot needs to be HDR. Some look better as HDR, some don't. I think this could do without. Still, at a smaller size when you can't see all the blown-out blots, it looks nice.
- jscozzari, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2this man(?) speaks the truth. this stuff has its place, but its giving HDR a bad name
this is how i use HDR, this is the extreme end color wise for me, but this one needed to pop off the page
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jscozzari/2970061259/
its a tool to capture range that you cant do in just one exposure. - cultur3b0mb, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2I agree! Here's an HDR I did over a year ago:
http://tinyurl.com/6zu5yf - slothlovechunk, on 11/19/2008, -1/+3That looks like ***** that comes out after you collect a whole rainbow of different colors of ***** throughout the years and then mix it all up in one big pile of exotic multi-colored *****.
- fotodevil, on 11/19/2008, -1/+3Sorry, but this is terrible. Horribly splotchy looking, and the chromatic aberration is an eye sore. And to top it off, the focus is soft (and it looks like a poor use of Unsharp Mask to cover it up)
- WafflesID, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2I dugg it because it is a perfect example of when NOT to do HDR.
Sometimes you have to digg through the ***** to find gems....
erm...or something like that....I dunno. - mrseemoo, on 11/19/2008, -1/+3It's pictures like this that give HDR a bad name. There is nothing wrong with the HDR technique as long as people know how to use it!
- kidjay, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2ugh. PRIVILEGE, PEOPLE.
- nublet, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2looks like a scene from gears2.
- cultur3b0mb, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2You know, I never even noticed that! They must have, not that it didn't take me all but 5 seconds to snap the exposures. Good eye!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 134 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is