What is Digg?205 Comments
- ferrell, on 08/17/2008, -6/+162CORRECTION:
5 decent HDR images.
30 overdone halo-infested monstrosities. - sock2828, on 08/16/2008, -26/+101this is one of my favorite HDR photos it looks just like a color pencil drawing
http://www.flickr.com/photos/altus/675961199/sizes ...
credit on this photo goes to "altus" this is his photo stream http://www.flickr.com/photos/altus/ - DrCalculus, on 08/17/2008, -4/+73Once again, most of these "best of" HDR shots blow. They are all so overdone that they are full of halo's.
- jstohler, on 08/16/2008, -7/+65Nothing against HDR itself, but I can't produce a decent one to save my life. I suck at HDR.
- masterc, on 08/17/2008, -0/+49That would be RAW, not RAR.
- annoia, on 08/17/2008, -3/+50These photos look bad... They are made by applying a filter (as are all HDRI images), but this one makes nasty artifacts. When looking at bright edges, the surroundings are darkened. I have played around a bit with HDRI and have made an example. This is the same image using two processes:
http://flickr.com/photos/annoia/2506831468/
http://flickr.com/photos/annoia/2506054765/
While the first one definitely looks nice, and pleasing, it does not look true to life. Compared to the 2nd one it's... Artistic, not realistic. A lot of the photos in this top 35 are made using the artistic method. To me it's not capturing a great image, it's distorting a mediocre one. - JayKeaton, on 08/17/2008, -3/+49Anyone else sick of this "amazing" and "mind blowing" HDR photos? I know it's the latest fad right now, but isn't enough enough?
- darkane, on 08/17/2008, -6/+49Changing the title to 'hide' the fact that this was already submitted 159 days ago just makes you look like an *****.
- BRENTON8907, on 08/17/2008, -2/+41No offense that is not HDR. HDR is meant to make photographs cover all the colors in a scene to more realistically portray it.
- SLockhart, on 08/17/2008, -1/+39Buried for sensationalist headline.
- LoudMusic, on 08/17/2008, -1/+37Now I'm curious - how are they doing HDR with things in motion?
- rickyrodd, on 08/17/2008, -9/+44These look better than real life, I need HDR Eyes.
- ElGanyan, on 08/17/2008, -4/+32That's ugly as sin and no where near a true HDR image. To each his own though.
- Spuy767, on 08/17/2008, -2/+28Half of these aren't real HDR pictures, just a faux HDR filter applied to a nice picture. Unless you have three cameras set up, and synchronized perfectly, you can't really take a real HDR picture of a moving target, HDR is great for landscape photography, but it's use is pretty limited beyond the realm of art.
- raskali, on 08/17/2008, -0/+22I'm sick of false hype. Buried.
- Jeffler, on 08/17/2008, -3/+24***** RAW, I want instant compression *****
- essjay, on 08/17/2008, -3/+22Thats the sort of HDR picture I hate. HDR pictures really shouldn't look like pencil drawings at all, if they do, something's gone horribly wrong.
- gravis86, on 08/17/2008, -0/+18HDR can be done with one picture taken in RAW format, then adjusting the exposure balance in photoshop or the like, creating multiple exposures from the same file. Then those file can can be imported into Photomatix, which won't know the difference and now you have an HDR.
It's not as good as True HDR with multiple exposures, though. - inactive, on 08/17/2008, -1/+18This is like a recurring bad dream. If I saw 25 of the most amazing HDR images on the front page last week, are these supposed to be more amazing than them? I'm amazed at how easily we are supposed to be amazed. Simply amazing.
- Nepenthes, on 08/17/2008, -0/+14I have mixed emotions. On the one hand, I just saw 35 amazing photos, on the other hand, that's it. They were the best. They were the:
"Top 35 most amazing HDR images I will ever see".
So that's it, it's all downhill from here. I will never see better, I will never be *more* amazed. You'd think I'd get some comfort from the certainty of knowing the upper bound of amazement I will ever see from an HDR image, but I don't. I feel kinda sad, somehow that little glimmer of hope that one day I'd follow a link and "BAM! It's number 36 sucka!" kept me going.
So, a call to arms, it's not to late:
FIGHT HDR IMAGE AMAZEMENT PRE-DESTINATION!!! - Supernova36, on 08/17/2008, -0/+13Some yes, some no. Remember: Don't overdo it people!
- m4xn00b, on 08/17/2008, -0/+12MY EYES ARE VOMITING!!!
- thegrantman, on 08/17/2008, -1/+13Yoda..... is that you,man?
- morriwi, on 08/17/2008, -3/+15Overrated.
Buried. - yetimonster, on 08/17/2008, -0/+11i can hook you up
- rheaume, on 08/17/2008, -0/+10Oh god...
/gets a bad feeling before clicking link
edit:
Yep, feeling confirmed. I like maybe 5-8 of those, the rest are photoshop hack jobs, even if its different exposures, Ive seen that look for years with overused filters and lack of experience. - flashpanda, on 08/17/2008, -1/+11To expand upon that, RAW files straight out of most DSLRs contain a huge dynamic range compared to a single jpeg out of a P&S. As such, the different exposure frames required can be extracted from the single file without too much noise. Although doing seperate exposures is the correct way to do it.
- teh_spazz, on 08/17/2008, -2/+12I already saw the top 10 two weeks ago.
- gothicform, on 08/17/2008, -0/+9More like the top 35 over processed HDR images that somehow make photographs look like computer graphics because the photographer has not learned the importance of subtlety. Glowing trees and bright red water... ugh.
- piesforyou, on 08/17/2008, -0/+9Magnes
only because range ıs lost ın the compresıon to JPG. A better defınıtıon would be that a jpg ıs L[ow]DR, RAW ıs normalDR and HDR ıs produced when more than one Range ıs combıned. - splendic, on 08/17/2008, -0/+8Seems like HDR adoption is going two ways. "Realism", and "Hyperealism."
Each has its own aesthetic appeal, and purposes. - ButlerMonkey, on 08/17/2008, -1/+9HDR is the news lens flare. Correction, bad HDR is the new lens flare.
I'm not sure what bugs me more, the abuse and badly implemented use of HDRI or the comments of people who think some of those look good. - nullcodes, on 08/17/2008, -0/+8These images have a computer generated feel to them. They are not really HDR shots.
This really gives HDR a bad name. True HDR does not make the picture look unrealistic and pastel. - stits, on 08/17/2008, -0/+7It really hasn't been accomplished yet in real time. Some people think it's possible with a Red camera. I didn't an experiment with time lapse and HDR. It was about 10,000 images which after running as a batch file in photomatix came out to 3,xxx and then I made the video. The entire process was over half a month.
Here is the example. I have a HD version somewhere and another that's 5k.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stits/2483644275/in/s ... - acidity, on 08/17/2008, -0/+7drop some LSD
- Tron007, on 08/17/2008, -0/+7http://www.thedigitalphotographyconnection.com/pfd ...
- dhaugen, on 08/17/2008, -0/+7you saying that made me think i could do it with mine, but then i saw the picture and it ruined it for me
ass - kaminariko, on 08/17/2008, -0/+6The most amazing ever?
really?
That's kind of disappointing if this is the pinnacle of HDRI.
Now I'm depressed. - piwy, on 08/17/2008, -1/+7That's a tonal mapped HDR. One step after HDR.
- kidcodea, on 08/17/2008, -0/+6burn her!
- jbob2000, on 08/17/2008, -0/+6Yes, and the majority of them don't have a decent resolution. I have a 1920x1200 screen.
- TheSalmonThief, on 08/17/2008, -4/+9Very nice. I'm an aspiring HDR photographer, so here's a shameless plug for my own gallery: http://thesalmonthief.deviantart.com/gallery/
- GawtMilk, on 08/17/2008, -0/+5I think one of the misconceptions about HDR photography is that it can only be done with three photos or more. The dynamic range of one photograph is disputed, but I find it to be around 14 stops when I'm taking a RAW image. If the scene is 14 stops or less, or you have a camera with better dynamic range, then you only need one photograph to turn it into a "HDR"-like image. I wrote a tutorial on my site about how to mimic "HDR" with only one photo.
http://www.onlinephototutorials.com/2008/08/11/bet ...
Yes, it's my site, and yes, it's got ads. If you think I'm just spamming, then bury me and be on your way. However, looking at the article, notice that many of them don't need "HDR" or multiple exposures. The first one especially: if you look at the ground, you'll see it is black. If it were "HDR", the darkness of the ground would be contained inside the dynamic range of the image, and it would appear at least a dark grey, with some detail.
Anyway, if you want to get rid of the "haloes" or unnatural colors in a HDR image, then try following some other techniques. The tutorial that I just posted, for example, has been used since the start of Darkroom Processing - it's a modern equivilent of "dodging" or "burning" an image. Notice how Ansel Adams can get every area of the photo properly exposed, on just one negative? Granted, film has a much higher exposure latitude than digital, but the technique still applies.
In my opinion, when you learn how to use layers and levels [it's easier to use levels, but curves are more advanced. I wrote the tutorial using levels so that beginners could try it too] properly, you won't go back to HDR in the majority of circumstances. - aigulf, on 08/17/2008, -1/+6It's 2 competing views on what makes a good HDRI. I love the ones that are so realistic you aren't fully sure if they're HDRI or not, but there is appeal to the surreal ones as well.
- ozziek, on 08/17/2008, -0/+5Amazing, really?
- inactive, on 08/17/2008, -0/+5Buried for gratuitous use of "most amazing".
- Spuy767, on 08/17/2008, -3/+8That's not a true HDR, that's the faux HDR I was talking about earlier in this post.
- LoudMusic, on 08/17/2008, -0/+5That makes me wonder how much longer before Canon and Nikon start offering HDR as an output method on their cameras.
- eselet, on 08/17/2008, -0/+4This HDR trend has gone too far. most of the pictures in that gallery look horrible. people seem to use hdr just because they can.
It's like website intros a few years ago.
And what happened to the "I" in hdri? - mentor972, on 08/17/2008, -0/+4I've taken a few I'm proud of...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3060/2651527383_91d ...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2651527429_ec7 ...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3291/2652353610_c8e ...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3233/2616130917_dbc ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 207 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
