digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at speckyboy.com

20 Amazing Images That Could Be HDR - But are definitely Not

speckyboy.com — All of these images appear to be shot using the HDR technique, but aren’t. I promise. In most cases they have been taken with a single shot and relied upon the elements to give the amazing effects you will see on each.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jan 27, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

126 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • navstarr, on 01/27/2009, -0/+97What does it matter if it isnt HDR. They've all been heavily edited to get a similar effect.
  • Llanowar, on 01/27/2009, -0/+77Like it said on one picture
    "The RAW was processed in Digital Photo Professional (White balace, luminance, saturation etc. were adjusted)."

    So while they might not be HDR, they might be shopped to look like one.
  • stalman, on 01/27/2009, -1/+64Sorry, but tone mapping is just HDR without the quality. They are processed in exactly the same way, but the quality doesn't stand up at larger resolutions.
  • jterhune, on 01/27/2009, -0/+38Argh! Overdone tone mapping is even worse than HDR.
  • whaambulance, on 01/27/2009, -0/+18They may not be using multiple exposures to avoid the definition of "HDR", but they are using the cheesy photomatix tone-mapping which is the part of the HDR process that makes photos look over-done and unreal. They dropped the only good part of the HDR process which is blending shots to get perfect exposure, and kept the gross halo-inducing tone-mapping. This is completely pointless.
  • directedition, on 01/27/2009, -0/+18They might not be HDR, but they're certainly heavily tone mapped. Most people who complain about the look of HDR are actually reacting to the use of tone mapping, which is heavily associated with it.
  • DirtPile, on 01/27/2009, -0/+16Another frontpage item that could be good, but definitely isn't.
  • Brasky, on 01/27/2009, -0/+16Grammar police are wrong in this instance. Read a ***** book.
  • habkb, on 01/27/2009, -0/+14Ok, nice, cool. Now show us the non photoshopped ones.
  • isukeyo, on 01/27/2009, -1/+15HDR photography is the combining of multiple photographs of a scene, taken at different exposures, to create a single photo that contains the full range of light from all of the photos (for example, if you want to take a photograph of a skyscraper in the day, with a bright blue sky in the background. In such a case, exposing for the building would render the sky overexposed and exposing for the sky would render the building underexposed. Using HDR, you would take one photo correctly exposing the building and a second photo correctly exposing the sky and combine them). The purpose of an HDR image is to have a photograph that closer represents what the human eye sees in a scene (your eyes have the ability see a larger range of light in a scene than a single exposure photograph can capture).
  • Valisk61, on 01/27/2009, -0/+13I love it when grammar Nazi's get it wrong!
  • stonebone4, on 01/27/2009, -0/+12...which kind of defeats the purpose, really.

    The point of HDR is to show a photo with multiple exposures. Since it's not how cameras work, you can't get a photo right out of the camera that has a perfectly balanced ground and sky in the middle of a rain storm. One's either going to be too light or too dark. You can, however, take one photo of the sky correctly exposed and then one of the ground correctly exposed and combine them. This is the basic idea behind HDR. It looks neat, but it's a gimmick and that's all there is to it.

    If you just photoshop non-HDR pictures to give the same effect of everything being properly exposed, it's a step below HDR. That's like a pot with a hole in it calling the kettle black.
  • alexlinebrink, on 01/27/2009, -1/+12Most of these don't count as "not HDR". Barely anyone does TRUE HDR since programs like Photomatix came into play (true being taking multiple exposure and then combining them using HDR processing techniques like Tone-Mapping). Nowadays most people just take one original image, use photoshop to adjust it into multiple exposures, save those off, and then combine them with photomatix and tone-map them. That DEFINITELY counts as "HDR", and at least one of these photographers admits to doing just that. There are obvious signs of this in several of the other photos too. This is just a bunch of photographers who don't want to admit to HDR, or are taking some super-literal approach. I've even seen several of these images listed in HDR galleries before.
  • drshorty, on 01/27/2009, -2/+13That's what I thought. Title might as well be, "HDR imitations." But I didn't realize HDR was defined by the process of finishing the photo. IMO, if you alter the picture and get the same effect, with the same results, it's still HDR, no matter how you got it that way. And it is possible to get the same results without multiple shots, it just isn't authentic.
  • deaconyermouf, on 01/27/2009, -0/+10That was a bathroom I could really see myself getting murdered in.
  • fezzasus, on 01/27/2009, -14/+24am I the only person who doesn't get HDR photos?
  • paloooz, on 01/27/2009, -0/+10"Then imported into photomatix and Tone mapped." = BURIED
  • TheSuperunknown, on 01/27/2009, -0/+8With any luck people will grow out of it, sort of like when everyone discovered photoshop and thought the neon glow and lens flare filters were the answer to everything.
  • ethos101, on 01/27/2009, -0/+8This just goes to show most people don't know what HDR really is. (even the author of that article.)

    That's ok, I still love a nice photograph.
  • Trigonometron, on 01/27/2009, -3/+10Berried
  • DKNUCKLES, on 01/27/2009, -0/+6This is a f/7.1, 1/125 s single exposure in Raw. The RAW was processed in Digital Photo Professional (White balace, luminance, saturation etc. were adjusted). Then imported into photomatix and Tone mapped.

    That would be HDR...photomatrix's sole purpose is hdr photography.
  • annjay, on 01/27/2009, -6/+12are you sure these are not HDR? I just cant believe this...I love few of them.
  • LordRedSnake, on 01/27/2009, -0/+6Yeah sure, most of them are turned into surreal abominations. I like to use HDR techniques to reproduce reality rather than distort it, but it appears that most people using the technique like to take it to the extreme.
  • isukeyo, on 01/27/2009, -0/+5Anyone who has not been formally trained in photography, is not a photographer? Ansel Adams was not formally trained. Annie Leibovitz attended art school, but was not formally trained in photography (I could be wrong, and if I am, I welcome a correction). Therefore, by your very informed opinion, neither is an "actual photographer."

    You have some serious resentment and anger in your post - I would have to guess you must be a struggling photographer who feels overlooked in the art world! Poor you!
  • carlonchox911, on 01/27/2009, -0/+5The writer just took their word for it
  • mac734, on 01/27/2009, -0/+4Totally agree. One person even said, it's not HDR...just tone mapped in photomatix. Tone mapping, oversharpening, and enhancing contrast in minute detail (textures, etc.) are the very same techniques that give photos that "HDR" look. It's really the tone mapping. If you just shot multiple exposures to merge to HDR and left it at that, it wouldn't look that far off from a single exposure.
  • painting, on 01/27/2009, -0/+4people think HDR = beautiful images. When it all it really means is, that an image is both well exposed foreground and background with the use of composite images taken at different exposures. idiots who abuse this technique on images that doesn't require HDR technique, now everyone things HDR is some magical photo making effect machine. These photos might not have a HDR file name but I will bet they used the same technique to achieve the same look.
  • Coffeedemon, on 01/27/2009, -0/+4Yeah, cause HDR is just magic that can turn a bad picture into a good one. The end justifies the means. If people like the HDR who are we to argue. HDR won't compensate for timing, composition or a lack of interesting subject.
  • isukeyo, on 01/27/2009, -1/+5Exactly - what's the point. HDR makes much more sense, since it's ultimately what you achieve in all of these images. I have no problem with HDR photos and I can't understand why so many people do, especially if they go out and 'shop their photos. HDR has a legitimate purpose - it allows you to achieve a range of exposure that simply can't be done with a single photograph (that isn't 'shoped). Yes, some use it very poorly, creating photographs that end up looking odd or unreal (although perhaps that is the effect they want), but that doesn't mean all HDR photographs are bad. But, then again, it's a issue of personal taste - there are photographic purist who hate anything that doesn't go directly from film to paper (or sensor to screen, then to paper). I even know a few people who hate any photographs that are in color!
  • directedition, on 01/27/2009, -1/+5Indeed. HDR != tone mapping, and this illustrates that perfectly.
  • Coffeedemon, on 01/27/2009, -0/+4Agree, isukeyo. Sounds like he's bitter. I've seen great results from disposable cameras, polaroids and $3500+ pro setups. Its all in the end results (that is what the viewer or purchaser wants anyway). I don't have a lick of formal training but I do call myself a photographer (as I take/make photographs not snapshots)... I'm not a "pro" because thats not how I make my money nor do I care for selling photographs (I'll also freely admit that my photo quality varies). I'd say if you dugg a little deeper there would be a lot of people with real skill who got it through trial and error, a little reading/effort and some imagination to try different things. Some of the worst photos I've ever seen came from a stint I did working at an art and design university... technically sound but otherwise soulless and dead.
  • TheSuperunknown, on 01/27/2009, -1/+4Now if only anybody would actually do what you just described rather than tone-mapping a single exposure and calling it HDR for the diggtards.
  • directedition, on 01/27/2009, -1/+4But it's not HDR. HDR is accomplished by extending the dynamic range of the image. These images are tone mapped in photoshop, meaning that you still have the same number of stops of exposure. They dynamic range isn't touched.
  • silfiriel, on 01/27/2009, -0/+3misleading title, might be true, but misleading since other (heavy) editing is acknowledged by the authors.
  • TheSuperunknown, on 01/27/2009, -0/+3It sounds like you (and everyone else) mistake tone-mapping for HDR.
  • TheSuperunknown, on 01/27/2009, -0/+3The halos and clipped reds look like *****. Sorry dude. Hopefully this is a phase and you'll get over it.
  • schrutefan, on 01/27/2009, -0/+320 Amazing Images Too Small for Desktop Wallpaper That Could be HDR - But are Definitely Not
  • ethos101, on 01/27/2009, -0/+3You mean on a sunny day in the shadows right? Dynamic range is easy on cloudy days, it's actually optimal on the darkest/cloudiest of days.
  • memper, on 01/27/2009, -2/+5I like the implication that because these are faked HDR (whether shopped or camera settings) that somehow makes them more interesting, or even valid, that the resulting image somehow escaped being trend-whore simply because they didn't flip to the HDR setting.

    I don't believe anything anymore. Fake is the new real. It appears as we move into the virtual age, the word valid is a better description of an image than the word real.

    I like the images too, although it seems with good cameras being a dime a dozen, the chances for spectacular shots has gone up, and it seems daily we're exposed to some eye candy. So while yeah, spectacular, so was the set I saw yesterday.
  • vagarach, on 01/27/2009, -0/+3Exactly. They go "No it's not HDR" then tell how they took a single RAW file and tone mapped it. Most of these pictures have the tell-tale signs of someone who played too much with their tone mapping software.

    The one of Alsace is very good though.
  • directedition, on 01/27/2009, -0/+2D and B doesn't get you much if there's no information there in the first place. He is a master of exposure. He invented the Zone system for freaks sake, which is THE standard for exact exposures.
  • TheSuperunknown, on 01/27/2009, -0/+2Not from a single exposure. That's called "frying".
  • Gregb11385, on 01/27/2009, -0/+2Very annoying that they're not presented in high resolution.
  • MasterGrief, on 01/27/2009, -1/+3I see where you're coming from, but an HDR photo composite really is different from a photoshopped RAW file, or what have you. Photoshop can only do so much--past a certain point, you just can't make something brighter or darker without image quality loss. Getting multiple, varying exposures of a scene is the best way to make an evenly exposed composition.
  • enderklein, on 01/28/2009, -0/+2You can do a lot in photoshop to generate the HDR "look" without actually generating an HDR image. Most of these are still tonemapped.

    I'll be impressed when you shoot film, develop it yourself, make all your adjustments and exposure in the darkroom, and scan the print.
  • knowicki, on 01/27/2009, -0/+2Dugg just because the word amazing is in the title.
  • Remelox, on 01/27/2009, -0/+2Not all of them, there are at least a couple, such as the first one, that had no editting.
  • JWCrease, on 01/27/2009, -0/+2i bet the original was better
  • jimlouderback, on 01/29/2009, -0/+2I was expecting untouched images. WTF. Buried.
  • louiebaur, on 01/27/2009, -3/+5The toilet pic looks pretty cool
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 127 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
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.