What is Digg?196 Comments
- krets, on 06/27/2008, -26/+158I'm so tired of HDR.
- saunders45, on 06/27/2008, -6/+121Wow... Ever heard of saturation control? Just because it's HDR doesn't mean it needs to look like a freakin' neon sign.
- CitizenKane, on 06/27/2008, -17/+119some of these make me want to vomit.
- StraylightSA, on 06/27/2008, -5/+107All of these HDR pictures are poorly done. HDR is supposed to more closely mimic the dynamic range of your eyes since cameras can't capture the full range. These look like poorly done CGI renders.
- StanleyKoolPrik, on 06/27/2008, -6/+9220 HDR Photos By People Who Have No Idea What They're Doing.
- seks03, on 06/27/2008, -9/+69Some were just way over done, not every HDR photo is an automatic winner in my book,
http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs26/i/2008/130/5/0/Roo ...
http://fc06.deviantart.com/fs22/i/2008/010/0/8/tes ... ...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/2595871163_921 ... ...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2120/2529423867_f0a ... ... - ragonamuffin, on 06/27/2008, -0/+50I'm so tired of 404's
- HuskyPuzzle, on 06/27/2008, -11/+50Damn the first two of Paris and Madrid are amazing! Make me want to go to Europe.
- AdibT, on 06/27/2008, -3/+36I'm so tired of being alone
- diggB, on 06/27/2008, -0/+32Okay, somebody please explain to me how to create an HDR image of a fast moving scene?
http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs28/f/2008/065/4/e/sub ...
I thought HDR images were created from multiple shots of varying exposure settings to increase the dynamic range of the camera sensor which would make the previous HDR image impossible (i.e. The subject would have moved between frames). Perhaps it's just a single shot made to look like an HDR image through the magic of photoshop? - rheaume, on 06/27/2008, -2/+26Ugh, as a photographer, Im over the HDR stuff before I really got into it myself.
Seeing stuff like the gazebo shot and this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/2595871163_921 ...
just make me sick, it looks garish and poorly done.
Why not just throw 500 lens flares in there too? - OhTheHumanity1, on 06/27/2008, -0/+24I think HDR should be unobtrusive. It should really help you capture a truly high dynamic range. It doesn't necessarily have to LOOK HDR.
These are a few examples of my own work that I think don't just SCREAM HDR as has become the stereotype, but rather showcase the dynamic range:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54782136@N00/26164673 ...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54782136@N00/26164673 ...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54782136@N00/26156546 ...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54782136@N00/26156545 ...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54782136@N00/26164828 ... - raynar, on 06/27/2008, -0/+22exactly. the whole "fantasy" look looks like crap.
- jonmlm, on 06/27/2008, -5/+24seriously? still with this?
- Huevoos, on 06/27/2008, -3/+22damn and I though we were already over the HDR boom.
- Laminarcissus, on 06/27/2008, -1/+18Some of them are fine, but I agree with you in principle. In many of them the technique just looks bolted-on, like applying a Photoshop filter.
The part about HDR more closely mimicking the dynamic range of your eyes is a tough call, because our available output devices -- monitors and printers -- don't even come close themselves, so the artist has to choose how to edit the palette down. That's where I think a lot of HDR photographers lose it.
I'm accustomed to a conservative use of HDR (like Cambridge in Colour: http://tinyurl.com/7fts7); I think the Eiffel Tower is beautiful. I'm less enamored of the candy-colored stuff, and if you look at the gazebo picture for example, that's terrible. The colors aren't well-balanced, the color mix detracts from the composition, and it's like someone just took an ordinary picture and decided to "make it good" by turning all the knobs to 11.
Contrast that with another high-color picture -- the rally car in the sand. That's perfect. The sky, trees, and sand have been balanced to create a backdrop, and the car lights up in the middle.
HDR is going through the the same phase Photoshop did when it first came out -- suffering from a lot of people that mistake something that's just a tool for something that makes them an artist. Fortunately there are still a lot of people that are really understanding it and doing great work. - Bizarrkley, on 06/27/2008, -0/+16The middle two didn't load for me. :-(
- MattDell, on 06/27/2008, -1/+16Exactly. This is what HDR should look like: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattdell/2286102200/i ...
- scarysnow, on 06/27/2008, -2/+15glad to see the same old HDR photo galleries getting top billing here at Digg.
- t0sh, on 06/27/2008, -0/+13If you really want to do HDR photos, try to tone it down and do it properly, like this guy: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/
His tutorials are rather well written, and he emphasises that you should only use HDR techniques when you can't balance the brightness of a scene using a graduated neutral density filter. Good on him. - t0sh, on 06/27/2008, -0/+13You take the photo in a lossless format like RAW and create several images reflecting different exposure settings from that. Then you use these to make the HDR picture.
Or not, because about 95% of all HDR photos you see online look abysmal. - N00F, on 06/27/2008, -1/+14HDR photography has a tendency to do that. I really don't see ANY appeal of this method.
- stealth45, on 06/27/2008, -4/+16No, the way 90% of them are done results in a gimmicky photoshop filter look.
- nicheplayer, on 06/27/2008, -4/+16Buried for HDR.
- londonflare, on 06/27/2008, -2/+14that 'Lost in Space' image doesn't look HDR to me.
- dafragsta, on 06/27/2008, -10/+21What's wrong with HDR? Sure, it can be overdone, but the results are unparalleled. It's given photography something new, which it probably hasn't had in ages. The results look like fine works of art, and not in a gimmicky photoshop filter kind of way. There is real detail that results from the natural shift in exposure that we can't even compensate for with our own eyes, which won't allow us to see the world this way.
- Dokument, on 06/27/2008, -7/+18I'm never going to give you up.
- TheMidnight, on 06/28/2008, -1/+10You guys made me cry, now I'm gonna say good bye and hurt you.
- jkarhu24, on 06/27/2008, -4/+13Never gonna run around and desert you
- tsaxer, on 06/27/2008, -2/+11Baby don't hurt me.
Oh...wait... - MrIso, on 06/27/2008, -7/+16never gonna let you down.
- npowel, on 06/27/2008, -0/+8Done properly, they can look fantastic. However, the majority of these pictures are clearly done by people who don't understand what they're actually trying to achieve, going for a "kewl photoshop effect".
- winampman2, on 06/27/2008, -2/+10the first one is okay, the rest are way too over-exposed.
- Icetype, on 06/27/2008, -0/+8I just vomited in my coffee looking at that horrific image.
- zmigliozzi, on 06/27/2008, -2/+10HDR is so 2006.
And, by the way, shadow/highlight doesn't equal HDR! - skyroket, on 06/27/2008, -0/+8I agree. I think people are trying too hard to make HDR pictures just so they can make an HDR picture, instead of utilizing HDR to make a good-looking picture.
It's like that one guy back in 4th grade who could never keep up with what's "in" because he was trying too hard to be something, instead of just being himself. - etx313, on 06/27/2008, -0/+7Yeah, that's pretty bad.
- mtekk, on 06/27/2008, -1/+8That wasn't HDR there, can't do true HDR on moving things without blur
- notyournews, on 06/27/2008, -0/+7The headline should have been, "10 beautiful views and some other stuff ruined by HDR."
- SebHughes, on 06/27/2008, -4/+9Mirror:
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:HfUTx14iCkoJ: ... - jeriqo, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5Madrid ?
First two are Paris, me think. - paloooz, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5Regular DSLRs take ~12bit RAW images which can be compressed and tone mapped into a pseudo-HDR image. These images really do contain more dynamic range that regular point and shoot cameras would capture, just not as much as when one takes several exposures and blends them together.
It's ***** terrible. - kuwan, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5"...which won't allow us to see the world this way"
Most of these pictures are processed in a way in which you could never see in the real world because they are over-processed, unrealistic pieces of artwork - they are no longer photographs. The fact that people label these as HDR is disgusting. HDR images are merely images that have been created in a way that gives you more details in the highlights and shadows - a Higher Dynamic Range. The end result is to try and create a photo that is more realistic than what a camera can ordinarily capture due to its limited dynamic range. There are only 4 pictures of the 20 here that are actually good examples of HDR images: the Eiffel Tower, the Fireworks, the Clouds over the water and the 2nd picture (though this one is over-processed in my opinion).
The rest of the images fall into the category of "tone mapping" (or more accurately "creative tone mapping") which unfortunately is mistakenly labeled as HDR because it shares some of the processes that people use to create HDR images. Tone-mapped images can look very good and produce images with a very artistic style, but there is usually nothing realistic about them. - gtluke, on 06/27/2008, -3/+7you can't HDR an action picture, some of those are just photoshopped to look more cartoony
- mdude85, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5Free cookies to anyone who can figure out how many websites these photos were stolen from without attribution
- destro713, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5Oh boy, more photos of completely generic stock-photo-caliber subject matter that people spooge all over because they have so much artificial detail.
Good photography is a woman's eyes. HDR is a porn starlet's ransacked vagina. - kuwan, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4The best HDR shots are shots that you can't tell that they're HDR. HDR, when used correctly, is merely a process of creating photographs that look realistic by capturing more dynamic range than an ordinary photograph. They shouldn't look like cartoons. This post from above shows a few good examples of using HDR correctly:
http://digg.com/design/20_Beautiful_HDR_Pictures_? ... - centran, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4they cheated... and this is why that photomatix software sucks balls becuase it allows you to do so things like that.
They shot it in RAW and that allows for a greater range of exposure. It is kind of like how with film you can over or under develop it in the dark room to "change" the ISO.
The photomatix program will grab three different exposures from a RAW and then creates the HDR.... which is then tone-mapped to hell by the user since it is so damn easy to do in photomatix(just move a slider over). - solongjack, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4When did HDR become synonymous with whack? Those aren't HDR. They are fake looking. HDR should look like what your eye would see. HDR attempts replicate the high dynamic range of your eye with the low dynamic range of digital cameras and display devices.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 199 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 
