What is Digg?106 Comments
- primehifi, on 10/12/2007, -13/+38A) 'HDR' is played out in some respects and people need to learn to take a decent photo without using HDR as a crutch
B) THIS IS A GREAT PHOTO
C) Would be great without the HDR/DRI
I don't think this is HDR, I would suggest it be called DRI, but whatever. Such a great shot.
/jealous - djbeefcurtain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17"lit up like the veins of an artery." Ingenious. I didn't know arteries had veins.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Man who walk through door sideways Bangkok.
- sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15I was going to make a joke about funny city names in Southeast Asia, but then I thought 'Ah well, Phuket.'
- whymanwhy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I can't wait to see what fair city gets it's chance at the digg front page tomorrow. I have seen many HDR's lately
- homestar2525, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14It looks like a pinball machine.
- masgrada, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17yea, this isn't HDR. This is 'saturation to the max!' With some curves/levels. So whoever is calling this HDR is wrong.
- saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11http://digg.com/design/Amazing_Gallery_of_every_major_city_s_SKYLINE_in_HDR_with_panorama_and_fusion!!!!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9What's with all these skyline images being dugg up. Enough already!
- Plasmatica, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Cue the armchair photographers...
- CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6How is this an HDR image? HDR means High Dynamic Range. This isn't an HDR image, it's just a photograph taken with a long exposure. It's a very cool image, but it's not HDR. Even if it was, so what? What's so special about HDR images? What most people are missing about the "HDR" images being posted here, and what is being used in video games, is just a technique to FAKE high dynamic range when in reality the monitors we are all using are not capable of displaying high dynamic range images to begin with. So can we all just have a rest from all of the "amazing HDR image of..." crap? Please, if you are going to post a link to a picture you like, don't mention anything about "HDR", especially if you have no idea what it actually means.
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"This is 'saturation to the max!' With some curves/levels."
It's just a long exposure. I mean, you do know effects like this could be done before digital SLRs and PhotoShop, right? - sishgupta, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I have no idea why people are digging down primehifi. This shot wouldnt look much different if it were not HDR. At best, the green glow of the buildings would not be so saturated...
HDR is just over used now. - a55h4t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5These "HDR" images are getting old. Enough already...give it a rest. If you're seen one HDR nightscape, you've seen them all. I wanna see an HDR image of a freakin' titty or something...
- bakagaigin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Since when did that matter in art?
- JackHoffman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@sishqupta: That's the effect of tonemapping. Most tonemapping algorithms reduce "low frequencies" because that's where the energy is that LDR displays can't reproduce. In a nutshell, tonemapping makes large dark areas brighter and large bright areas darker, so that the image doesn't span such a wide range of tonalities. Consequently you can then increase the contrast without blowing out highlights, which makes local features stand out better. This works just the same with normal photos, except that you can't rescue highlights that are already blown out in the original picture. The dynamic range in this picture is pretty ordinary: If it were a HDR picture, you could read the billboards that are just white now, and at the same time the rooftops would have detail, but they're just black now. But hey, people like it.
- nolz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I believe the context is High-Dynamic Range, not high definition.
- dkm201, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It is HDR, the author has a ton of other HDR work, and submitted the photo into the HDR pool.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3WOW he's right, just like the veins of an artery!
- rimco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6This photo is NOT HDR... it's merely a photo taken with a very slow shutter speed... just because a photo has a somewhat different look to it doesn't mean it's automatically HDR... considering the work involved in any HDR shot, if the person taking the photo doesn't claim it as HDR, it likely isn't.
- Mr.Scientist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@primehifi: Yes, this looks like a single exposure with a standard DSLR camera and kit lens. What people mean when they say HDR is a heavily tonemapped and saturated picture. Tonemapping is the process by which a high dynamic range is compressed so that it can be printed or viewed on a normal (LDR) monitor. It is necessary to show the detail in HDR pictures on LDR output devices, but of course one can tonemap the hell out of normal pictures as well.
I can't blame the photographers for uploading these half-assed shots and calling them HDR when they're really just tonemapped/curved single-exposures. After all, they're making the front page quite regularly and apparently people like them and have accepted the HDR keyword for this kind of picture. But please, if you have any ambition left, correct the chromatic aberrations before you run the picture through Photomatix. The amateur quality of your lens really shows at full size if you don't. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3JPEG != HDRI
These idiotic terms and misrepresentations hit Digg in waves. Just when we start getting over "Web 2.0", here comes a bunch of people who don't have a clue what HDRI is. - soopafly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@KiaserLies
Not familiar with Flickr are we??? Click on the "All sizes" button on top of the image. - drewish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@masgrada
actually, an image like this can be accomplished using the HDR technique. you take multiple photos with different exposure settings. hence the over saturated look you are talking about, composite them together and voila! i would actaully go out on a limb and say this is DEF made using the HDR technique, because if you look @ the full size pic, you can see where the camera moved very slightly and caused the classic blocky look you get on night time HDR photography or HDR where the cam wasnt in the EXACT same position for each pic. - dpcamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Am I the only one getting tired of seeing HDR images on digg? i mean they're cool i guess but if i really wanted to see HDR images i could just google it...
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2HDR stands for High Dynamic Range. Basically, the process is taking several captures at different exposures and mixing them together to form one image with a higher than normal dynamic range. So, a normal photo of a barn with daylight sun on it will have very bright areas and very dark areas in shadows. You can take a short exposure to expose for the sun and a longer exposure to expose for the shadows. You mix them together to create an image where everything is exposed. Photoshop has a relatively new tool that makes this easy. The result is generally a washed out image missing the contrast that gives an image a sense of depth. If done well, the effect can look pretty cool though. A lot of photographers don't like it because it's mostly a gimmick.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kros/164073936/
Example: people going ga-ga over a picture of a building. Yes, it's fun to look at but little artistry went into taking this picture of this building. The framing isn't even very special. The picture in this link is not much different. It's nice to be sure but there are much more powerful photos out there.
Here's what photography is really about: http://photo.net/gallery/photocritique/filter
You can find some truly awe inspiring photos at the above link. - devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6This picture is OK, but generally these so-called "HDR" pictures look like garbage to me. Soft from the layering, light flattened to the point where there's no real contrast in the picture, and usually way oversaturated. It's interesting sometimes (check out the artist's best-of portfolio: http://flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/sets/72057594049344877/detail/ , from which many of these HDR posts are taken) but mostly it looks like crap.
- aardfox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just thought I'd post the picture that I created out of his. http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k199/aardfox/OnFirefox.jpg
I think it's really appropriate for firefox :) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Am I the only one that thinks that most HDR images look awful?
Yeah sure, some have been done skilfully with dramatic results, but most look as if they've been molested by some idiot and photoshop.
I'm amazed that they receive such praise. - unfinite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2heh heh.. Bangkok
- turquoisefish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Keiserlies - you know you can click on all sizes and see it bigger, up to 4288 x 2848
- Rodalli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When I saw the preview on the front page of Digg, I thought to myself,
"Secret Nazi Highway?" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This photo is from the same set as the others that have been posted lately. Get ready to see more of those pictures as people realize they can get a frontpage link with one of these zOMGAMAZING HDR photos here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/sets/72057594049344877/ - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You aren't the only one that thinks real HDR images look awful.
- sohosid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"It is not even a real "picture" in that this exact image was never visible to a human eye in Bangkok"
Possibly the dumbest comment I've ever seen when talking about photography. Humans see in color, and in 3d. Cameras see in 2d. The human eye renders life in roughly the same aspect ratio as a 50mm lens. Therefore, the minute you use a wide ange or telephoto lens, you are distorting reality, and by your rules...it's not a 'real' picture. Same with BW. Same with slow shutter. Same with using flash.
Total bollocks.
Photography is an art. The aim is to create an image pleasing to the artist...if anyone else likes it, then it's a bonus.
Having said that, this is NOT an HDR image, it's a fairly average shot of a skyline at night. - slicerace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Get Thai'd! You're talking to a tourist whose every move is among the purest! I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine...
- Coy0te, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hmm is it just me or do most of these HDR images look like saturated pieces of crap?
- xVern, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2cool, but not hdr at all.
- Javlington, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Didn't know they drove on the left side of the road in Bangkok :)
- bdbr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Last time I was there, they pretty much drove on whatever side they felt like at the time. They made Boston drivers seem like old ladies!
- antdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=310074290&size=o is nice.
- lingyai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Its my home right now Monkey!
- SocketNine3Nine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What is HDR? Sorry im not into camera to much. The photo looks great if you look at the other ones by the same person, the photos look like renders from a high end graphics card.
- aragon127, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can almost make out the prison where they torture all the Tibetans...
- sinembarg0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Stuck in Customs Pro User says:
Hey thanks y'all...
The ISO was 100. It's true! :)
But that's the beauty of HDR... sweet 100 ISO."
That's from the comments. It seems at though it's just a slow shutter speed with some photoshop tweaks, not a composite of multiple images though. - devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1david76.... if you weren't RETARDED you would have noticed that I called them "so-called 'HDR'" because I don't think they ARE HDR.
In my opinion none of these things are actually HDR since for real HDR you would need like independent-cell ISO settings going to a huge 16-bit RAW file, and a 16-bit monitor with like a million to one contrast ratio. These just have their shadows lifted, basically. - dtm1017, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Tell me about it...
If I want to see HDR pictures than ill google it. - gateway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1here are some more hdr photos and info, saw this on a blog.
http://ibareitall.com/high-dyamic-range-photos-hdr/ - Kinsbane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know Shanghai is not Bangkok, but that image reminds me of the cityscape seen in Splinter Cell: Double Agent where you gotta crawl along the outside of skycrapers.. so pretty...
- bdbr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The dude's Thailand photo set were very nice, but I think they'd have been nicer without all the Photoshopping. The temples there are truely amazing, and don't need all the digital enhancement to be beautiful.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/sets/72157594384360311/show/ -
Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 