digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Amazing HDR Image of Chicago Nightscape

flickr.com — This is what happens with $4000 camera, the Chicago skyline at night, and an HDR lens. Unlike the Tokyo version this looks just as stunning full size.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Robwilliams, on 10/12/2007, -3/+126It's not a "HDR lens"
    • richstyles, on 10/12/2007, -10/+71oops, I'm screwed now.

      It came up when I searched for HDR. darn...

      I can barely use a point-and-shoot.

      sorry about that
    • beelz, on 10/12/2007, -26/+3http://digg.com/design/Unique_Photography_HDR_a_collection

      help the photographer
    • tim7423, on 10/12/2007, -1/+66in a nut shell its multiable images shot at different exposures in a wide range. Then you merge them down to one image giving you a full range of detail. The over saturated look comes form the layered images stacked on top of each other.


      update: Sorry digg me down I just noticed someone else also explained it my bad
    • sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -22/+12SMURFTACULAR!
    • ayeroxor, on 10/12/2007, -24/+15"It's not a 'HDR lens'"

      or even *an* HDR lens.


    • shanedn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32I sure hope it isn't an HDR lens. I don't see a single part of the picture that is actually in focus. It appears pretty from a distance, but the original turns me off.
    • bkool, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4@jewsaregay
      first time i've seen you here...and the last time. * blocked *
    • lowmagnet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11An HDR image is composed from multiple exposures. The final result is calculated by placing the image data from each exposure into the scene based on the exposure's relative EV to other exposures. The over brightness of lights comes from trying to take 32 bits of colour data and curving said data to the point where you can see the darkest to the brightest portions reasonably well in 8-bit.
    • zttrx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Not only that, but theres actually no such thing as an HDR lens. Bleh. Everyone is a photoshop monkey.
    • primehifi, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10HDR is so played out.
    • balls187, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I think the pictures have a unique look, but to me, they feel more like painting. The technique is cool and handy (i use it in lieu of a graduated neutral density filter) but looking at the photographers images, many of them have an unrealistic look (at least to me).

      The photographer does have an amazing eye for composition.
    • Killah_xxx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3No this is not a HDR pic. As a matter of fact, this pic has not been taken with a camera.
      It's so beautiful that IT MUST have been done in Paint :)

      (No, seriously, this reminds of paint. When I zoom in that is.)
    • nsharp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3what you see in this picture is not necessarily hdr. the wow comes from tone mapping an HDR pic under photomatix .

      Actually the effect isn't as awesome as an HDR only photo (the tone mapping in this pic is just crazy).
    • nsharp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8the idea behind HDR is that a camera cannot capture light the way our eyes do. A true HDR photo looks like what we see basically.

      It has to do with range. Human eyes can detect detail in darkness and light much more than a camera can. In HDR, a camera takes multiple photos at different exposure levels and combines them to achieve something similar to what a person can see (or better)

      what people usually call HDR is photos with tone mapping gone wild. A little tone mapping is nice
      for example see this pic (which is closer to a true HDR)

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/262766310/in/set-72057594142415974/

      As you see, you can see the sunset, and the houses clearly! in a normal photo youd have a clear sunset and jet black houses, or a blinding white sky and clear houses. What the author has done is take multiple exposures and combined the best bits together.

      e.g. one photo got the houses, one got the sunset, and the third got the lake
      a good camera with exposure bracketing can do this automatically.

      I have tried out HDR (but my photos aren't too good as I don't have exposure bracketing on my camera)
      still you can see the results here:
      http://www.nsharp.org/10/barefoot/
      and again, these are heavily tone mapped so not true HDR per se
    • Rhombazoid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I love HDR when it's done in moderation but when people take a picture and try to make it all "surreal" looking it makes me want to puke all over it.
    • kendawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@nsharp:

      I like those pictures you have. How do you take the pictures if you don't have a camera that will do it automatically? I'd like to try but I figured it wouldn't work if the pictures aren't taken within a second or 2
    • nam20485, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0@shanedn

      Thats funny, cuz after I looked at the pictures I found myself slightly aroused.
    • palmer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2INACCURATE.

      This is NOT HDR. Taking bracketed exposures and then blending them does not produce a high-dynamic-range image. HDR requires a file format that is capable of storing high dynamic range. And once you have an HDR image stored in such a file, that's all you have, and most likely no way to view it. So you pull it up with appropriate software and either choose which parts of the dynamic range you want to see, or you compress the dynamic range so you can see it on a regular monitor. Once you've done either of those things and written the image out to JPEG or some other regular file format, IT'S NO LONGER HDR. This is like taking two stereo channels, converting them to mono, and calling the result stereo.
    • soogy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That is the worst ***** picture ever.
    • BGFeltenink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Personally, at original size it isn't that amazing. It's like anti-aliasing for your camera or something. Even still, I tend to judge art by its subject as well as its technique.

      All I see is a depressing amount of unneeded light pollution, tightly bound buildings, and not even an attempt to sync it with the beautiful nature that once thrived in that region. Why this push for ugly squares and bright colored lights? Would it really hurt to integrate more into the natural environment? To perhaps create parks that are better than some square of grass between needlessly giant buildings with a couple of crappy benches? We live in the future for ***** sake!

      By this time the hanging gardens of Babylon should be thought of as "quaint!" Everything today is about maximizing size and cost. Sometimes life is enjoyed by the silence between the notes. Whatever happened to days when an artist's touch graced almost every building? These are monuments to our civilization, maybe it's time they looked like it.
  • brazileir0, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14Regardless of how this was taken, as someone who knows very little about photography and lives in the Chicagoland area, this image is absolutely fabulous!
    • tardmongerster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+59And as someone who DOES know a lot about photography, this image is absolute crap.

      Out of focus
      Way over saturated
      HDR processing done incorrectly (halos)
    • julienbh, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4How can a blurred picture be fabulous?
      Look at the original image, it is near ugly.
      Probably a cheapo non-SLR camera.
    • gapotter, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3OK 'tard' - let's see you do one better!

      I'm so tired of people putting something down as a knee-jerk reaction... Good Job Photographer!
    • palmer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2"Chicagoland area" is redundant.

      And "Chicagoland" is dumb anyway. You don't hear people talking about "Detroitland" or "New Yorkland" or "Atlantaland". So don't make us look dorky by using this lame moniker.
    • tdowling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2palmer, it's because those others sound like horrible amusement parks.
    • TwinSigma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I only ever hear "Chicagoland" in television and radio commercials... I didn't realize real people ever actually used the term. Probably mostly people from the 'burbs who want to make it sound like they actually have a Chicago address.
  • dpcamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20How come every HDR image looks terrible when you look at it at original size?
    • richstyles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10it does funky stuff with the lighting/exposure so you wont get anything crisp like a regular picture.
    • Sababaaa, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6HDR is an effect where the camera/photographer will take numerous shots of the same landscape and then blends them together, allowing for a natural bloom lighting effect. The tradeoff being that each picture will be slightly different, and when combined causes blurry "funky stuff" edges, etc.
    • planckstudios, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42not true:
      http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=257642484&context=set-72157594294109563&size=o
      http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=262802371&context=set-72157594294109563&size=o

      You just have to take your time.
    • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Actually, you really don't want to take your time. You'll end up with shots that are too different. You need to be careful and not touch the camera at all - use a remote shutter. In the case of someone taking a picture from a tall building, you might just get lucky but buildings sway and there's not much you can do about that.

      In the end I don't really see the big woo for HDR. I mean, it's not all that unlike taking a picture during the day, and one at night, and then blending them together.

      It just seems "fake" to me. Some of the photos definitely have some artistic value, don't get me wrong. I just don't see the big deal - it's not a great photo. It's just a bunch of them put together. You don't even have to be a good photographer to pull it off - you just need to follow a tutorial in Photoshop.

    • planckstudios, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@ cbreaker -- i should clarify - take your time in post processing :)

      I agree w/ a lot of your points. There's enough rough HDR out there to give the technique a bad name. In the end it's just a technique - and it can be abused/misdirected/overused/misunderstood by photographers. That too is up to the opinion of the viewer.

      It's a relatively new technique and it will find many niches. I prefer a subtle use of it. Reality is more impressive to me than gory color splotches and noise. But that's just me. :)
    • jordan314, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@planckstudios
      Hey, those are way better, are there any large res version though?
    • planckstudios, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ jordan314 :) thanks.

      Not for download. The digital files I work from are 9000 x 9000. They print up to 45" x 45" very nicely.
    • liminaldust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+69000x9000... 81 megapixels, for those who own point and shoots to compare to
    • bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dear God, planck. Are you using a scanning back on a view camera? IIRC, even medium format digital only goes up to like 38MP...
    • mzwaterski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@planckstudios

      Now those are great photos! I live around the corner from Deerborn Station.
    • Mr.Scientist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Apparently people like the look of "bad" HDR reduction. Even the otherwise nice pictures in this thread exploit the unreal look of the overenhanced local contrasts. It's an artistic interpretation of HDR data. The term HDR just means that you capture the full dynamic range of the scene. There are several ways to achieve that, but the most common is to take a time-bracketed series of pictures and join them digitally.

      The data can then be used to create more realistic visual effects. For example, motion blur of overbright lights looks right with HDR source data, while you get much too bright and wide streaks of light with LDR source data. Or you can try and map the tone values from the high dynamic range of the scene to the low dynamic range that can be printed or viewed on a monitor.

      There are many tone mapping algorithms. Most create that otherworldly look that people like so much, when they're used with extreme parameters. The idea behind tonemapping however is to create a realistic looking picture, one where you wouldn't even suspect that it's not just a simple photo. Famous photographers like Ansel Adams worked on contrast transfer from scene to picture with purely analog means, btw.

      Here's a "HDR" panorama picture. With a normal camera, one could not have captured the details in the brightly lit pillars, shop windows and banners and the dimly lit tree trunks and building facades in one picture, but with careful tone-mapping the final picture looks remarkably realistic. It is a good capture of the visual impression that the scene makes on someone who stands in that place.

      http://www.fotoausflug.de/en-germany-aachen-elisenbrunnen-by-night.html
    • Mr.Scientist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Correction: HDR motion blur looks realistic, but LDR motion blur loses the highlights, because the LDR highlights' intensity is smeared over the length of the blur which makes them darker, while HDR highlights are far enough above "white" to still end up white when blurred.
  • diulei, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Looks almost like CGI or anime.

    Good work.
  • zoltan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8too bad you cant see stinky old milwaukee in the background
    • starvo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That'd be a really good photo if you could see all the way to stinky old Milwaukee. ;-) (Would there be scent lines/waves coming off of it?)
      Actually, having lived in both Chicago, and Milwaukee, this photo makes me miss Chicago a bit. I'd love to see something like this done for Boston, looking in from the ocean, towards the hub/downtown.
    • bjowoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Milwaukee is located in the opposite direction of this view. So yea..that would be amazing if you could see it.
    • diggitydank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, I was wondering how it would be possible to see Milwaukee when looking south from what I assume is the John Hancock Center. I did not read enough to see if it said where the photo was taken from, but from the view, I assume it is the JHC Observatory.
    • mzwaterski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2mmmmm Old Milwaukee Beer!!
  • jackovas, on 10/12/2007, -17/+27HDR Lens? Where can I get one of those? Moron...

    This is a prime example of a horrible HDR.
  • DraconWolf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@Richstyles

    HDR (high dynamic range) is a composite image using many different shots at different exposures of the same scene so you can show both the highlights and shadows in full detail. Camera sensors cannot capture such wide dynamic range so normally they make shadows black or highlights blown out as white.

    The problem is that no 2 images to be merged of any outdoor shot will be exactly idential so thats why there's some loss of sharpness. They're still pretty neat though.
    • richstyles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I feel stupid as hell but I sure wont forget what an HDR is that's for sure!

      Thanks to all for kindly & unkindly pointing it out.
    • shadowofapuddle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You don't need to take three separate exposures to get HDR.

      I found that you can get really good, sharp HDR out of a single shot if you use the RAW image format with my Rebel XTi. The camera's sensor records more dynamic range of light than the JPG files can hold, so if you take a single RAW and process it at -1, 0, and +1 you can get the overexposed/underexposed details out of it which tone mapping software can enhance.

      More important than whether you can do HDR to a shot is whether the shot will benefit from it. You still need a great photo before you can make it better with more light. That being said, I've had some spectacular shots with HDR, and many of them even in black and white HDR (brings out many tones of gray).
    • tardmongerster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You certainly can take multiple images with no camera movement whatsoever. It's a set of new inventions called a tripod and a remote shutter release. You should also use mirror lockup and watch for wind.
    • palmer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I found that you can get really good, sharp HDR out of a single shot if you use the RAW image format with my Rebel XTi."

      The extra latitude you get with raw is not enough to qualify as HDR.
  • dkarlson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23I think it looks like crap on fullsize.
    • seattle98104, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11It is possible to get a crisp HDR image; this is not one of them. This is just a mediocre example of what HDR is capable of.

      p.s. Confidential to idiot headline writer, HDR is a process not a lens. Plus you could do the same with your 100$ digital elph.
    • Namco, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5@seattle, so let's see your HDR images then. Don't be such an *****.
    • vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"@seattle, so let's see your HDR images then. Don't be such an *****."

      To roughly quote Thomas Edison "I may not know how to make a spring, but I know when one is made wrong"

      Being able to do something yourself is not a prerequisite for critique. I can't build a car from scratch, but I know a crappy one when I see it.
    • lowmagnet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Here's a HDR I created a few months ago, before this hotel was torn down:

      http://flickr.com/photos/lowmagnet/131398921

      The only way I got that so sharp is to use a medium aperture, a prime lens (50mm) and A TRIPOD. Also, there may be slight variations between shots, so it's also a good idea to make sure you turn accurate alignment on in your HDR software. It takes another 20 minutes, but it's the only way to be certain you don't end up with the blurry messes that end up on this site.

      Also, During the 32->8 bit conversion, it's also good to be realistic. If you start to see things that don't exist in real life (GIANT HALOS ARE A CLUE HERE) then you need to go back and adjust your virtual exposure. The point is to be more real, not more surreal.
    • Namco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Upon further review, the play on the field is reversed. The image is in fact mediocre. Seattle98104 will not be charged with a time out... 3rd down and 25


      (yes it looks like crap fullsize, I am sorry :P )
  • dvflameartist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Everyone seems to go overboard with HDR. It's really meant to give a more realistic idea of what the lighting is like in a scene. A camera cannot capture as much latitude as the human eye can, so HDR helps extend the digital image to be more like real life.
    • undersky, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10exactly. it's not intended to capture this kind of....CRAP! what the hell is this? a 5 years old messed with photoshop 4.0 and accidentally applied too many ***** filters?
  • Jake2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+71. What the hell is an HDR lens?
    2. This is a bad example of HDR. The effect is ludicrously overdone, and the image looks pretty detail-free at full size.
    3. For the aforemented reason, this doesn't deserve to be on the front page.
    4. Judging by this image, the author sure doesn't deserve a D2x.
    • gyneric, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11my HDR lens cost eleventy billion dollars
    • bieber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's not that he doesn't have a D2X, it's that he doesn't know how to use it properly. A good photographer with a consumer body is going to consistently turn out better images than a lackluster photographer with a pro body; the camera can only capture the image, it takes someone who knows what they're doing to create it.
  • alexvalentine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4HDR is a post processing technique using multiple exposures. It does not evolve special lenses, and doesn't require a special camera. It does help to have a camera that can do bracketing, which any entry level dslr can do.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging
  • jmccorm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I've seen this sight in person. It is amazing. Especially when you see lines and lines of planes coming in.
  • undersky, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1$4000 HDR lens?? what the hell was that? Why would I want to buy any $4000 equipment to take only crap pictures like that when I can just spend $3000 on a D20 and a wide angle prime lense and a photoshop to do the same thing? This picture looks so freaky by the way, even that Tokyo one is better.
    • DraconWolf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@Undersky

      You could do the same thing with a $300 Canon point and shoot :)
    • undersky, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1ha ha, you are right, but what i meant was to do it *well*
  • Hexagram, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Direct link to image please? Flikr's pages are blocked but their direct file links are not.
  • incrediblekicks, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2I kinda dig mine a bit more:

    http://flickr.com/photos/incrediblekicks/319263814/in/set-72157594414748419/
    • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The girl in the photo is glowing, and the overall photo looks like it was rendered from 3D Studio.
    • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The sloppy dodge job on the chick is really annoying.
    • Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4TBH she looks a bit like a prostitute.
    • sohosid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You dig yours more? Well you shouldn't...it's another example of crap HDR technique...and yours *isn't* HDR, it's tone mapped.
    • StuGazzO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I would call this..."Girl Who Just Farted".
    • VANOS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Eh, I'd still hit it even with a bad doge job and the appearance of rendering.
    • TwinSigma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I kinda don't.
  • gorkish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I think it looks like crap on any size.

    It's a shame the only thing being associated with "HDR" photography are oversaturated overprocessed pieces of junk. Cramming the entire range of contrast your cameras sensor can possibly distinguish into the small range of what you can show on your computer monitor produces an interesting picture for sure, but it's not exactly useful, and as the saying goes "If you've seen one, you've seen them all."
  • techpimp, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Gorgeous...
  • ig33k010011, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3i'm so sick of digg. i submitted the Tokyo version this picture a week ago and got like 4 diggs. this is the 5th time where i've summited a story, got no diggs, and then someone else does and gets on the homepage. digg is rigged

    http://digg.com/design/PICTURE_Tokyo_Night_Photo_in_High_Dynamic_Rang
    • seattle98104, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4shut up, yah baby.
    • drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@ig33k010011
      I agree with you somethings up maybe adding more friends would help a but my only problem is none of my friends are tech heads they only use the net to get on myspace and goof-ball sites like that
    • counterstriker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Maybe you are not getting dug because I saw a story identicle to this one about two weeks ago
  • InfamousX241, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"Unlike the Tokyo version this looks just as stunning full size."

    LIAR.
  • evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7theres absolutely nothing natural about this picture, it doesnt represent real life at all. theyve boosted the darks incredibly so theres little contrast and upped the color saturation. its easy to make funky pics like this with hdr but whats the point? it doesnt look real. its a night shot but the buildings are lit like its daylight. yay.
    • bilbravo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3But it looks cool. Get off your high horse (that's actually directed to about 15 different people at this point)
    • Namco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Would that be "get off your horses high"?
    • superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Only if you are Yoda.
  • kitkatormarsbar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It is a bit overdone, but most the other photos are brilliant.
  • JeanYves, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Photos should get their own category on Digg...like videos do!
    Don't y'all think?
  • expatasia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I can't stand the look of HDR images. They rarely look natural. I'm sure there are some photographers who use it correctly but most of what I see is over the top and look CG.

    The photo mentioned here looks like a cheesy novelty shop framed poster with little LED lights embedded in it. And how about easing up on the saturation a little. This guy gets a lot of praise on Flickr but I think his work would be ten times better if he chilled on the effects a little.
    • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, to the untrained eye (or someone that didn't know how these photos were post-processed) it looks impressive at first glance. People like glitz and glam. Once you realize that it's actually just a bunch of exposures all blended together, it becomes a lot less majestic.

      I've seen some HDR blends that are really sweet. The kind where you'll have a foreground object that's kinda bright, and it blows out the object behind it. With HDR, you can take one photo of the foreground image, and one of the background (overexposing the foreground object) and then blending them together. It looks great!

      But this one doesn't.
    • bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When you see a really good HDR image, you probably won't realize it's HDR. That's kind of the point...
  • mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2First, can we try expanding our adjectival vocabulary a little? How about using "Beautiful!" every once in a while, or "Spectaular!" or "Breathtaking!" on occasion.

    Second, this particular photo is neither amazing nor beautiful. I would say it's just shy of spectacular, but it's way overdone, without the subtle beauty that characterizes many other hdr efforts I've seen. It looks like an artist's rendering, bordering on the cartoonish, like it was done with a deluxe set of Sharpies.
  • incrediblekicks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Saying that "HDR is stupid" and "you've seen one, you've seen them all", induces a *sigh*. It's all in what you do with it, just like all the other kinds of post processing out there. It just happens to be "in vogue" right now and possibly "trendy", so of course there are going to be people out there tired of seeing them (sort of people that hate ipods because "everyone has one"). Theres a balance between how much of the effect (tone mapping) you really need. Some people go overboard with it. (I know I did in one or two photos, but that's what I wanted).
    • gorkish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"If you've seen one you've seen them all" was primarily referring to this class of overdone photos of buildings/cities at night that so many people get weak in the knees about for some reason -- not that it's anything that you couldn't achieve before there were tutorials that a 6 year old could follow.
  • Razster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2That is a poor Lens they're using too - So much barrel distortion, not even a $1,200 camera from the looks of the image quality.

    My Canon 20D with it's Sigma 105DX DG can take sharper and cleaner images. And if I do a HDR in Photoshop it is crystal clear.
    The photo they took looks Dragonized too, which is a horrible method for digital :P
  • incrediblekicks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If you want to see some stellar HDR, check this link out:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/valpopando/

    IMHO, this guy is one of the best HDR photographers on flickr...
    • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yea, he does what you should do with HDR. It shouldn't be a parlor trick to get sci-fi looking images. All you should do is bring the image up to a range of light/dark that you could see with your eyes.

      The Chicago shot looks like an overexposed photo, not much more.
    • jordan314, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3great but no high res...
    • spadin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Those photos are awesome, but they are all his "favorite shot"
  • ChronicColonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It does not look like a photograph. It looks like a surreal image that you might find in a high production comic book or graphic novel. I like it though. I am now using that as my wallpaper.
  • mburgoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Absolutely wonderful!
  • ebob9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Crap, you can see the lights I left on in my condo!
  • Amadeus2490, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The picture of Chicago looks like something from a comic book. I thought HDR was supposed to combine multiple lighting exposures to make an optimized result, not to be used as a filter to make it look animated?
  • SuperDelen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Why the ***** is this news?
  • WITFITS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Looks a little like Coruscant.
  • tawong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You probably don't know that much about HDR because you DON'T need a $4000 camera to get that kind of picture quality. Just need the right software and tripod to make HDR pictures.
  • smarusich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The photographer (Trey Ratcliff) has a photoblog at http://stuckincustoms.com/?p=548 where he shows you how he does HDR.

    He's very talented. He recently had a gallery show in Austin
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/sets/72157594326376873/
    • lowmagnet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I’m a huge defender and believer of utilizing HDR as a technique for processing photos because I think it helps to evoke my actual memory of the scene."

      I think he shoots photographs on acid:

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/204476471
    • OrlyonokEaglet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Thank you for one of the very few valuable comments in this thread.
      Seems digg is overrun by armchair photographers/graphic designers.
  • wrongway, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2$4000 for a camera that takes images this blury?

  • geezusfreeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This could have been better if a simple graduated filter had been used instead of HDR.
  • rockwellpa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Here is a HDR tutorial from the person who took this photo:

    http://digg.com/software/HDR_Tutorial_-_Focus_on_Clouds
  • StevePilot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes, HDR can do 'realism':

    http://images.wormley.com/pano/ucdcfa1.html


    And it can also make things way too surreal, but it's fun to play with:

    http://images.wormley.com/pano/sfop1.html

    (Night with a full moon)
  • princessangry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I want a nice cam, but I'm stuck with my 2.5 year old sony 3.2mpix one point and shoot one . oh well I will save up and get a nicer one. any good recommendations for one under 700?? (bot slr and point and shoot ones will do)
  • DrumsNWhistles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I do HDR images, too and it's quite nice. This photographer currently has a show of some of his best HDR images hung in Austin, TX. On top of his talents, he's a really nice, decent guy.

    There is no such thing as an HDR lens, obviously. It's a technique. And it's a technique that you either love or hate, as evidenced by the comments here. HDR translates better to print media than it does to a screen, particularly if your resolution is low.
  • tardmongerster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2An example that a $4000 camera cannot help a bad photographer.
    • DrumsNWhistles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@fortephemera,

      I agree with you about the trashing of photographers here on digg, but it's just like everything else here. For some, if they didn't do it, or don't like it it's not enough to express their opinion of the work, they feel the need to take down the photographer and everything around them with it. As I said in an earlier comment, HDR is something that draws a strong reaction -- many hate it. Many like it.

      In a "democracy like Digg", it ought to be enough to state one's opinion without trashing the people and furniture in the process.
  • FortEphemera, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1There's no accounting for taste, but good lord it seems like every brilliant photograph that makes the front page of Digg just gets savaged in the comments. Before Stuck in Customs ever got dugg this was one of the more appreciated HDR images on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=HDR&m=tags&s=int) and he's one of the more popular photogs. Thousands of views and hundreds of folks marking it as a fave prior to ever being dugg. So he clearly has an audience that loves his work established, so it must not suck that bad.

    I bet you all would dig down a modern day Monet... too blury! Weird colors! Looks like you were on acid! Dude obviously doesn't deserve such a nice set of paints... this is news? etc. Seriously people, who declared that photographers are only allowed to do true to life realistic renderings with their art?
    • sutro33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh flawed logic, "So he clearly has an audience that loves his work established, so it must not suck that bad." McDonald's hamburgers must be the most delicious, most quality food on earth. HDR photos look like Thomas Kincaid paintings 90 percent of the time. Generally, the photos that get Dugg up are extremely corny.
    • FortEphemera, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@sutro33, look there's no accounting for taste, i.e. there is no one workable definition for what is aesthetically pleasing (or a tasty meal). However when something receives a strong positive public response such as this image has, we have a potential quantifiable objective measure that tells us at least quite a few folks find it to be pleasing art. You're free to think it sucks of course, but my logic isn't flawed. Kincaid paintings and McD's are not things I enjoy, but if my dad thinks a McRib is the best food ever created and my mom loves her some Kincaid imagery I'm going to let them enjoy what they enjoy and am not going to insist that my tastes are superior.

    • sutro33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@FortEphemera. Yes, "at least quite a few folks find it to be pleasing art.," but that's not what you said in your previous post. You said "it must not suck that bad," which in my opinion really doesn't have much to do with whether it is any good. And while are is partially subjective, it can also be judged for quality through objectivity, or hundreds of years of art criticism might as well be thrown at the window. Yeah, my mom might think that Celine Dion is great, and I will let her enjoy that, but I'm still going to think that Celine Dion is terrible and that my taste in music is superior.

      Also, I'm fine with people using digital manipulation in their photography, I just think it is often poorly executed.
  • jpolacek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Chicago, such a great city.
  • flave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I can see my office building!
  • sixtymonkeys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0as several folks have pointed out, there is no such thing as an "HDR lens" - it is simply a photographic technique. also, I hate to be "that guy" but this really isn't the best example of HDR that I have seen... it's a cool shot, but technically rather flawed. HDR can produce some aesthetically beautiful images when processed correctly and not "overdone"... too bad it is so overused that it has practically become a photographic cliche...
  • mcheddadi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Man this FAILS sooo much! my god, already 737 digg ?!! Digg.com FAILS ! how can anyone be impressed by such a lame picture?! HDR my @$$! my cheap dsc-p92 cybershot can do better with photoshop. DIGGED DOWN!
  • BZKyle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1747**
  • GleepGlop2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1completely lacking in character and 'interestingness' compared to the tokyo one...
  • MrViklund, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ok, nice picture. BUT STOP BUT THE WORD Amazing IN FRONT OF EVERY THING! It almost got me to dugg it down just because of that (before I saw the picture).
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
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.