What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
163 Comments
- Robwilliams, on 10/12/2007, -3/+127It's not a "HDR lens"
- 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 - 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 - 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) - 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. - 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.
- dpcamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21How come every HDR image looks terrible when you look at it at original size?
- dkarlson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23I think it looks like crap on fullsize.
- lokiworks, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27Are you arguing with yourself?
- bjowoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Milwaukee is located in the opposite direction of this view. So yea..that would be amazing if you could see it.
- dvflameartist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Everyone 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.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Photos should get their own category on Digg...like videos do!
Don't y'all think? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+28HDR Lens? Where can I get one of those? Moron...
This is a prime example of a horrible HDR. - 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. - 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. :) - 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. - 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.
- 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 - InfamousX241, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"Unlike the Tokyo version this looks just as stunning full size."
LIAR. - 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 - gyneric, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11my HDR lens cost eleventy billion dollars
- 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.
- zoltan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9too bad you cant see stinky old milwaukee in the background
- 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." - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The sloppy dodge job on the chick is really annoying.
- richstyles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10it does funky stuff with the lighting/exposure so you wont get anything crisp like a regular picture.
- 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. - 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. - liminaldust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+69000x9000... 81 megapixels, for those who own point and shoots to compare to
- 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?
- 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. - jordan314, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@planckstudios
Hey, those are way better, are there any large res version though? - 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, -1/+6The girl in the photo is glowing, and the overall photo looks like it was rendered from 3D Studio.
- 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.
- 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!
- 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. - Thezeppelin62, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Chicago Rocks.
- 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). - 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.
- starvo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That'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. - 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
- 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.
- 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"
- 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. - StuGazzO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I would call this..."Girl Who Just Farted".
- 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. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This image had some sort of quality to the colour balance that I couldn't put my finger on - then a friend mentioned doom II on the phone and it hit me - the image looks like a city of the underworld - quite impressively so. :-)
- 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. -
Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is