digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Amazing Pictures of Manhattan

flickr.com — This guy has some amazing HDR wideangles of Manhattan. Simply... stunning.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • hriwo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I love HDR photos automatt is one of my favorite photographers on flickr, I only wish I could master it.
  • rbelluso, on 10/12/2007, -112/+5this is close, but not tech related. no digg
  • kirkio, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30design = digg category; photography = design; photography = digg-related
    • Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -48/+14"photography = design;"

      Since when?
    • Korvaras, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12They've been related since international modern style, and post modernism dude. While they can be seperate, they also can be used in unison in a design.
    • metamongrel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9what? photography isn't a technology?
    • GravyTrain6, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"They've been related since international modern style, and post modernism 'dude' "

      For some reason I thought it was hilarious that this sentence ended with the word dude. Large meaningful words followed by valley talk...nice....
    • Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Related, sure. But not the same thing.
  • kevinwiatrowski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I get obsessed with getting direct sunlight in my photos. Looking at the great things this guy can do with a cloudy day, maybe I should be obsessed with getting better at my own composition and technical skills.
  • aurigus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28In case anyone else is wondering what HDR is:

    High Dynamic Range

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging
  • h0w412d, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Wow I'm surprised so many people know about HDRs (not from this article, there're several other articles about it on digg). I only learned about it through my research.
    • finnif, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Maybe because it's built into Photoshop CS 2?

  • md81544, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3HDR does look amazing. Has anyone come across any free (open source) software which can take a series of exposures and create HDR images? I've only seen commercial packages so far.
    • orangetiki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Not free, but I think Quicktime can do it for cheap. Also I remember seeing a plugin for photoshop somewhere for that. Start there. Then again you can get close in photoshop with multiple layers of the same image, and the screen / overlay function in the layers pallette
    • mrops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I have played around with GIMP. There was a nice tutorial on how to do it on at http://www.gimpguru.org/ (for some reason this site is showing me 404 at the moment).

      Anyhow, the trick was to put two or more layers over each other and only making correctly exposed parts of it visble via transparancy Mask on each layer. Once done, just merge all the visible layer and you get a HDR image.
    • maino82, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yes, theres a completely free program that you can download called photosphere ( http://www.anyhere.com ). the OSX build has a gui, and the other OSs are just a command line tool. it's pretty easy to use once you get the hang of it. if you want to just make pretty pictures, all you have to do is use the tool to compile all the pics into an HDR image. if you want [i]accurate[/i] pretty pictures you need to go through a process of calibrating your camera using a luminance/illuminance meter and a grey card of known reflectance
    • tikal26, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Cinepaint is can do it look here for instruction
      http://people.freenet.de/hsbosny/HDR_Tutorial/HDR_Tutorial-en.html
      They have a linux version and I know they were working on a working windows build called glasgow (their new and improve arch) They were supposed to realese it the 21st, but I don't know what happened, but is at least worth keeping an eye on it if you use windows and cheking out if you use linux.
    • hummingbird, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm not sure, pfsTools might be what you're looking for (one of the command line only tools):

      http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/resources/pfstools/
  • Xiol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Do you need a special camera to do HDR, or can any camera do it just by altering the exposure time then combining the images later?
    • md81544, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7As long as you can produce several images at different exposures, with no changes to the scene in between, you should be able to get an HDR image out of pretty much any digital camera. A camera with multi-auto-bracketing helps a lot.
    • samKreuzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The best is a digital camera with a remote control and a tripod.
      An alternative is to shoot a photo in RAW. So you can change the exposure and create pictures with different exposure times. After that you can use a software to create the HDR image.
  • rtphokie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Hmm, where were "amazing" and "picture" on that list of words which get stories dugg.
  • RacerX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Here is the Tokyo article with tutorial:

    http://www.pingmag.jp/2006/04/13/10-pictures-of-tokyo-gotham/
  • fatalea1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I can see my apartment building and my office, I feel famous now
  • rtphokie, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4This is an interesting technique but I wouldnt call it amazing. It doesn't really improve the overall photo much. The results are overly contrasty and the colors are so washed out in nearly all the examples I've seen.
    • md81544, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can see it being a bit of a new fad with lots of HDR-style images appearing (a bit like the incredibly annoying "scratchy LP sound" fad on music tracks we had for a while). However in the right circumstance, it's fantastic. The interior of the chuch in the Wikipedia example image is beautiful.
    • Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm not impressed by that wikipedia church photo at all.. It looks unnatural and almost blury.
    • BadgerOU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It is a little blurry -- but it's the most classic example of how difficult it is to display a HDR scene on a computer. It's been in two of my computer graphics books so far.
    • tuartboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Really, the full benefits benefits of HDR can't be seen by the eye. If the HDR image is meant to be seen in the full gamut by a human eye, it has to be "remapped" into the visual range, thereby losing its HDR properties.

      I use HDR regularly in maya for hyper-realistic lighting and it is critical in lighting objects to be composited in live action plates. I believe this is where it is most useful.
  • levyjl1988, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3wow, just digg!
  • TheWalkingDude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In case anyone wondered about "New Amsterdam": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Amsterdam
    • bigpeeler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Why'd they change it? I can't say. People just liked it better that way.
  • m4ktub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And here we go with these "Amazing" stories.
    http://digg.com/technology/_Amazing_,_digg_,_revealed_:_Top_422_digg.com_attention_grabbing_words

    The pictures are nice. I specially like that dark cloudy sky.
  • sysrpl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Shenanigans! Check the image type. Jpegs are not high dynamic range images. HDR images are in special file format that allows the largest range of values, e.g. floating-point values stored with 32 bits per color channel.
    • orangetiki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2prob just saved down for the masses. But yes the actual raw files are even better. Although I can't remember if it is .raw or not.
    • ConceptJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Um, I don't suppose it's possible that he converted the HDR image to something we can view with our browsers?

      Naah.

    • Philbert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I agree, decent HDRIs are usually not available for free so this caught my eye. Just to be sure I tried loading one of the images into HDR Shop and it gave me the message "The loaded image is a Low Dynamic Range image [meaning "normal"] HDR Shop needs to convert it to a High Dynamic Range Image".

      Check out https://doschdesign.com/products/hdri/ for some collections of excellent HDR images. I use Dosch Skies all the time for lighting my outdoor scenes.

      Great looking photos regardless!
    • samKreuzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You are right. Color mapping is used for making the HDR visible.
    • tuartboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Really, the full benefits benefits of HDR can't be seen by the eye. If the HDR image is meant to be seen in the full gamut by a human eye, it has to be "remapped" into the visual range, thereby losing its HDR properties."

      My comment from above.
  • sopiaz57, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1totally awesome images, thanks for sharing
  • Rexeisen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Hooray Fisheye lens!
  • NeilM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wow... these are great pictures.
  • Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Really awesome. It all looks like a video game with everything in focus like that
  • Eliminator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Cool, I can see New Jersey!
  • mi2ca, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I hate software-generated HDR images. They look look like something out of a coloring book. Blech!
  • windhawk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This just proves that using the word "Amazing" will get more Diggs. See previous story about which words get the most Diggs.

    That said, some shots were nice; especially the B&W solitary shots.
  • samKreuzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you like to create own HDR pictures, try Photomatix.
    http://www.hdrsoft.com/

    It's possible to create realistic pictures. Take a look at my pics:
    http://flickr.com/photos/samsnet/132997008/
    http://flickr.com/photos/samsnet/130933306/

    This one is a bit too much :)
    http://flickr.com/photos/samsnet/130902212/
  • myskja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5For those interested in HDR/bracketed photography, here is another one, 6-8 seconds long exposure:

    http://www.deviantart.com/view/11226322/

    Here is one with exposed hidden detail, manually adjusted for HDR:

    http://www.deviantart.com/view/9176894/

    3 exposures, bracketed:

    http://www.deviantart.com/view/9050158/
    • drycounty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Very nice. What setup did you use?
    • myskja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You mean camera equipment and such? For those three shots I linked to I used a Canon 10D with a 17-40L lense. I now mostly use a 20D though. And I manually blended the shots together in PS.
    • whoutz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Composite-Imaging always creates that nasty halo between the images. Its a nice idea but rarely ever looks perfect. I used a GND filter on my camera and that works really great. Here are some pictures I took of the grand canyon using a GND (graduated neutral density). It's basically a square filter with the top tinted 2 stops and the bottom is clear and you can slide it up in down in a bracket to match the scene. Does a transparent job without that nasty halo. They say, its always ebetter to take the beer can out of the picture, than to try to remove it with photoshop. GIMP!

      http://www.havenofbliss.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?path=2003roadtrip&page=2


  • whoutz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3HDR photos rarely look good, and always look fake. This NYC is junk too; its photoshopped to death with the burn, hue and levels too. The colors are rusty and make me want to puke. If i only saw this picture of NYC, I'd never want to visit there. If you're doing HDR, the you need to buy a real camera instead of a disposable camera.
  • BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This looks amazing.
    http://static.flickr.com/56/117520617_26268ba539_b.jpg
    • djblast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1right click...set as desktop background.

      it is stretched a bit, but it works great.
  • xxdesmus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2those asre absolutely incredible. wow.
  • planckstudios, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Is anyone looking at the original, Hi-res shots? They are filled w/ noise and overly contrasty. HDR is a great technique, but in is case, its application is lacking finesse.

    No digg.
  • whoutz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1This article proves that technophiles and artists don't mix. no digg
  • agdtinman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4These are NOT HDR images.

    They’re tone-mapped images generated from an HDR image. Seems like semantics, but it’s sort of an important distinction that’s been completely lost during this trend. An HDR image contains the varying exposure possibilities for highlights and shadows, using the starting images you gave it. You can think of it as giving you control over the actual light in different areas of the scene. The tone-mapping process is essentially a way of taking all that HDR information and generating an image that shows all the best-exposed parts. It brings out details in shadows, under-exposes bright highlights, etc.
  • KiltedMile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Anyone seen any wedding HDR photog?
    • djblast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1digg just glitched...mod down
    • tuartboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Due to the necessity of multiple exposures (in-camera exposure bracketing is bare minimum and results improve the more images you get (up to a point of course (read: 9-10 ish is typical))), HDR is not well suited to action or even portrait photography. Still lifes and landscapes work well, however.
    • samKreuzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's possible. Shoot in RAW (1 picture). And then in photoshop adjust the exposure times. Create pictures with different exposure times. Finally create the HDR picture with the different pictures.
  • DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Nice, I bet I could do that too with $100000 worth of equipment.
    • tuartboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3you can do that with your pocket camera. It's not rocket science...
  • jdonner, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3How can anyone who's serious about photography appreciate HDR, because the quality of the images is simply poor; colors that look bad, poor contrast and the "retouched" look makes a serious photographer wants to take a cyanide pill when he sees this.
    • rudolphdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Cuz your opinion isn't mine and I think HDR is great. Have a good day!
  • ilnyckyj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think a lot of posters here are missing the point of this gallery. These images capture the entire scene without having anything under or over exposed, which is achieved by combining multiple exposures into a single HDR image. The HDR image contains more information than cannot be viewed on most of our monitors, or for that matter printed. Tonal mapping is the process that keeps the useful information from the HDR image and discards the rest, resulting in an 8-or-16 bit image; the jpeg that we ultimately see. Tonal mapping is subjective, and this gallery was trying to go for a moody look, love it or hate it.
    This link is to a pretty good explanation of how and when to use HDR with PS CS2: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm
  • SemperLuc, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0Photo's of Manhattan - I think not. The photographer must be one of those radical right wing nut jobs. I don't see the World Trade Center towers anywhere in the photos. Don't believe these photos - they've obviously been doctored.
    • defythereds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2ummm....was that supposed to be funny?
    • rudolphdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Try going a few hours into the day before excessive drinking.
  • Books, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, a lot of those are absolutely amazing.
  • ktalinu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Another cool gallery http://photos.byethost7.com/index.php?path=Cityscapes/
  • bgwynne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This may sound like a stupid question, but do you need to have a tri-pod to do this? I'm sure it will make it more effective, but I don't have one, and was wondering if I could still try doing some HDR photos. Anyone???
  • Japan1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I also shoot HDR photography, some of the work can be seen here: http://www.johninjapan.com
  •  

    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.