What is Digg?90 Comments
- Falldog, on 03/31/2008, -9/+31Great, we need more people who think boring photos rung through HDR with overdone tone mapping are pieces of exceptional art.
- 3ugene, on 03/31/2008, -1/+22Why would I want to know how to make a tutorial?
- ghaltmann, on 03/31/2008, -8/+28Great because what we need is more crappy "hdr" photos that look like Dr. Seuss threw up on a toon-town scene.
- seantubridy, on 03/31/2008, -1/+11Maybe next, someone will post a tutorial on how to use Photoshop's watercolor filter.
- CharlesSaint, on 03/31/2008, -6/+15I'm taking a break from burying MrBabyMan's usual crap to actually digg this only because it was something my dad was interested in doing. Just thought I'd make that clear.
- Kamael, on 03/31/2008, -1/+10If they actually have to "compete" it will be because the photos will be as good as the ones of a pro photographer (which I highly doubt).
- santaliqueur, on 03/31/2008, -2/+11Now everyone will use HDR without even knowing what it's for. Increasing dynamic range. HDR is not needed when your sensor can properly expose your image in one shot.
If your scene has a higher dynamic range than your sensor can capture, you can use multiple exposures. Let's say you are shooting a house, but the sun is setting in the background. Either you properly expose the house, which would drastically overexpose the sky, or you properly expose the sun, leaving the house underexposed. You can take two images, use HDR techniques, and properly expose both of them.
Tone mapping is where these ridiculous "photographs" come from. I'd rather save time and run my image through 5 Photoshop filters, because that's what most of these images look like. - viruz, on 03/31/2008, -4/+11Let's avoid using photomatix ... it'll save use the eye sores of future not so good HDR pictures on Digg's frontpage.
Honestly I haven't seen a good HDR since photomatix became mainstream. - revjustin2, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6Why are you talking to Jesus about this? We all know that Ganesh is the offical god of HDR photos.
- Navicerts, on 03/31/2008, -4/+10Oh sweet baby jesus. Get ready for the onslaught of HDR haters (aka photography snobs).
- viruz, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5I prefer Thor
- viruz, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6That's not entirely accurate... however most pros hate bad HDR that everyone is doing with photomatix.
- santaliqueur, on 03/31/2008, -2/+7Why avoid using Photomatix? Because most of the users suck? The tool itself is amazing.
- revjustin2, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Smug much?
- revjustin2, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Elitist much?
- XristosAnesti, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4I think too many professional photographers are pretentious bastards, and too few of them are real artists.
- revjustin2, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4"Pros" hate it when the technology that enables what they do becomes cheap and affordable for the great unwashed. When this happens, talent is the great separator, not how much expensive gear you own and that makes it hard to sell yourself as a "pro".
- Buckeye17, on 03/31/2008, -8/+12HDR photos do not look good.
- fusionFactor, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Instead of bitching, why not be helpful and provide an alternative that you find adequate.
Jesus Christ, people are annoying and selfish lately... - matrixbandit, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5Seriously, I've always wanted to learn to create my own HDR tutorial.
- gjmcnamee, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3I must agree. The photo of the Golden Gate bridge makes my eyes burn! Those clouds look awful. I have seen some beautiful images but I think it is a matter of subtlety. Anyway, I think this can produce interesting results, but I think a lot of the images that include people look particularly awful..
- heavystone, on 03/31/2008, -5/+8"Like a pro"`?
Sorry but professional photographers don't take HDR. They actually despise the whole HDR "movement". - Navicerts, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4Seriously, people should call you and ask permission to call whatever it is they did "art" before doing so. Don't they realize there are rules to be followed!
I was in burlington the other day and someone had gone around town and planted a small toothpick flag with G.W.Bush on it on each and every pile of dog crap, great art i thought (honestly). - XristosAnesti, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Any decent photo editor can save a lossless JPEG, which means you can't really tell the difference. RAW has its uses, but this isn't one of them.
- vvaduva, on 03/31/2008, -3/+6This is a decent introduction for absolute beginners. The pros in this forum should be less arrogant and more encouraging of beginners who may not be able to afford 2K cameras and software worth thousands of dollars. Your sarcasm will not help someone listen to what you actually have to say...
- N00F, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3I agree, I don't see what the fascination of HDR photo retouching is. Take a nice photo and then frig it up by burning the colours in the photo. Ridiculous.
- CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2"HDR is not needed when your sensor can properly expose your image in one shot." That's a misconception. Properly exposed is not the same as optimal exposure, and that's what HDR is about. The dynamic range of an outdoor scene on a sunny day is so far beyond the dynamic range of a monitor, that it doesn't matter how good your camera is, you need to be able to intelligently manipulate the brightness and contrast of the various parts of the image independently.
- viruz, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2I prefer photoshop for my HDR duties.
- manfromfuture, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Should be http://www.luxal.eu/resources/hdr/hdrprep/
- thanakar, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3He's right though. When editing images you should be using a RAW format and only save the final format in JPEG if you're going to be posting it to the web or sending it in an email.
- YanSan, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2i don't think this is going to help with that. the file format .hdr and hdr photos that are jpeg or whatever are different. .hdr give's 3d packages light information, if you use an .jpg hdr image it won't act any different than any other jpg. i don't know how to make proper .hdr images, i know the program "hdr shop" it supposed to help make them. anyways, this tutorial probly won't help with what you are looking for.
- Tippis, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Then they are not professional photographers, since they, unlike many others, should know the difference between two connected, but very different concepts: HDR and tone mapping.
A photographer likes HDR, since that simply means that more information is available in the photo that can be displayed or printed. More information = solution to the limitationss of the digital sensor = more artistic control.
A photographer *might not* like tone mapping, however, since that's entirely subjective choice when it comes to the artistic rendering of an image. It relies on selectively compressing HDR data into something that current display and print technologies can reproduce, and the effect of that compression can vary wildly depending on what impression the arist is looking for.
If you want realism, tone mapping might not be what you're looking for, but HDR is still an invaluable resource to get the realism you want. - santaliqueur, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2"Get a talent"? Get an education. Most people suck at HDR, because of everyone overusing tone mapping. By youe defensiveness, you sound like one of the offenders.
- endus, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Thank god someone is digging a tutorial on how to use the software for a change rather than just linking to some ***** photographer who doesn't know two important things...
1.) How to take a good photograph
2.) What the sliders in Photomatrix do
Most of the HDR you see linked on here is done by people who don't have the slightest idea what they are doing and can't be bothered to take 5 minutes to play with the sliders and try to make the image look good. This introduction is pretty basic, but at least it's introducing people to the idea that there are actually adjustment you can make to actually make the image look good.
Good stuff. - cyb3rdemon, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3I made a guide on making HDR photos about a week ago, using only free software:
http://digg.com/design/How_to_Make_HDR_Photos - PogMaHoin, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2As others have pointed out it's the overzealous tone-mapping that creates that look rather then HDR. Like most techniques if the effect can be seen then it has been over-cooked and while that may be the intent it often seems that these images are all sizzle and little substance. HDR and tone-mapping are useful when used judiciously for extending dynamic range but it takes a light touch.
- XristosAnesti, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Yeah, you can get one right here:
http://www.hdrsoft.com/ - CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2I think too many Diggers are pretentious and too few of them have something intelligent to say.
- santaliqueur, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Yes, I'm not only talking about the sensor, but also the monitor. Using HDR on a "standard" image with limited dynamic range is unnecessary. Sunny days and similar scenes benefit from HDR.
- CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Thanks. I'll add you to my list of who to call before I classify something as art.
- khyberkitsune, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1Quite a bit since I teach photography among other things. HDR came out WHEN? Back in the 30s. HDR is "This method was developed to produce a high dynamic range image from a set of photographs taken with a range of exposures." In other words, it's not a form of photography, it's a form of photograph EDITING. Take a class on photography if you fail to understand.
- p51d007, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1You can get almost the same results by using the shadow/highlight tools in photoshop.
- santaliqueur, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Why yes it is. Funniest ***** show of all time.
- markus941, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1People seem to be really divided over HDR. They either really love or hate them. But you can't hate the technique itself, that's like hating crayons just because a lot of 5 year olds draw ugly pictures with them.
There is some free tone mapping software out there like a few people mention above, but I still like Photomatix better. And at $92 it's a little easier on your wallet than $100:
http://www.visualphotoguide.com/photomatix-coupon- ...
There's another one that's around $50, plus a weird sounding one that's open source, you can Google for them. There's also Photoshop which is pretty good at tone mapping now but it still loses more detail (in shadows, etc.):
http://www.hdrsoft.com/images/cs2/comparison.html - XristosAnesti, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2There are cameras on the market now that do.
- jacenat, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1no need for hdr in this photo. not much intensity contrast at all.
- endus, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1You don't know what you are talking about.
I hate ***** HDR too, but not all HDR is *****. I prefer bracket and blends myself because they give you more control, but there are certainly good HDR images out there. Don't let the fact that most people can't even take 5 minutes to evaluate the image and play with the sliders in photomatrix make you write off HDR altogether. - XristosAnesti, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Actually, that's a pretty ***** photo and a really bad exposure. Here's a picture that actually makes your point about B&W HRDi:
http://flickr.com/photos/cmwhitephotography/232001 ... - khyberkitsune, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1WRONG. Since most cameras are 16-bit and HDR is false upsampling to 24-bit in today's digital world, there's ***** of information added. Do you even understand how the HDR process works? It's been around since the 1930s. Same process applies to the film of then as it does to the digital photos of today
- CoolWind, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Big problem. You have to take 3 photos of the same scene without the camera moving and without ANYTHING in the scene moving. Good luck. If all you want is a picture that looks better on a monitor, you can start with a single RAW image from your camera.
-
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is