digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Hypnotically Beautiful Photo - New York City Island - From Clouds

flickr.com — Dramatic and mesmerizing - ALMOST the entire island of Manhattan - A perfect moment in time

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • axisds, on 10/12/2007, -25/+11I had to take it into photoshop to see if it was real. I couldn't find any evidence of it being fake except the position it it taken from in the sky. Either way it looks beautiful.
    • Cytranic, on 10/12/2007, -5/+45Actually this is a picture taken with HDR. HDR would make Haiti look awesome..
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22And while theres a place called "City Island" in New York (lovely spot near Queens) New York City is on 3 islands, (Manhattan, Staten and Long) and the mainland. Manhattan is only 1/5 of New York City, gentle tourist.
    • finkployd, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3@kremvax

      When did LawnEyegland become part of NYC?
    • patik, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@finkployd

      Part of NYC is on Long Island. Not all of Long Island is part of NYC.

      http://tinyurl.com/jk8u2 [maps.google.com]
    • CupBeEmpty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31This is "real" in the sense that it is a picture of Manhattan. However, it is done with a technique called HDRI or high dynamic range imaging. It is tagged as being in the Flickr HDR pool (http://flickr.com/groups/hdr/pool/) if you look down on the right.

      http://flickr.com/photos/chieftain-y/107672309/ this is a great example of the technique.

      Notice how the backlit sunflower is bright even though the bright sky behind it is not over exposed? This is because it is actually several exposures at different f-stops blended together to achieve a better range of lighting.

      http://flickr.com/groups/hdr/pool/ the Flickr HDRI pool... and you can see how the pictures can range from very subtle blending to surrealistic. It is not hard to do even by hand and there are actions for it in Photoshop. Still this is a very well done example.

      more:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging
      http://www.highpoly3d.com/writer/tutorials/hdri/hdri.htm
      http://www.gregdowning.com/HDRI/stitched/ (the first image is a very good example of the effect)
    • kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@finkployd
      Brooklyn and Queens are on an island known as... Long Island. The Bronx, well, that's attached, as they say.
    • finkployd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@patik

      Oh! You mean Queens and Brooklyn? (really, I posted this line at the same time you seemed to have)

      Since we can't joke, let's then also add Roosevelt Island, Randalls Island, Governers Island, Ellis Island (or is that technically in NJ?). There is also that really big island that runs down much of Park Ave to keep the people driving north from hitting those driving south, but that's man made
    • Thuktun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@finkployd

      Ellis Island used to be in NY (sort of) but is now officially in NJ.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/ap052698.htm

    • mpyzocha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@CupBeEmpty great information, to create an HDR image obtain at least 3 images: one under exposed, one at about the correct exposure and one a bit over exposed, this can be done using different f-stops but then each image has a different depth of field and does not work as well as if you use different shutter speeds. Also, you say it can be done by hand....the picture taking aspect almost has to be done with a tripod, if you look at the "original" size of the picture in this post you can see some of the images have a blur because they were not correctly aligned and photoshop cs has a merge to hdr function that works well but the best software is photomatix.
    • quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"ALMOST the entire island of Manhattan"

      ummm, no. From the looks of it, it's only everything south of 34th street and east of 6th Ave. It's a cool pic, but it's nowhere near the entire island.
    • Spec8472, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@CupBeEmpty

      The sunflower image also had another light source offset from the camera (above, and to the left) - possibly a reflector, but most likely a flash or lamp of some sort. (There's shadowing from one of the petals overlaying another, plus shadows under the leaves etc that are not the result of the sunlight in the background)



      Nontheless, it's a great pic and good info :)


    • CupBeEmpty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@myp and @Spec:
      Yeah I know... the explanation was simplistic. When I said "by hand" I meant in photoshop using hand painted gradients exposing layers rather than the HDR plug in. I know you really need a tripod and a "still" scene to do it well... you can even see the different edges in this picture which was probably on a tripod.

      Also for those that are interested f-stop changes are actually not the best. Shutter speed changes are best, spec is correct. Changing f-stop does alter the depth of field (although this is something worth playing with in HDR photography). However the "best" method is to actually get the CCD to change the eV across the detector. This is not possible with most photo rigs however and shutter speed changes are functionally the same.
  • SearchEngines, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14http://flickr.com/photos/automatt/116560916/

    Deciding between THIS one and the One used in the Topic.....

    WAS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT!!!!!
    • eleazar123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, that one is equally amazing. I wish I could order prints of both!

      I am new to flickr, how would one go about checking to see if he allows prints of his photos?
    • eleazar123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ok, so I am replying to myself (real cool, right?). It looks like you can order prints from his cafepress.com store. I found the link in his profile (for anyone wondering where I got it).

      http://www.cafepress.com/automatt/
    • mpyzocha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0flickr allows ordering of prints, but it depends on the settings and this one is blocked from allowing anyone to order a print of it
  • junkking, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8They are awesome photos, they are HDR photos, so they are manipulated to some extent.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging
  • inio, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Beautiful piece of Photoshop work (not painting, but selective levels adjustment, saturation enhancing, etc).
  • emanggid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2It is a great photo.

    HDR is all the rage on flickr, though it's starting to reach it's peek. It's a refreshingly new way to see the world.
  • NinjAlt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Sadly it gets slightly ruined by the stupid notes left on the picture itself.
  • jaymzz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Looks like Manhattan to me.
    • QuorumCall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I know, I was thinking to myself, who calls it New York City Island?
  • kbarrett, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Pretty.
  • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Nice photo but why is it in the technology section of digg?
    • treed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Use of HDR.
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5FYI, the same type of thing can be done with graduated filters on film cameras.

      Here's an example of graduated filter use: http://www.singh-ray.com/singh13.jpg
    • CupBeEmpty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Also this can be done in development with dodging and multiple exposures. It is really a pain in the a-- though and photoshop with a digital camera is by far the preferred method.
  • LegionnaireGRC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Great photo! I am out of words.
  • karn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9where was this shot from? Sorta looks like the view from the observation deck at the empire state building. Zoomed in of course.
    • bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3yep, it's empire state. easy way to tell is because of where the flatiron building is.
  • keyrat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1That sort of photo deserves a bigger size.
    • bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6on flickr you can easily view it, click on the magnifying glass icon above the image to view all sizes.
    • digga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Unfortunately the largest size reveals a softness and a seeming mismatch of the HDR layers. Note the fringing visible at the bottom left.
    • keyrat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6ahhh alright i'm a retard thx
  • Protoss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Wow..Digg gets thumbnails of flickr posts too, thats pretty neat.
  • manoftheisland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12wish there was still the WTC
    • Quidam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah WTC was the best part of manhattan. A fundamental part of the skyline...
  • LouBrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Dugg for bringing to my knowledge what is HDR. I've been frustrated for some time by the too high contrast of my photographs. I'll start to toy around with HDR in Photoshop!

    I wonder if there's a possibility that this technology may be built in high-end digital cameras.
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yes and no. HDR in Photoshop makes use of preferably 3 or more captures which generally means using a tripod.

      Fuji, I believe, has a sensor technology that has extra pixels to capture the highlights making it's images higher in DR than most. The down side is a sometimes washed out appearance.
    • CupBeEmpty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Daffy:

      A lot of cameras can take "bracketed" exposures. This means they take a couple expoures lighter than what you "take" and a couple darker. This is possible because of the speed at which CCD's can capture light and store it to the buffer. It literally makes it possible to do HDR hand held (although this usually sucks).
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have a Canon 1D MarkII that of course can take bracketed photos. It takes 3 or more photos in succession with chosen levels of exposure compensation. Even at 8.5 fps, the camera can move quite a lot when hand-held. This is not good.

      You seem to be suggesting that the camera takes 3 photos with one shutter release and that is of course not true.
  • MjrMjrMjrMjr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9While this is certainly a beautiful HDR photo, its content can by no means be described as "ALMOST the entire island of Manhattan." In fact, it's really only a tiny fraction, encompassing the southeastern portion of the island. The tall buildings in the foreground are midtown, right below Central Park. That means that all of Manhattan, from 59th to 215th (or so) is outside the scope of the image, not to mention the west side.

    Of course, this has nothing to do with the beauty of the image, just the description. And City Island, whose image I had anticipated after reading the title, is, while not too far from Queens, off the coast of the Bronx (and is considered part of the Bronx).
    • ajamison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, I was about to say the same thing. Not even close to being the whole of Manhattan.
    • ylph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually if this is shot from the Empire State Building as it appears, which is on 34th street (technically south of the midtown area), it's only the south 1/3 of the island at best (the streets go up to 220 in Manhattan)
  • gharding, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Home, sweet home :)
  • devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I hate to rain on the party, but I just want to throw in a dissenting opinion here...
    I really think this photo is pretty ugly. The saturation and hue have been messed with too much, and there's a lot of artifacting from the compositing process. The lens produces a lot of noticable distortion as well, which is distracting and makes the photo even harder for the eye to accept.
    • planckstudios, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Exactly - The novel thing about this picture is the 11mm lens used, not the HDR technique. Once you've played around with HDR and you're over the shock value, you come to see how poor the quality of this image actually is.

      1. Look at the original image - when printed it would look horrible - there is too much play in the separate images used to build the final HDR image. Look at the blur on the building edges and duplicate edges on some. Check the golden spire to the right. Fuzzy.

      2. Noise (dots) in areas with one consistent color - sky and clouds. Tell tale sign of color values pushed too far w/ little technique.

      3. CA (Chromatic Aberration) - look at the lower left hand corner - areas of high contrast have a false color (purple in this case) on the border. Poor optics.
    • CupBeEmpty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That is really the challenge for HDR. It is able to radically alter the range of the photo in situations where saturation would otherwise make the shot impossible. The tradeoff is "believability" and sharpness.

      I would look through the Flickr pool before casting too much judgement. It will give you a good idea of who are the subtle artists and who is using HDR as a blunt instrument.
    • smb3d, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I agree completely with devindotcom. I think the photo is actually pretty horrendous. The saturation is way to high. Just look at the cabs, and at the top of the building near the center. People might disagree, but I think the majority of so called "HDR images" are garbage. I believe that people have generally misunderstood HDR, and think that it is a tool to make pretty photos for flickr, and this is not the case at all. The primary use of HDRI is to maintain the overbright areas of an image for use in visual effects. This extra information is useful in recreating real world lighting situations and to aid in rendering photo realistic scenes. You can not store any high dynamic range within a jpg, so any image on flickr or anywhere else is technically not a HDR image. HDR images contain 32 bits per pixel instead of the 8 bits found in jpg images. I'm not a Photoshop guru by any means, but I don't think that merging multiple exposures together with the merge to HDR filter has any advantage over traditional photo editing in Photoshop especially when the end result is not a real HDR file. The effect illustrated in the Manhattan photo, whatever it might be, can certainly be created without the use of HDR. Simple Hue/Saturation and Levels adjustments plus the shadow/highlight filter along with a good photo will yield the same results. I apologize for the long winded post, but I'm seeing more and more buzz surrounding HDR and I think it's based off misconceptions of the HDR format.
  • BufordT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nice photo "From Clouds" when I can see a chunk of the building that was being stood on when the photo was taken in the bottom left hand corner. Those clouds look like they are at least a couple of miles above the photographer.
  • brianegge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6When did below 34th become 'ALMOST the entire island of Manhattan'?
  • Twinny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2had to make wallpaper out of this one.
  • robnoxious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And while theres a place called "City Island" in New York (lovely spot near Queens) New York City is on 3 islands, (Manhattan, Staten and Long) and the mainland. Manhattan is only 1/5 of New York City, gentle tourist.

    + You are forgetting the Bronx. North of Manhattan.
  • DKasler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ohh look, I can almost see my house from here. (Bay Ridge)
  • MjrMjrMjrMjr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Bronx is not on an island. It's part of the mainland (and continents are not generally considered islands).

    But iff we are being precise, there are lots of smaller islands that make up NYC including City Island, Riker's Island, Ward's Island, Roosevelt Island, Randall's Island, etc.
  • rages4calm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2That is by far the most beautiful photo of new york city I have ever seen and as a photographer I know that is not an easy shot and to pull it off so well with such little lighting must of made setting the white balance and iso a bit tuff without causing the photo to look all noisy and grainy.
    • mustache, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Ok, I have to highly disagree with you here.

      As a photographer myself, it's a very easy shot to pull off. First of all, its digital, HDR, so many exposures were taken and then edited together. Not to mention you could just mess with the white balance later. Also, being that he took multiple exposures to create the HDR effect, the ISO and noise wasn't much of an issue in this shot.

      Not even to mention the horrible color vignetting in the corners. It looks like it was taken with an extremely crappy wide angle filter on a low end digital camera.
    • digga, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@mustache

      Thankfully, someone else who understands photography. The largest size version shows how poor this particular photo really is.

      It's a nice attempt, but certainly not the worlds best.
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In my opinion, it makes a great web photo at small sizes but the equipment and the post processing could be improved. I looked at the original. That's got to be one of the worst lenses I have seen! It wouldn't be too noticeable on a 4x6 print but anything larger would show a lot of problems. The blurring almost makes it look like multiple shots taken without a tripod were merged.

      But, this is pixel peeping. I wish I was there with my camera to take the same photo.
  • derek20cali, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0I never realized Manhattan was such a slum. Sorry, but it's true.
    • freshyill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes, what a slum... it's totally obvious from this aerial shot. Have you ever even been there, jackass?
    • Quidam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, seriously man. Take a trip to NYC and check out the beauty of the city for yourself. It's one of the greatest cities I've ever been to.
    • CupBeEmpty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OH COME ON! The city is wonderful but we do put our trash directly in the streets for the most part. I will say that the slumminess combined with the grandeur is what makes America's first city so impressive/
  • freshyill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"ALMOST the entire island"... if Manhattan started at midtown.
  • JackHallows, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This was on Digg a few months ago... and it was really popular. It's still cool but I wish people would search a little more thoroughly. *sigh*
  • Duositex, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Um... hypnotically beautiful? Perhaps a forest.. or a waterfall.. or the ocean.. but trillions of tons of concrete and steel springing up out of the blacktop piping heat and pollution skyward like a fire that never goes out and dumping millions of gallons of sewage into the ocean every day? Hypnotically beautiful? Did I miss the memo where everyone agreed to redefine that phrase as meaning, "over populated metropolis captured in a sub-standard photo posted on flickr" ???? Don't even get me started on this "perfect moment in time" crap.
    • Quidam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm guessing you live on a farm. I'm sure manure is beautiful to you but not all of us agree.
  • warox, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1test comment dig me down
  • gflammer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nice when viewed small... but note the stuttered edges if you download the original size... taking a great HDR picture is hard.
  • zefiris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Reminds me sooo much of the doom2 outdoor skys...
  • boaman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0seen much better pics from cell phones.
  • PJBonoVox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Two words :

    *****. Hole.
  • lopla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This is not a "photo" FFS it is HDR at best this is a "Digital Illustration". Please mark this as inaccurate. Makes me freaking SICK that this digital montage crap is considered "real". I have some swamp land for sale, interested? Wakeup and recognize this crap, yes that is all it is crap digi composites any 5yr old could do with a mac and photoshop.
  • SearchEngines, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1THE POWER OF A POPULAR DIGG HOMEPAGE IS ASTOUNDING:

    These are the stats for this ONE photo ONE DAY before submitting this to digg
    Serpt 27th 2006 -- ( Uploaded to Flickr on March 24, 2006 )




    480 people call this photo a favorite
    Viewed 27,421 times
    ___________________________________

    This is the latest Stats One day after it made the Digg Homepage

    839 people call this photo a favorite
    Viewed 105,286 times
    _____________________________________

    Even the second choice Photo used in the earlier comment two days ago ,,,,,Doubled in Views and Favorites: (Uploaded on March 22, 2006)

    166 people call this photo a favorite
    Viewed 37,747 times


    Thankfully Flickr and YouTube high high bandwidth capacity - or else this could have been disasterous
  • m3rcenary, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Whats with all the NY pics lately on Digg? Make a new thread called Photos or something, Im tired of having them in the Design section. Sounds like the Republicans are trying another method of saying 911 and getting votes this Nov by showing pics of NY all over the damn net.
  •  

    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.