What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
29 Comments
- rheaume, on 09/03/2009, -2/+20Noooo dont tell people how to do it MORE
- afdlips, on 09/03/2009, -2/+12This is terrible.
- andoru, on 09/03/2009, -2/+11Dugg for actually telling people they need to begin with separate exposures. Flickr is overrun with retards who apply crappy looking tonemapping to a single image (not even RAW) and think they are suddenly a HDR "artist".
- temsi, on 09/03/2009, -1/+8Buried for perpetuating the horrifyingly over processed monsters being passed off as HDR.
Actual HDRI uses multiple exposures to generate an image that contains visible light in areas outside the dynamic range of one exposure, bringing it closer to what our eyes can actually see.
That's the key, mimicking what we can see, not making a monstrosity of unnatural hues and highlights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDRI - onClipEvent, on 09/03/2009, -2/+8Those 'sample' pictures are laughable. Almost all HDR pics i see are waaay over processed. They're not supposed to look strange and have halos around objects.
- DrCalculus, on 09/03/2009, -7/+13Really? Front page???
Step 1: Take pictures
Step 2: Use software to tone map
What a useful tutorial. Seriously -- how is this on the front page? - BonzoHarry, on 09/03/2009, -2/+7hey look I have over processed images with halos! Why hasn't national geographic called me yet?
- ethos101, on 09/03/2009, -2/+7Those aren't HDR (some are, kind of, but most aren't). You should be able to see the details in the shadows as well as in the highlights to be able to call it high dynamic RANGE. Those are just over processed images. When are people going to tell the difference?
- trashymac, on 09/03/2009, -3/+7NO! We don't need more people making crappy "HDR" images!
Can't bury fast enough! - sdipaola, on 09/03/2009, -0/+4HDR - the most bastardized computer Acronym since AI ( or more recently 3D which can mean a bit of everything but seems to mean stereo viewing these days).
In my book ( and officially when HDR started) you need an HDR display for real HDR. See HDR on a real display ( like 100,000s have seen at SIGGRAPH conference and elsewhere) and you will really get HDR - like looking through a real window - not fantasy, crazy colored tone map monstrosities. - Falldog, on 09/03/2009, -0/+4Oh, Popular Mechanics. You're late to the ball and wearing last year's patchwork rainbow dress.
- paloooz, on 09/03/2009, -0/+4***** HDR
- elenaadamscom, on 09/03/2009, -0/+3I don't like the style, but I accept that it's an artistic approach to post-processing.
As a full time photo retoucher and amateur photographer, I hate, hate, hate the halos! How lazy can you get? - BlueCadenza, on 09/03/2009, -1/+3GET THIS OFF THE FRONT PAGE. NOW. FOR ALL THAT'S GOOD IN THIS WORLD.
- TWallaceWD, on 09/03/2009, -0/+2Not all HDR is crappy. It's the overprocessed ones that give HDR a bad name.
http://tom-wallace.com/images/spain_hdr/DSC_1401_2 ...
http://tom-wallace.com/images/spain_hdr/DSC_1859_6 ... - WiretapStudios, on 09/03/2009, -2/+4Hello! So you have decided to make an HDR composite? Stop right there! Close Photoshop and realize that the pioneers have already done it to perfection (death), and numerous tutorials online have guaranteed that we are already up to our asses in ***** amateur HDR attempts! Please feel free to perfect any number of thousands of other photography and post-processing techniques!
- People with eyes - Tr33fiddy, on 09/03/2009, -0/+1Technically.... an HRDI is an image with a true high tone range, often stored as a 64 bit image file, that contains contrast information in both over and underexpose areas and need special monitors to view properly.
What the masses call HDR images are these sorts of wide range images compressed using tone mapping.
The actual 64 bit HDRI's are typically used as light probes in global illumination/radiosity renderings giving extremely life-like, lighting effects and near-photorealism:
http://www.creative-3d.net/GalleryDisplay.cfm?ID=1 ...
http://www.max-realms.com/modules/tutorials/guide_ ...
Of course the finished renders are not "HDRs" either... only the 64bit image file used to supply the lighting is.
...excluding my pedantry of course, you were completely correct. - BlueCadenza, on 09/03/2009, -0/+1Ocean photos are usually taken with a ND filter so that you can take 1 second exposures in full light, thus giving you a very smooth and fluid look. Movement is no issue whatsoever.
In bright light, getting two or three quick shots isn't that difficult either. Now the indoor picture in the example is incredibly blurry.
You can also tonemap a single picture in photoshop and get a similar effect. - paloooz, on 09/03/2009, -0/+1"crappy HDR" ... isn't that kind of redundant?
- cmtdigg, on 09/04/2009, -0/+1I thought you were exaggerating until I read the "article". Page 2? Seriously?
Buried. - palehorse864, on 09/04/2009, -0/+1They don't all have to be crazy colored. The best ones are realistic looking (no or minimal haloing!), but capture the dynamic range better than a single exposure could, even if it must be compressed to be displayed.
LDR is what I would call a single exposure, so that would be a poor term for these images, though they are on an LDR display.
I think the best terminology would be HDRC or High Dynamic Range Capture (Alternatively High Dynamic Range Compression if you like). It would distinguish them from High Dynamic Range Displays, while still telling you what they are. - TWallaceWD, on 09/03/2009, -0/+1You can make an HDR image from a single RAW image, although the results are usually not as good as with 3 images with different exposures.
- Yaanu, on 09/03/2009, -2/+2It's called democracy.
Imagine a nation run under democracy. - palehorse864, on 09/03/2009, -1/+1If you can, one of the most realistic methods is to overlay multiple images as layers in photoshop and mask out what's overexposed or underexposed until you have the best combination of all parts. It lets you capture a large amount of dynamic range, without the picture looking unrealistic.
- ushere, on 09/03/2009, -1/+1wow, they're so lame it's embarrassing!!!
who dug this needs to be buried - permanently. - YourMomsAnAnon, on 09/03/2009, -4/+3buried for hdr
- TheEggAndI, on 09/03/2009, -2/+1I'm able to this. But what I have yet to figure out is how people do this with moving images. I figure it's either photoshopped in some special way or there are professional cameras that can somehow automatically take several rapid pictures at different exposures. But even then, I don't see how HDR photos of say, the ocean, could work. Even if photos were taken in a fraction of a second apart, there's still no way the photos would be the exact same. Can anyone be so kind as to explain the method behind moving pictures in HDR to me?
- psa21, on 09/03/2009, -3/+1Buried.. Is it really that tough to google this?
- smackydoodle, on 09/03/2009, -3/+1Why do people piss and moan when someone does something different with an HDR pic other than just making it look realistic? I've seen waaay over processed HDR photos that are inspiring.
Be creative and step out of the box here and there in your life, you might enjoy it.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
