What is Digg?74 Comments
- Mjuboy, on 05/02/2008, -10/+41This a new low for Digg, Flickr searches are hitting the FP.
- lolroflmaoafk, on 05/02/2008, -1/+25Seriously. The best of Razuryza? WTF is Razuryza?
- lukak, on 05/02/2008, -12/+30no. more. hdr. please.
- krazykor, on 05/02/2008, -0/+11I'm pretty sure its a legendary pokemon
- TheKingInYellow, on 05/02/2008, -2/+12OUCH...he got a little too carried away with the tone mapping on a few of those.
- kidcodea, on 05/02/2008, -0/+10unless its shdr. i heard with super-hdr the chromatic beauty expands into infinity and beyond with a meta-resolution bigger than reality, slipping into the bounds of the unknown and the unseen and coming out alive, a winner.
- Nayson, on 05/02/2008, -1/+8That mosque is a stunning looking building. I think im off to find a 1600x1200 shot of it for my wallpaper!
- Aldhelm, on 05/02/2008, -1/+7I like the pictures but damn it. They are to small.
- TheKingInYellow, on 05/02/2008, -1/+7what?
- comradeTJH, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5I don't like those "HDR" images where you can see the edges around trees for example glow because it's just mixed together poorly.
- Kent767, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5Can someone, by chance, link me to a good tutorial site on making effective HDR pictures? I've seen some photoshop actions, but they don't do nearly as good a job as I've seen others do.
- Subversyve, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5A couple of these are not a bad example of proper utilization of HDR. Using it sparingly can bring out new aspects to a good photo, but if applied to a poor picture in an attempt to make it "interesting" the results are nothing short of visual holocaust. (ie: the zulia photo) That said, there are some very interesting locations that he's shot, and the actual framing ect. of the pictures is very well executed.
- CeeJayDK, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5That has to be one of the worst HDR images I have ever seen.
The scene is beautiful , but the processing absolutely stinks ..
It's over-saturated , over-sharpened , noisy and has tons of blown highlights.
I hope you saved the original files, because I think (hope) you could do so much better on the processing. - BevansDesign, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5Jebus people. Quit complaining about the size. See where it says "View On Black" below the image? There ya go. Bigger.
Also, photographers don't want to upload images that are TOO large, because high resolution images are frequently ripped off by unscrupulous people and used in advertising and stuff. - AbdullahAbuDawu, on 09/12/2008, -1/+5Mashallah. This guy is a good artist.
- Mjuboy, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4A link to his photostream or sets would be much simpler.
- estacado, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4Of all the photographers in the world, why did you choose Razurya? How did you find out about him?
- cathryn101, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4I love them!
- TheKingInYellow, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3to small? like large to small?
- TheKingInYellow, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3i used photomatix for these and then sharpened with photoshop:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26237641@N06/
i'd also recommend reading this page for more technical tips:
http://www.vanilladays.com/hdr-guide/#tools - russellphilip, on 05/02/2008, -7/+10These overdone HDR's are getting old.
- HayString, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3Whoosh
- evilevil, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2digg has hit every low imaginable, so why is this unexpected?
- novenator, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2the rest of the photographs in his flickr account rock as well! this guy has quite the eye, especially for color
- SmpleJohn, on 05/02/2008, -2/+4and you can see dead people.
- BevansDesign, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Nah, I like them. I'm always willing to see HDR done well.
- TheKingInYellow, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2YEAH!!! finally someone to agree with!
- reevolutn, on 05/04/2008, -0/+290% *****
- pax85, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3Oh come on. They aren't that good ... Only 3 different subjects, all the time ...
- ertert, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Kent767, first try looking a Trey Radcliff tutorial, http://stuckincustoms.com/about-me/, Also using photomatix to do your HDRs, works better then Photoshop i find. Then there is also this tutorial: http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_8.htm, which helped me a lot
Hope this helps.... good luck - BevansDesign, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1In the comment on each one is a link to a large version.
- palmer, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1These are not HDR. HDR requires file formats that support it, like EXR. What these people are doing is taking dynamic range and COMPRESSING it, not expanding it. That makes the result LOW dynamic range, not high dynamic range. Therefore, LDR.
- profvegas, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2I was looking for good examples of HDR that I hadn't already seen 20x times. I found this on a recently popular search for 'HDR'.
- Mjuboy, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Here is a good roundup of several HDR tutorials -
http://tutorialblog.org/hdr-tutorials-roundup/ - slothlovechunk, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3These aren't HDR images. They are crappily-tonemapped images.
- TheKingInYellow, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1your best bet is to use photoshop as the final step for adding extra sharpening and contrast not for generating the hdr image. as for everything else...get to know google and how it can work for you.
- dreesemonkey, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1I've run your comment through my special HDR processing n00bacizer and it came out "Stunning, I can't get enough of these front page HDR pictures. I crave more and more!"
- Kent767, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Excellent, thanks all!
- assbeard, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1well sure, but how many people out there do this?
- eleete, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Great eye Razuryza
- kidcodea, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1what's next? no santa?
- TheKingInYellow, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1if you're subtle you can get away with single exposure.
- assbeard, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1and try to prove that it's your photo and not theirs? good luck.
- TheSuperunknown, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2Extreme haloing? Check.
Single exposure? Check.
Wicked tone curve? Check.
Oversaturated? Check.
Used in low DR daylight scenes? Check.
Not really HDR at all? Check. - TheKingInYellow, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1having a disc with the original raw files with the exif info linking it to my camera proves that it's my picture and not theirs.
- TheKingInYellow, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1half of these photos are well done...as in burnt...not "done well". a good hdr is one that has been caressed and gently created with layers and blending. not blown out of the water, over saturated, over leveled and over done. i'm not saying that razuryza isn't a decent photographer. he does however need to work on his use of the hdr technique in a more subtle way instead of raping my eyes.
- TheKingInYellow, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1and when your photos and other creative property show up in advertising without your consent you can sue the ***** out them for damages.
- AppleMacStud, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Yet another reason to get a Mac, it protects your lungs.
- Tr33fiddy, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2You'd think with HDR-sourced images having been round for so long that people could do them without the nasty halos in them. You might also think that the novelty of average/sub-average HDRs would have worn off to the extent that they don't get dug to the front page any more.
You'd be wrong on both counts. - palmer, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Not to mention that NONE of these are HDR. Those that were processed are LDR; others are just regular long exposures.
Get a clue. -
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is