thanks a lot!

So kitsch :p

Nice pics!

Niiice…

Wouwww, these are really gorgeous!!!

I can safely say that, these aren’t the one the best HDR pics. I am great fan of HDR pics and have seen really great of them. I am not blaming though, as you have already explained that in your disclosure. Some are really great, though. Keep it up!!

this hdr trend is really annoying. it’s just pimping boring photos that lack of content. i wouldn’t even call it photography at all, sorry.

I totally agree with that! I think it is becoming the “Bob Ross technique” of the photography.

@Henrik

Sorry but some of those pictures are really good. They have good motives, moods and perspective and would still be good shots if they where B&W. And to “not even call it photography at all” is kind of stupid. A photo doesnt always have to tell a heartbreaking to be good. At least show us something that you would call good photography.

Being Singaporean, its nice to see 3 photos of Singapore in the collection. :)

I am starting to really get into HDR photography and this post has given me such inspiration - what an absolutely fantastic post - thanks!

The pics are lovely… but what is the equipment you need to shoot them? Is this an expensive technique?

For the last link, use this for the photo page: Link [flickr.com]

Wow, what a collection …

Would be good to see a ‘(Really) Stunning Desktop HDR Wallpapers’. These are stunning, but I want ‘em bigger!

Gorgeous pictures, thank you!

Amazing collection!
kuldeep, please post the links to better images, I’d love to see them!

some good pics here, but i’m afraid HDR is one of the techniques that you can screw up most… and i promise to those of you who are stunned by all of the pictures up here cause it’s the first time you see hdr-pictures: it won’t be long, and you’ll start to hate these unnaturally overstructured skies on the photos of e.g. the golden gate bridge or that greek temple. these are some better examples of how NOT to apply the HDR-technique. golden rule as always: keep it natural…
and btw: there are some “fake” HDRs on this list. a real HDR is composed of several pictures with different exposure time, and i guess it might be difficult to get these birds to stay in the same position for several shots… not that anyone cared, just wanted to be the smart-ass…:P

Fantastical and fun. I would love to publish a poetry book with such pics…..

And another Photoshop filter becomes trendy. The HDR “look” to images (#2, #3, #5, #8) will come and go, and the faster this look goes, that better.

There is good reason to use HDR photography techniques: to capture a wider dynamic range. See #1, #13, #18, and maybe #35 - wide dynamic range, no Photoshop filter look (oh, sorry - I suppose you think these images have “style”? You don’t get style out of a Photoshop filter).

@dharma: no equipment except for a $69 Photoshop filter. Just take a bracketed exposure (+/- 2 stops, generally) and let Photoshop do the work. You will need a camera that you can control manually, though.

These are so beautiful. I’m in love.

Very very nice, it looks so amazing

I like the disclaimer you posted for all the elitist ass hats.

Another HDR post. As im a image passionate this techniques are just a wonderfull way to improve may pictures.

Wow! and 2 pics are my country :)

you claim the intention (of hdr-technique) is to “accurately represent the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes”, then you post 30-odd tone-mapped-to-hell examples of hdr photography at its absolute worst. nice one!

This stuff is so incredible. True HDR or not, it’s a great looking effect and these images really “pop”. I’m glad this effect is not something easily obtainable otherwise you’d start seeing it all over.

damn it, its really fantastic!

I absolutely agree with shasta. There are some good pictures over here, but (to me, of course) many of them sucks - Golden Gate’s and greek temple’s being probably the worst, sure… wanna see some beautiful examples of HDR photography?

Link [www.cambridgeincolour.com]

Nice.

I second shasta, chus and others who comment on the “unreality” of many of these photos. Some of them look like they belong on the cover of cheesy fantasy novels. And I will second Chus’ link to cambridgeincolour.com. THAT is some beautiful HDR work!

terrible! Nuff said, these all are tone mapped way beyond….

If this was digg I would give you -1

Pictures are quite nice but they also suffer from to much contrast. The eye is naturally attracted by contrast and this is the main reason for the appreciation these images get.
They are from a pictorial point of view different but
after a few pictures I seem to look at something that is all the same.

No doubt. Hallucination - maybe. Nice photos - definitely not.

Beautiful pictures, very crisp and clean!

$69 dollar filter? Some of the best HDR software is free. Just started using it this weekend. Equipment needed/recommended would be a camera that allows either Auto Bracketing or manual control and a nice, stable tripod. Another good item to have is a cable release, but not needed. And the most important thing, is an eye for photography. Doesn’t matter how much PP you do, with out the initial vision, you still get garbage.

Hard to believe that everyone of these pictures was originally a photograph.

Awesome eye candy!

Applied carefully, High Dynamic Range-technique (HDR) can create incredibly beautiful pictures

Unfortunately a lot of these are over the top with the HDR, which I personally dont like. but too each his own… if it’s the photographers/artists intent to create a surreal, and sometimes ugly (hahah personal opinion sneeking in again) image… then more power to you.

Wow, these are beautiful - although some of them look unreal and almost like computer generated like the SF bridge.
Nice collection.

You have a LOT to learn about HDR. These all look like Photomatix jobs with the dial set to “11″ (Spinal Tap reference). If it no longer LOOKS like a photograph, then the HDR has not been done correctly. If it still looks like a photograph, but somehow better (like Ansel Adams zone system shots did for B&W), then you’ve got a well done HDR job.

If you want to see HDR done right, check out this guy’s work: BackingWinds. He’s a professional photoshopper and also a budding pro photographer and I think you’ll see some stuff that doesn’t look like such an obvious CGI.

Someone of these look incredible — I especially like the upward shot of the skyscrapers. However, it should be noted that these all more or less have the same look and feel: overprocessed and unreal. You can, however, create much more realistic results using Photoshop CS2 or CS3’s built in HDR function. I have a Photoshop HDR Tutorial on my blog; Photoshop can lead to some stunning results.

Terrible.

Reminds me of a new photoshop user - uses every gimmicky filter he can get his hands on to create …err *cough* …’art’

The original use of HDR photography was to accurately light computer generated 3d scenes…why don’t we let it stay that way.

This a fad that will date, die and decay just as quickly as snow washed jeans!

Very nice collection, however, i hate black clouds in the sky, they just aren’t natural

Whatever happened to just taking a really well composed and properly exposed photograph? For example, Ansel Adams achieved dramatic effects without Photomatix.

Reminds me of when the Matrix came out, and everywhere you looked, even Subaru commercials, they all used that same freeze/surround effect. This is just another one of those gimicks.

Wow! New background :).

I’m shootin’ RAW from now on!

Here is also an amazing HDR of rockafeller center that i found check it out

Link [www.wallpaperstop.com]

Only maybe 4 or 5 that are actually done tastefully, the rest are pretty standard garish HDR… but some are pretty stunning, decent collection all in all.

Most of these are way over done for my taste. You say they look fake (they do) but “they are not.” Well, the Golden Gate photograph is clearly looking south, from the north side of the Gate, yet on the south side hills, WHERE IS THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO? All I see are tree covered hills and maybe a few houses. I call it fake when something so obvious, which in reality is there, is missing.

more HDR pictures here
Link [www.techamok.com]

Another potentially useful Photoshop technique embarrassingly abused.

That is really cool…

Can I put this article to my own blog,too ?
I will translate this article to Chinese and will link back to your site.

Very cool pictures.

HDR photography is amazing. I hope this “trend” sticks around for awhile. :)

Grat..so beautiful & dramatic!

wow some of you are douchebags. SM tends to post extreme examples IMO for the idea to come across clearly. if they have to explain what HDR stands for in the description, why the hell are you looking at it if you are an ‘expert’ in the field?? and why would you waste your time posting negative comments about a clearly obvious attempt to inspire people in a positive way? i think this list is great for people who don’t understand what HDR is or are new to the idea. stop spreading your jaded views and go get laid losers.

@ John. While the SF bridge pic is certainly a fake HDR, the “fake” trees and hill? Its called the Presidio, look it up on google maps or something….

Its really funny how people always seems to be amazed by the “painterly” HDR style, to me they a really (mostly) boring. I like images that makes you stop and say: “Im looking at an ordinary photography and yet there’s something different” - and occasionally i do a “painterly” style.

@JnJn: You sure?

these photos are absolutely amazing. i’m so gonna try doing one… i just need a subject…… hmmmm

Most of these are over processed rubbish :( I hate it when people over process HDR images. Dont get me wrong there were a few nice ones there.

This is really fantastic ! I love all of them Thank you smashing magazine for sharing them

“Another potentially useful Photoshop technique embarrassingly abused.”

U take words right out of my mouth.

Amazing!

HDR = High Digg Rate

People can use anything they can,
photo never ever was something that shows reality,
but I agree that some of them have crossed the line
buts its ok, always great photographers used special fx in their compositions, including Ansel Adams, Man Ray, Sebastiao Salgado,
whats matter its the message.

These are some absolutely amazing photos.

How user friendly or beginner friendly is this approach?

simply amazing …
beautiful pictures …

Wow, These are spectacular… I know people rail on HDR as not real photography but I think they’re two different arts… When the camera came out did people complain that pictures weren’t really paintings?

Meh. Whatever. I love them, they beat mine :-)

Most pics seem polluted, skies full of air you can’t breathe. Don’t like it much…

All I can say is wow! Very inspirational images.
thanks

I absolutely love HDR…. I have not been so inspired since the early 90s days of learning Photoshop then experimenting with Kai’s Power Tools… But the fact this process is just the three exposures mapped together is really incredible.

About time it was featured here :) Nice job on this blog btw, this is my first post.

非常漂亮!

see my friends’ photos in Flickr~

HDR is a nice techinique to enhance an already great scene (revive contrast in a wash-out sky, etc…). Great scenes are not created by using HDR. In fact this techinique has been in use for many years in various forms i.e. multiple exposures like this image.

super cool pics

Wow!

these pictures are aweful… :/

I’m glad there’s a range of comments here:
At first I thought “Wow, awesome.” Then I thought “Some of these look like composites rather than HDR.”
It’s true that a lot don’t really represent reality and some are fake HDR, but I kinda love the unrealistic dramatism in a lot of these (including the Golden Gate Bridge) nice round up.

p.s. why does it welcome me as a Stumble Upon user every time I come here? I always link through from my RSS reader.

Wow! This is an amazing collection. Out of curiosity, are these all edited photographs or are there pure 3ds stuff?

I’m no a huge fan of HDR photography, but all the fake calls are a bit unfounded, I’m guessing most HDR photos are relatively unedited (in terms of altering the pixels) compared to the airbrushed, cut, smoothed, smudged, healed, painted, reduced, replaced and whatnot photos that you find on the cover of what seems like 80 percent of magazines, I got a serious shock the other day watching a photographer prepare some images for a fashion spread, there were a whole lotta layers going on there.
photoshop is not photography, I think we all realise that.

35 Perfectly executed HDR-pictures ….

Sorry to break your bubble but man I think you don’t know what HDR stands for. A lot of these are not.

By the way this is an abuse of Photoshop from a photographer’s point of view. This is not even digital photography.. but digital art. I’m quite sick of people mistaking this as photography.

The impression on the Golden Bridge is the superlative horrendous.

I wonder if National Geographic would even think of using any of these photos in their publication.

Claude of Belgium.
C’est tout simplement magnifique, je ne peu pas mieux dire.
Merci.

I have mixed feelings about HDR, and this selection is a pretty good example of why. When done in moderation, the HDR effect enhances an already well-done photo (in terms of subject, lighting, composition, etc). The cathedral photo is a good example - with just one exposure, architectural and other detail would be lost. This photo doesn’t have the unnatural HDR “look” that the unfortunate Golden Gate photo has.

Sadly, for every decent HDR there are dozens of photos that have the look of the Golden Gate - overprocessed, unnatural, with dark skies, and that obviously look heavily edited in PS.

you know they are really cool photo’s but this HDR shouldn’t be called real untampered photos because they are tampered with looks like photoshop

Sooooo amazing pictures!

Applied carefully… yeah, but these are not very good examples. Unpleasant images, too sharp. too much contrast, artifacts and dark glow everywhere. Thats horrible. Maybe 2 or 3 images could be saved from there, and one of them (the bird) is not HDR - you can’t make real HDR images with moving subjects! That’s more of a “simulated” HDR.

To make an hdr image all you need is a digital camera, and some way to merge the photos together. You bracket at least three phots, one two stops over, one two stops under, and one normal exposure. Then their is a website called photomatix that you download their program (its free, but leaves a watermark), and this merges the three photos together. You then have to make some adjustments giving you the picture that yuou want. I hope this helps

Hah. I’ve hated HDR since i started seeing it applied to photographs. it’s disgusting, why not just put your damn photos in a microwave.

Please, amateurs, GET OVER THIS FAD AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.

ok now i’m confused

what makes an hdri real
is it the fact that the measured dynamic range is high or the fact that it’s a composite from many images?
also what if i use images in which only one has a bird (or better still i add the bird after i’m done)…does that make it fake?
besides bracketing or taking different exposures is not the only way to get a wide range of exposure values…simply shooting an image in raw can do something close to this

granted some shots were probably done using some shadow/highlight tool or ‘cheap’ filter, but can’t those still increase the dynamic range somewhat?

i’m a fan of fantasy cos the real world can get really boring
i appreciate even the over-the-top renditions of the clouds

i don’t think photoshop was made for only realistic depictions
in fact i don’t think anyone exists who’s ever used up photoshop’s potential

Wow Perfectly pictures thanks…

wow very nice…….

wonderful pictures , I like them.

They are photographs, but they’re not representative of the real world. Neither is an impressionist painting, though. You like them, or you don’t, depending on your point of view. We expect photographs to depict reality, but mostly they don’t - even the realistic-seeming ones.

These are awesome pictures . Haven´t seen such beautiful images in a while now.

OK or no OK

Wow, those were some of the most breath taking snaps i have ever scene. A fantastic Collection. Thank you,

sooo soooo nice it’s so beautifull,fantastic

Most of the time when I look at HDR I just think “this is how Thomas Kinkade would take photographs.” :\

That’s fantastic. drives me more creative HDR way…

wuoooooww!!!!
Excelentes imágenes!

Great pictures! i’ll be looking for some from Africa. T

Truly horrible, Most of them wouldn’t look out of place on a cheap holiday gift
eg: tea tray, biscuit tin lid.

GARBAGE!

Not my style. Too artificial.
The colors are very dark vivid.

Owww! My eyes!

Two or three of these aren’t bad but, overall, yuck! It’s the black velvet Elvis painting of photography.

Fantastic pictures. Lots of inspiration to us budding photographers. I hope to see more again soon.

most are over done with the light smoothing. the key to a good HDR is to make people not know if it is infact an HDR. cool images though.

if developed “out of usual photos”: looks magic (+time factor :)) but it seemed, I’ve got a digital photo… translates some of used effects (here on sky, there on water); sure, it wasn’t very easy to take it…

attribution?

Way to rip off the photographers, blogspam.

Very nice ! i love the pictures!

Horrible tastless kitch. Algorithmic street market art :)

To me, HDR is the photographic equivalent of eighties synths imitating saxophones. People can tell it’s supposed to sound like a sax, but sure as hell doesn’t. Not only that, it’s just plain ugly, and most people agree. The people that are making those images are not photographers, but fiddlers who like to push technological limits beyond the boundaries of taste. Sadly, I think HDR will slowly take hold…the last few National Geographics I’ve received have had a few strangely HDR-ish images Subtle, but still having that rubbery shadows appearance. The biggest laugh is when HDR-philes claim it is more able to accurately imitate what the human eye sees. Well, maybe on acid….

so much negativity i should think everyone has 10 times better in every room of their home which they did them selves . As for me i think them all to be interesting pieces of art . Personally i dislike the MonaLisa……….

WOW… this list looks pretty exciting.

very very beautiful …

Good old AA was the first HDR photographer. He captured a greater range, using a development technique called ‘pulling’ to reduce the contrast of the negative in order to preserve a greater range of information on his negatives. This was developed into what was called the Zone technique. Since his time, film curves have gotten less steep (indicating a greater range of a workable negative).

All photographers when starting out with this technique inevitably make prints that are too flat or too contrasty. It is very difficult to change the dynamic range of the eye into a photograph and then to produce an (apparently) accurate dynamic range from the photo. Masters of this technique, Ansel Adams and Minor White, among a many others, produce images that vary in dynamic range greatly from what the eye sees, or what a straight print would produce, but do not appear unnatural.

That is to say, it is not ‘better’ or ‘worse’ to effect the dynamic range of a photography. However, it does reflect a mastery of the technique when this technique does not impact the viewing of the image. It is also to say that HDR simply means “high dynamic range,” where “high” can only be assumed to be used relatively. Considering the history of photography has included with it a steady increase of the dynamic range of its medium, the extension of “HDR” is constantly shifting. “True HDR” is either meaningless or requires a certain context to be defined. The same can and should be said of “True Photography.” Have any of you ever shot without a light meter? Perhaps THAT is true photography, since this how it began.

Further, we should remember (or learn for the first time) Kant. He (basically) told us that a beautiful painting is not, should not be beautiful simply because we like painting, or this painter, or this kind of painting. A photograph is not, should not, be beautiful simply because it uses HDR. It is beautiful because it excites our imagination and our understanding, puts them endlessly into play and raises our minds awareness of itself and humanity. Or something like that.

BOoooooooooooobm!!!!! It ’s like dream.

What so many wonderful pictures! Congratulations!

Krébus, from Brazil.

These are mostly awful and totally unrealistic. HDR can be a great technique, but the tone-mapping software still has many shortcomings and requires quite a bit of postprocessing to give good results. The results straight out of the tone-mapping software is mostly oversaturated and ‘muddy’ and quite a few times suffers from halos.

very nice

I’m not an expert on HDR technology but if the intention is to capture the intensity of the moment then HDR has achieved its purpose. Besides, I think most experts find ways to discredit rather than enjoy a profound work of art.

are very nice picture but please to make other picture to this form help us
thank you:)

i dont see the point in this, watever hapened to appreciating an original untampered photo???

Okay, first of all, all you haters need to get over yourselves. This is clearly an amature attempt to create HDR imagery, but you don’t need to shoot the photos down horrificly as if you know everything you are talking about .You are pathetically trying to prove your significant superiority. While some of these may seem to provide a cartoon halo kind of look, it was a good attempt, but would not be classified as HDR. HDR is simply molding a series of differently lighted images of the same frame together to create light and focus throughout the entire photograph- Period dot!

I may not know too much about HDR myself because this is only my second year in a photography as a profession, but i know that art itself is an entirely wide open subject. Anything can be depicted as art, it just depends on the consumer. Such as when rap took its claim to fame…many of us decided “it was simply nothing in comparrison to the performing arts” and others decided “this is totally rad dog!” Either way 50 cent is still a millionare and haters are still stuck bickering with nothing close to comparrison.

While many of you may say these images are herendous and a horrid attempt at HDR, i beg to differ…they may not replucate true HDR images but i see them as good valid attempts, and there is simply nothing quixotic about that! I mean god what do all of you assholes want, an effing cookie??

So all and all, haters go home and get to work, until you come back with something for everyone to critique YOU on, shut the hell up and let people find their nitch.

I kind of wish we see the world in this way…all bright and colorful.

Nneeeh… I can call fantastic just six pictures… Rest of this set is very ugly — I don’t like such “HDR” at all.

it’s……fantastic, gorgeous, amazing….. no words…. only emotiouns….

Nature is plain lame in comparison. I don’t ever have to go outside anymore for fear of being unimpressed. Who needs nature when it can be glorified on a computer screen!

HAIL HDR!

lol… the 6th to last one, orange sunset… check out those Chem trails in the sky!! Government at work trying to kill us.

Why could not the pictures with the birds flying be genuine HDR attempts? Rather than taking multiple shots and merge them for HDR, we could also have just one RAW file, and come up with such HDR images, right?

Sure, it will probably take hold. Why, well when photographs first came around people felt that it was taking away from the paintings that people had been making for thousands of years. Did photographs take hold? You be they did because they are desirable. This is the same thing, sounds like someone doesn’t want to give up their rotery dial phone.

looks so unreal. feels like too much flavor in a meal.
just fake.

wow just leaned about HDR looks cool but also now know that photogs are winy pussy’s

Fake

Good!

Very Good Images

Tankxxxxxxxxxx

photoshopped!

uh, photography is a form of art and these pics are about taking fascinating photos and making them even more fascinating with the hdr. your a jack ass.

why does everyone care so much about if they’re classified as “Real” HDR pictures or not??
stop being all snooty and pretentious because you know something about photography. no one is impressed and we all think you’re douchebags.

You should really look into each of these pictures, because some of them are heavily photoshopped… like the picture of Paris with a MASSIVE Nebula over it? Not HDR.

These enchanting images have a dreamlike quality that remind me of scenes from movies enhanced by uber digital wizardry. Looks like Hollywood’s been using Photoshop.

Thanks for this fantastics photos.

Here is a compilation of 13 HDR photos for your desktop:
Link [blog.nicolargo.com]

Either way, they are stunning photographs. Not one I wasn’t impressed with.

like, W-O-W.
Super coooooooooooooooooool:D

Nice, although HDR images like these can sometimes not appear “realistic.” A photographer should strive for realisim. Just my opinion. HDR tools can make realistic photos, very vibrant, and nice. It is only when it is taken to an extreme that it creates “false” looking photos.

Being an HDR expert (I found out about it yesterday and have produced all of 2 images) I’d say that often less is more.

On too many images I’m seeing a good interesting shot but a ridiculas sky that looks like it was cut from another image. It’s got all the subtlety and class of Ali G’s jewelry.

I think I’m going to use HDR a lot, but to create images that look ‘full’ rather than something that looks like it’s was done on a ‘puter.

It’s the same when image processing software became popular, there’d be loads of nastily applied filters smacking you in the face.

huiiiii

very very beautiful

amazing

In response to John’s comment:
You might want to look at a photo of San Francisco, the grass and houses you refer to are the Presidio (and I assure you that it’s REALLY there). You can’t see the “city” because downtown SF is further to the left. I’ll give you that the effect looks fake (although, presumably that is exactly what was intended), but at least get your facts straight before criticizing.

yup, i also discover HDR technique about 1,5yr ago after browsing flickr.. shooting HDR since..
another beautiful HDR pictures Link [www.ayofoto.com]

i like this picture >>>>>>>>

wenderfulllll !!!!!!!!!!!!

most of them are really bad pictures, and HDR can’t save them…
HDR can help sometimes, but most of these tonemappings are too bad to mention

If you can see easily that a photo is HDR, then the photographer has done a damn lousy job. The object should be to increase the toneality range just enough to open up the shadows ever so slightly and to minimize any blowing out of sunlit clouds. Even if you manage to accomplish this, the problem still is how do you print a picture that obviously has greater dynamic range than the paper can handle. The bad choice becomes that you compress the linear relationship of whites, greys and black, and you lose the natural look of the original scene. This is why HDR looks gimmicky and crappy.

Would it have killed you to have provided attribution?

As for the comments about “real” HDR - what part of High Dynamic Range don’t you understand? It’s about compressing the dynamic range we perceive into the dynamic range of the display element - CRT, paper, projected slide. It’s not about using a particular piece of software. Dodging, burning, graded papers, toning, hot developers, compensating developers, contrast masks… all old techniques that legitimately provide HDR results.

ridiculous ,

the colors are all muddled, shadows are inconsistent, focus is not right on anything that moves. If this is the best HDR has, I think its worse than normal photography’s worst .

The restriction of contrast on photography is one of the things that makes the pictures dramatic and interesting. This is just too retarded.

this HDR stuff is really a matter of taste. personally, i just don’t like it at all. the photos are too contrasty and fake looking to me. what happened to composition and the use of light in making a good photo? if you review these 35 photos, there are perhaps 5 that show decent composition. take away the “special effects” and what do you really have left? this is about using computer software above all else.

just my 2 cents, so flame away

Some of the photos were really easy to tell that they were HDRD! And thats not cool! They have to be HDRD enough but not the point that you can easily tell and like wtf?

Er…nice shots but can someone explain how you can include flying birds in HDR?

Just far too cartoonish. Frankly these would probably would have been good photos without any HDR or Photoshopping.

flying birds in HDR:
professional style cameras have something called “auto-bracketing”
this means that the photographer can take ONE snapshot, and the camera takes a photo with normal exposure, and then two other photo’s at different exposures (over and under,exposed)

Unfortunately half of these aren’t even real HDR.

You can’t have a moving subject in a true HDR picture. So any of the pictures with birds in them are all just simulated.

These are nice examples of how computers have muffled creativity somewhat… I’d suggest 3 maybe 4 are fine images.

Call me lazy but I enjoy using GND filters then PS, less work and more time to click shutters and not mice.

An example using a 2 stop GND and some PS selecting and layering for the highlights and shadows. Link [www.flickr.com]

I agree. Those are some nice ones of Singapore.

There are a couple of nice looking pictures but, most of them SUCK! It’s just further proof that HDR is an abomination.

Some more great HDR’s…

Link [flickr.com]

Some nice shots here too:
Link [picasaweb.google.com]

The photo with the hawk is wonderful. The contrast of the for within this picture is surely to be admired.

Years ago 35mm film was scoffed at, then people said digital will never catch on! then PS will never catch on, it is not proper photography!! The camera is a tool of expression, as long as there was a photograph at the beginning, and the person who took it is happy, who cares. People there has never been an image that every one has liked, so please people chill

I agree with Dave, if you do HDR do it on a manual SLR camera. These pictures can be absolutely stunning but if all the work is done on Photoshop, then there is little to no artistic work in it. Take the time to take three or four shots of the same scene and compose it yourself. You’ll get so much more out of it.

Oh, my. Listen to all the “experts”. Some are way over-processed, sure. Some are nice. But as me dear ol’ mum used to say, “If you can’t say anything nice, STFU and get over yourself.”

Expert = someone who thinks they know it ll, and makes sure everyone else knows it

So go back to shooting your off-kilter half-faces and calling it art. No…one…cares.

Hello,

What do you think about this : Link [www.flickr.com]

This is a HDR made with one raw.

Unfortunately half of these aren’t even real HDR.
You can’t have a moving subject in a true HDR picture. So any of the pictures with birds in them are all just simulated.

Well HDR is altering the three photos to create the affect you see , by simply deleting two of the ‘moving subjects’ and keeping only one you can create a static subject. It may be a slight cheat but hey its digital at it best !!!

Of all web sites, this should be enabled for Piclens. You need it!

HDR is fine when used properly

HDR is great.
HDR is fake.
These look amazing.
These look like crap.
Can I learn this.
No. Go away.
HDR isn’t photography.
HDR is photography.
Photoshop sucks.
I love Photoshop.

There. Done. It’s all been said over and over and over in this thread.

Weeee!

AMAZING POST !!! ALL GR8 PICTURES

These are good. Sure, in my opinion, most of them are not real “photographs” (whatever that is), but that’s my opinion anyway. However… they are great anyway and have a very stunning effect to the eye (a good one, I must say).

I like them. Keep it up! People should stop thinking that anything that comes through a camera needs to be lifelike. This is just different, and beautiful.

Nice collection, great inspirational shots!

woooow! amazing!! love it!

The most important thing is what the photographer wants you to see, feel and react when you look at a HDR scenery. Just now I realized thru Flickr Stats that one of my pictures was blogged here (From Above, the 12º pic), and I’m pretty impressed by the huge amount of visits I’m receiving everyday, thanks to this awesome site.
I think that criticisms are a part of the job, since a lot of people refuse to digest the idea that even a picture post processed extensively stills a photography, or at least, art at a wider view. But I’m not a huge fan of HDR applied automatically.
It has to have a meaning, a message, like most of the pictures stated here!
Thanks for all your visits, folks!

realy nice
i’ll make like that, one day

Really like these.. thanks

oh,my god.i am chinese and i have never seen such beautiful pictures.they are true~i am so lucky.thanks.my friend who told this web to me

Belíssimas imagens!!!

These pictures are very very nice i have never seen these pictures.Extreamely Beautiful.
Thanks for all this

wonderfull pictures..

Reminds me of SURRATIONAL IMAGES. Somewhat like Scott Mutter’s stuff. (I’M A PILGRIM ON THE EDGE. ON THE EDGE OF MY PERCEPTION. WE ARE TRAVELERS AT THE EDGE. WE ARE ALWAYS AT THE EDGE OF OUR PERCEPTIONS)

Those pixs would make great posters with a caption.

Very fantastic HDR-Photo, it’s great.

best regards,
Rewolve44

Having looked at all of the images and laboring thru all of the comments I can only come to one conclusion - one could apply the same parameter to HDR - F.D.R. & BLT “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”.

Very nice pics mind blowing ^_^

agree with jai.

abuse of photoshop filters, . we dont live in video games, look out the window. seems like hdr is a good tool that is quickly going to get a very bad name.
rdh

Something is desparately wrong - how does one put it in words - some anologies are best.
Wedding cake photography,
Coffee with ten times too much sugar and cream,
Overeating, overindulgence,
So much too much it’s sickening.

Link [www.positivenegatives.co.za]
goto Pools. The 1st 13 are ALL HDR photographs, taken with a Canon 5D on a tripod, bracketed for 9 stops of exposure, then 5-8 of the photographs used that would add detail to the images. I get paid to shoot in expensive homes in Cape Town, I have to make the places look like a million dollars and most of these places cost well into many million dollars. There is no tone mapping and these look pretty realistic.

Somebody please tell me how this is abuse of photoshop, when photoshop has an automatic hdr program to do all the work for you…HDR began back in the 1930’s long before photoshop was created, and the whole point of photoshop is to open up the doors of our imaginations…Quantum Physics will tell us that reality goes beyond what we humans can concieve, and that we can only see what we believe…HDR shows us that there is more going on in the world then we believe, it opens up doors there were closed before…Plus they are just amazing to look at…but like always, to each there own…

Wow! great colors in every pictures! HDR is the best technique. I love it.

So obviously some people like this stuff, some don’t. But why are all the people who don’t like it so angry at it? The person who made these pictures is proud of them, and some people appreciate them. Why do arrogant pricks think that if something is easy enough for anyone to do that nobody should do it? I like some of these pics alot, especially the first two. They are visually stimulating. As a matter of fact, I am gonna go out and get photoshop and apply this damn filter to every picture on my hard drive. Maybe I’ll post my top 35.

I prefer to use HDR very subtly such that the viewer simply sees an image and does not think about the technical aspects– dynamic range, tonality, saturation, etc. and just enjoys the image per se.

Ajoy, I agree. Good HRD is subtle, and most viewers should not be able to guess that they are. The idea is to make a picture that mimics the way we see in real life, but our eyes build an image in our minds, while constantly adjusting to brightness as we scan the scene. These mostly look fake and un-natural. I have done a few HDR pics by manually masking parts of the image. Automatic filters always leave a halo around parts of the image with contrast, either PhotoShop’s Highlight and Shadow adjustment, or some program that combines multiple shots. They don’t understand the image. Only you know that clouds should be brighter than trees.

hello..

i’d like to know how can a people make a HDR picture with a bird flying….
Anyone can help me?

Thanks a lot!

hdr pushes the photo to new limits but these are far beyond the most hdr photos.
re birds in the photo. if just one photo has the moving object this may work..anycase it’s given me an idea

Too bad most of those are not high dynamic range images — just typical photos run through Photomatix. That sort of crap is giving real high dynamic range photography a bad reputation.

not so bad and not so gud.all photographs r gud to see.but all of those had taken with the help of old methodology.one more step u hav to go up to get mind blowing photographs.gud carry on.

Imagine a camera that had autobracketing, HDR imaging onboard, and wifi. The ultimate tourist camera for posting “don’t you wish you were here” photos.

Hello,

beautifull photos, I do a lot of HDR myself but more realistic type, you can check them out on Link [www.photoserge.com]

It was so cool that I was really love it.

Thanks Alot For The Amazing Pictures

Looking Forword For More

awesome

put some dick pics up

It is interesting to see all the varied comments on the pictures you presented here. Your post has been a meme, hundreds if not thousands of sites have repeated your choices throughout the internet. Personally, I would like to thank you for the post. One of those images you picked is mine, and I am humbled by your choice. It is the foggy wood one for anyone who may be interested.

I suppose HDR like any technique can be a beauty or a beast. Some see the beast and some see the beauty. And in between some may see the art, defined, or refined in the image itself.

de verdad la tierra es un lugar mágico. muchas gracias por compartir estas fotos.

Well, I read all the comments and bashing about HDR versus real photos, and I don’t understand one thing; Why do we need to compare those 2?

HDR is HDR and it does not really show what we saw on site when we took the photo.
It’s just another way of showing your creativity and nothing wrong with that.

I love all the photos up there, and wish I can do the same, well. I’m learning now…
Just split these 2 concepts apart and just enjoys the result, and you’ll be fine.

//Afidie
Malaysia

I would consider using this technique to capture a little detail in dark shadows or maybe retrieve a blown highlight. That being said, some of the best photos I’ve seen have shadows that are black. After looking through these photos I could feel a headache coming on. They are overdone to the extreme. Garish is the word I would use to describe them. Not being elitest, just giving my critique.

Now I know how all those garish motivational posters are made!

omg, wonderful!

Some are great and some are awful!
Just like any art. ;-)

I would tend to agree with the posters that say many of these photos are “overdone.” I enjoy playing around with HDR as an art form, and I certainly do not decry the use of this technique as an art form, but many of the photos on this post were, as the poster above said, garish. I don’t recall running across too many scenes in real life while out shooting that look this dramatic. And you cannot convince me that picture #4 was not “photoshopped” at all. I will say that a couple of these images were quite striking in their own right, but most of them, in my opinion, were quite over the top, especially when it comes to the sky.

Very few of those images had an artist behind the lens.
Seen this technique used w much more taste than most of these images which approached the airbrushing widely seen on the sides of vans in the 70s.
just sayin’

Some of the pictures are nice, but I agree with many other posters who think most are garbage. I know people can do whatever they want with HDR, but then so can we judge it any way we want. HDR is intended to bring out details out of shadows and highlights….not to make some faux looking scene. Its supposed to ehance the photograph, and also be used in 3d in environments to realistically light a scene. I know, i know, “Ill do what I want”….thats fine, but dont get mad when people mock your fantasy Bryce looking worlds.

photoshop, lol ! =))

Awesome pics!

I don’t think people understand what HDR is. The human eye can detect about 17-20 EV’s. Professional film captures about 10 or 11 (10 levels in the ZONE) while the best digital SLR’s barely approach 8 or 9 at best. By taking several exposures above and below the optimal exposure, the dynamic range could theoretically approach that of the human eye. Unfortunately any current medium used can not display this range. However, if and only if the scene being photographed has a range beyond that of the medium used to capture it, then and ONLY then can HDR can be of any REAL valuable benefit.

A RAW image contains no more dynamic range than the sensor can capture.

Most of the photos on this page, as well as most “HDR” images posted elsewhere, are merely grossly over manipulated eye candy and do not represent what real HDR is. Although I do find some of the images appealing - if only for a few seconds, but hey isn’t that a sign of the times?

I find FDRtools does the most realistic rendering while Photmatix will [too] easily bring you into the surreal. Either program will still need extensive post manipulation in order to achieve anything seen on this page. (in fact I wonder if most of the images are true HDR to begin with)

Different strokes for different folks.

Some, I enjoy, others, not so much. Time and a place I suppose.

Eh,
All of this junk of “Not real photography”, “Can’t wait for it to go”, and other nonsense is more or less a characteristic of someone with narrow mindness, yes I said narrow mindness google that **** it exists! How are we to grow, explore, create, expound! Such as HDR. It’s just an expression. Another “art” form of photography. What is the definition of photography? Kind of a loaded question eh? I think it would be kind of lame if I had to take photos with my fathers’ Nikon F of 1959. Or don’t you think it would have been lame if my father had to take photos with his fathers camera which was a Leica I of 1925. Catching on to my drift? Things change. Always have, always will. How many times can someone shoot the Eiffel Tower? After a while, it gets repetitive. HDR is just a tool, and yes I do agree that some do go over the top and make them ugly. But what about Non-HDR photos. Are there not any junky-no-good photos out there? Overexposed, Underexposed. yadda yadda yadda I think you feel me. I believe HDR is a great tool if used right. It can create artistic expression and enhance the boring of the borings. Like I said before, It is just a tool. Like someone who shoots in RAW format. Im sure everbody does it. Get a photo, a little underexposed, go into RAW and what do you do? Use the “RAW tool” to get the right exposure. I’m rambling. I think I have expressed my feeling towards this subject enough. I’m so glad we have freedom of speech in the United States of America.

I have an HDR photo that could be used in this forum, any way you can put it up?
Thanks for the glance.
Take care yo.

Link [flickr.com]

What I am trying to say is not an opinion of what art is or isn’t. If a person were to try and recreate the style of say an Ansel Adams photo with a digital medium, then HDR is the only means of successfully accomplishing such a wide dynamic range project. Have you ever experienced an original Ansel Adams? (not a reprint) It is a surreal experience NOT because it triggers a 1960’s acid trip flashback but because it seems as if you could step right into the frame and have a look around, now thats realism. Like I said most of the “HDR” photos seen on the web are examples of extreme tone mapping and filtering that have little or nothing to do with true HDR.

(correction to my previous post; there are 11levels in the ZONE system numbered from 0 to 10)

WIKI “zone system” and learn something new…… no blown highlights and no details lost in the shadows. For instance the interior church photo on this page, the stain glass is completely blown out and there is little if any detail in the corners. In other words the dynamic range in the scene exceeded that of what was captured and displayed, and this is a perfect representation of what HDR is not.

If you like excessive tone mapping that is great, I like some of them too. But lets stop calling gradient filtered tone mapped pictures HDR and start calling them for what they really are: a graphic artists rendition of anti-realism.

Why should this not be considered photography? just because it looks different? I hope one day that we won’t have to use a program to capture all the different Dynamic Ranges. look at the zone system for film it’s 1- 9 and digital 3-7 thats not very much. yes some can be over done but who cares there fun plus some can be really good.

A good analogy would be the popularity of colorizing of BW photos before color film was available. At some point the photograph becomes more of a painting than a photograph. The same is true for what has become of HDR photography. At some point the photograph becomes more of a graphic arts than it is photographic art. The bulk of the art photography is accomplished behind the viewfinder, the bulk of graphic arts is done behind the computer screen.

If you can’t see the difference then you probably not a photographer in the first place. No amount of cutting-pasting, toning, colorizing, contrasting, and filtering can make up for uninteresting subject choices or poor composition. Eye candy contains little or no sustenance.

Here is a link to a photography site that has free down-loadable photo essays that show how professionally pure HDR photos should look.
Link [www.digital-photography.org]

HDR is overrated and kind of ugly

Some ROOKIE has grabbed the surreal bar and slid it too far beyond natural.

Careful, HDR is supposed to be like a high definition (exposure) of photography… not another infrared-like category.

Isn’t it interesting to note, most people with compliments or actual constructive criticism list their names or have links to their emails or websites, etc. The trolls hide behind their anonymity.

Trolls: If you don’t like the images, why don’t you tell why constructively, instead of saying “They suck”? I know why—you have nothing constructive TO say!

This stuff does a huge disservice to photographers everywhere.

Mark (March 27th, 2008, 1:29 pm)
Owww! My eyes!
Two or three of these aren’t bad but, overall, yuck! It’s the black velvet Elvis painting of photography.

—————————————————

I came here to post this, black velvet paintings of our time indeed.

I think the reason people get angry at HDR is because it looks way more impressive than the work/skill needed to create it. Basically almost any boring point and shoot snapshot can be thrown into the software and come out looking like any of these. It’s like someone liking watercolour painting, but decide to drop the watercolour artists they previously bought from because they’ve decided that snapshots thrown through the watercolour filter in photoshop are “better”.

HDR is more realistic than the eye originally witnesses, but now that we have this technology, lets see even more creativity yet to come.

These same theories had been applied in wet photography many moons ago by a photographing genius named, Ansel Adams, so why are we having issues accepting it in the contemporary digital high tech. imaging world.

Bah Humbug to any non-believers!

Carry on HDR’ers! Your our next generation!

I’ll be working in HDR as soon as I can afford a good camera that can record in RAW.

Rich

Ansel Adams photographed interesting subjects and judiciously used proper composition rules. Even without the High Dynamic Range of his B&W photography they are still many times more interesting than most “HDR” snapshots seen anywhere on the web, and they will be for eons to come, period!

These “HDR” snapshots peak interest (momentarily) only because they are something that CAN NOT normally seen in the course of every day life, they are unrealistic. It doesn’t take but for a moment to identify them as cartoon-ish, with the emphasis on the ISH!

The title “35 Fantastic HDR Pictures” for this web page should be properly renamed to “35 Fantastic ADHD Pictures”.

Here is a link to a fantastic professional photographers galleries and, for those who are interested in learning, a compendium of valuable information related to them. While it is not an HDR specific site, all of his photographs - be they 35mm, large format, or digital, all have one thing in common: The photographer utilized all of the dynamic range available to him, within their specific limitations. He then scans the film and digitally processes the images, some a little too much for my liking. I’m guessing that most of you will find them pretty incredible.

Results: professionally exceptional and beautiful quality photographs that can make a person gasp. Instead of saying to yourself “I could have done that” you’ll say to yourself “How the heck can I do that”. That is the difference between a professional artist and the multitudes of amateur wanna-bees littering the web.

Link [www.clarkvision.com]

Also a great book on HDR is “Complete Guide to High Dynamic Range Digital Photography” by Ferrell McCollough.
No one is ever too good at anything to stop learning.

I love it when some put down a new technique or art form. I’m willing to bet, when the first photographs appeared, some were complaining how a photograph could never be considered real art over a painting because all one must do is point a contraption that shines light onto a chemically processed piece of paper. How drab? Isn’t that cheating? It will never last. It’s not real art. Just a fad. The same thing has been said about digital vs. film.

Art is emotional pleasure felt through one or more of your senses. All are not moved the same. I’ve seen people rave over art that I wouldn’t waste a second glance on.

I love the pictures and I’m inspired to do some myself. It’s time to replace my Velvet Elvis. Thank You.

This is an incredible collection. If I was to call the HDR technique anything, I would call it ‘hyper-real’- as you say, it does blur the boundries between what we see with our eyes and a fantasy based on what is ultimately there, despite the changing light obscuring it from us (and the far more imited camera).

Take a look at some of my HDRs here for another angle- they are no doubt not on the same level, but they are enhancing blended photos, not simply applying digital filters. In fact, it would be better to call them tone-mapped HDRs. Why? Because it is the tone-mapping process that allows these representations to appear on our monitors at all. In fact, we have no idea what the ‘real’ 32-bit+ HDR images look like. That is for future generations to discover, with far more advanced viewing systems (perhaps not even monitors as we now experience them).

Without further ado, here are my HDR attempts, my Hyper Dreams of Reality-

Link [www.flickr.com]

Answer to:
hello..
i’d like to know how can a people make a HDR picture with a bird flying….
Anyone can help me?
Thanks a lot!

is: use RAW, develop the RAW three times: one high-key, one normal and one low-key.
There you are: three pictures to be used to make a HDR.

Good luck!

OK, HDR is cool (but sometimes overdone). Its generally best to use HDR in architechture, and a much milder form in landscape. I don’t know how they did the bird images. My guess is Peter above is correct…

BUT, you say that “Some of them might look surreal, too colorful, even magic or fake, but they are not ”

THE 11th image is CLEARLY fake! Click on it to find out. He’s added a picture of the Helix Nebula with a building in ps! No picture from Earth could take such a highres pic of the nebula - it’s from the hubble!

Thanks for the 35 examples. Now I know I won’t need to invest in any expensive equipment for the sake of HDR. There isn’t one picture in the lot that I would use as a background or have printed to put on my wall. ALL of them are way too unnatural for my taste!

Hmmm… most of these HDR images are WAY over processed, and you can see halos throughout… not in my opinion representative of good HDR technique!!

Photography is art. If it was supposed to be literal and always realistic, we would not use creative angles, long exposure times to blur, extra wide angle or zoom lenses, Infra Red photography and black and white photography would have gone away as soon as color film came about. Everything would be a boring snapshot. Yes, everyone does not like these images, but hey, they are not supposed to. Tell me 1 type of art that everyone loves. The work is there for your review and to evoke emotion. Obviously it is doing it’s job. People, go ahead and share your feelings, but quit trying to make everyone else feel the way you do. If we all felt the same way about everything, these photos, along with the rest of the art in our world would not exist.

I personally love some of them, and others don’t do it for me. simple as that.

Does everyone remember with The Matrix game out? They had the slow motion flying karate moves in the air? I loved the movie, and the special effects. From there, new movies came out with the express purpose of putting those cool slow motion effects in, but many of the movies sucked. Also, the later Matrix movies that were drenched in those scenes sucked? The bottom line is, there has to be art, and an intended expression behind the photos. Many of these have that. They are not “snap shots”, as I saw stated above, they are expressions of the artist. Some are good, others are not. Don’t sit here and tell me that the purple DOF shot of the city with the rocks in the foreground is a snapshot. If you do, you lose all credibility.

I agree with the posters that these examples are way overcooked. For me anyway, most them are too freakish, surreal, nightmareish and unpleasant to look at.

HDR is supposed to let you tap the dynamic range lost in ordinary exposure.

It’s a bit like a boob job, you don’t want people saying “Wow! Look at those plastic tXts”.

You want to enhance what’s there and blend seamlessly so it doesn’t look fake…..or plastic.

Adrian,(244) post, I agree with you, some photos are way overcooked Link [www.capecodphotographyart.com] post(242 DMU) you right to,The work is there for your review and to evoke emotion..

Really enjoyed with your pictures

HDR pictures. As a screensaver for my computer? - yes. As a photograph for my wall? - no! Is it art? Certainly!
Most people who like the technique are actually being seduced by the vibrant colours. But if I was looking at a photograph on a wall or at an art gallery I would want to feel like I am “there” while I was looking at the photo. HDR doesn’t give me this in my opinion. I’m not too fussed on “fantasy” art in general but thats my personal preference. Plenty out there like it.

Link [www.flickr.com]

I was always under the impression that as we all have heard before that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. If the over cooked photos are just that and the author likes it, great. If I don’t like the looks that’s my problem but who am I to be critical of someone else because I don’t like that style of photography. Everything has it’s place especially if someone buys it! I don’t particularly like Joan Rivers plastic face but it works for her and she’s happy and on top of it she’s making money with it! HDR has it’s place whether over cooked or under done. Maybe the author intended the photo to look unreal and has a comic book publisher waiting to use it! Some people put too much syrup on their pancakes for me. I prefer waffles!

I have primarily found that most people complaining of HDR are primarily those that lack the ability or patience to do it. HDR is not a technology that is easily manipulated, and, I have seen very few natural photos, so as to say, most images we all see on a regular basis, and to complain about one form of manipulation and not another is kind of weak. :)

Bludy hell they are beautiful! I do photography at school but now I realise that my photos are no match for these! :o

I think most of us can agree that the only “real” photography is on a standard film SLR camera. Editing a picture in anything other than exposure through an enlarger is not “real” photography.

Having said that, I think that even with the fanciest HDR technology times infinity could never truly capture the beauty that we can only see with our eyes. Ever see a truly spectacular scene and wanted to capture it on camera, but somehow just knew that no matter how you composed, edited and manipulated the picture, it wouldn’t do any justice to what you were seeing with your own two eyes?

Sure HDR is a trend and it does spark some truly marvelous photographs. (I prefer the ones that aren’t so overly edited they look like a Pixar movie) But ever since photoshop came along, “real” photography has lost its way. Oh well. I suppose people just want something interesting to look at.

Link [www.youtube.com]

Amazing HDR Photos !

this is really amazing..i just stumbled across this new way of photography…want to learn more abt this..this surely is a very nice collection

JUST AMAZING !!!

its good but ooooooovvvvvv v v v goood

those are some of the most spectacular pictures i have ever seen. absolutly breath taking!

Cool wallpaper

20

You know, the “purists” complained when they brought sound to movies, color to films, digital to cameras, digital to sound (CD’s, mp3’s etc). Every new technique has it’s doomsday crowd.

Truth is there is good and bad in every development, some will like it, some wont but at the end of the day, it’s called progress and if we didn’t have it, we’d still live in caves and club our dinner to death. You can guarantee that at least some positive progression will come from HDR and the like.

Stop your friggin’ whining. If you love it, use it, if you don’t love it, don’t use it, but why not just live and let live?