35 Fantastic HDR Pictures
Applied carefully, High Dynamic Range-technique (HDR) can create incredibly beautiful pictures which blur our sense of the difference between reality and illusion. In graphics HDR imaging is a set of techniques that allow a far greater dynamic range of exposures than normal digital imaging techniques. The intention is to accurately represent the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes, ranging from direct sunlight to the deepest shadows. This is usually achieved by modifying photos with image processing software for tone-mapping. And the results can be really incredible; in fact, many artists and designers come up with some pretty fancy results.
This post covers 35 extremely beautiful and perfectly executed HDR-pictures. Some of them might look surreal, too colorful, even magic or fake, but they are not — keep in mind that they’ve all been developed out of usual photos, and not a single image is an illustration.
Please notice:
- the selection isn’t supposed to be complete which is why we encourage you to post links to further excellent HDR images in the comments to this post;
- there is no ranking, all pictures have been selected due to their outstanding quality and excellent execution;
- you can explore further works of the designers and photographers we’ve featured below by browsing through their sets on Flickr;
- all screenshots are clickable and lead to the pages from which they’ve been taken;
- you might want to take a look at the article (Really) Stunning Desktop Wallpapers we’ve published earlier.
Fantastic HDR Pictures
Sources and Further Resources
- New York City in HDR
- 20 Beautiful HDR Pictures
- HDRCreme.com
A growing collection of HDR-photos. - HDR Tutorial Round-Up
- Flickr: The Biggest Building in HDR
- HDR Japan
- HDR Video Tutorial
- High Dynamic Range Workshop
- HDR Flickr Pools: *atrium09 Flickr Set,
The HDR No Holds Barred Pool,
Best Of HDR Pictures Pool,
The Pure HDR Pool, The Biggest Building in HDR Pool, Quality HDR Pool, Stuckincostoms’ HDR Setse.
slashdot
November 28th, 2008 12:47 pmToo 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.
jebadurai
December 3rd, 2008 12:20 amnot 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.
Steve Nagel
December 7th, 2008 2:55 pmImagine a camera that had autobracketing, HDR imaging onboard, and wifi. The ultimate tourist camera for posting “don’t you wish you were here” photos.
Ramelli
December 20th, 2008 9:10 amHello,
beautifull photos, I do a lot of HDR myself but more realistic type, you can check them out on http://www.photoserge.com
htgy
December 23rd, 2008 9:41 amIt was so cool that I was really love it.
abbas mirah
December 23rd, 2008 9:08 pmThanks Alot For The Amazing Pictures
Looking Forword For More
Robert Miller
December 28th, 2008 7:18 pmIt 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.
mari
December 30th, 2008 6:44 pmde verdad la tierra es un lugar mágico. muchas gracias por compartir estas fotos.
afidie
January 3rd, 2009 7:37 pmWell, 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
todd anthony
January 4th, 2009 7:02 pmI 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.
dboy
January 9th, 2009 7:53 amNow I know how all those garish motivational posters are made!
vicot
January 9th, 2009 8:33 pmomg, wonderful!
evan monaco
January 10th, 2009 11:43 pmSome are great and some are awful!
Just like any art. ;-)
CH
January 16th, 2009 7:43 amI 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.
sprocketface
January 19th, 2009 3:22 pmVery 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’
Nick
January 25th, 2009 9:42 amSome 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.
titus steel
January 26th, 2009 4:29 pmphotoshop, lol ! =))
Dan
January 26th, 2009 9:33 pmAwesome pics!
DanD
January 28th, 2009 9:02 pmI 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.
VoteAudrey
February 1st, 2009 9:24 pmSome, I enjoy, others, not so much. Time and a place I suppose.
Jbwhitewhale
February 1st, 2009 11:16 pmEh,
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.
http://flickr.com/photos/12224416@N06/3235677374/
DanD
February 3rd, 2009 12:00 pmWhat 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.
Josh M Hayes
February 4th, 2009 5:03 amWhy 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.
DanD
February 4th, 2009 8:57 amA 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.
DanD
February 4th, 2009 10:40 amHere is a link to a photography site that has free down-loadable photo essays that show how professionally pure HDR photos should look.
http://www.digital-photography.org/previews_on_FLAAR_reports/preview-flaar-reports-print-rip-photo.php
john
February 6th, 2009 1:29 pmHDR is overrated and kind of ugly
Jenn
February 7th, 2009 12:27 pmSome 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.
Ken Setzer
February 8th, 2009 7:22 pmIsn’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!
Jen
February 9th, 2009 10:41 pmThis stuff does a huge disservice to photographers everywhere.
Chris
February 11th, 2009 8:32 pmMark (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”.
Rich Mann
February 13th, 2009 4:57 pmHDR 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
DanD
February 19th, 2009 8:43 amAnsel 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”.
DanD
February 19th, 2009 6:05 pmHere 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.
http://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.
David Wms
March 17th, 2009 12:58 amI 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.
Starfires
March 22nd, 2009 6:53 amThis 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-
Peter
March 26th, 2009 2:33 pmAnswer 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!
The photographer from Bangalore
March 27th, 2009 1:35 pmOK, 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!
Gordon
March 28th, 2009 7:11 pmThanks 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!
BOD
April 3rd, 2009 6:12 amHmmm… most of these HDR images are WAY over processed, and you can see halos throughout… not in my opinion representative of good HDR technique!!
DMU
April 22nd, 2009 3:38 pmPhotography 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.
DMU
April 22nd, 2009 4:18 pmDoes 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.
Adrian
April 27th, 2009 9:16 pmI 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.
Photos
May 8th, 2009 6:18 amAdrian,(244) post, I agree with you, some photos are way overcooked normal HDR post(242 DMU) you right to,The work is there for your review and to evoke emotion..
Noor Mohamed
May 12th, 2009 6:42 amReally enjoyed with your pictures
Warren Anacoura
May 13th, 2009 6:08 amHDR 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.
Bob
May 22nd, 2009 4:59 pmI 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!
Jacob
May 26th, 2009 5:48 amI 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. :)
Artful Dodger
May 29th, 2009 10:10 amBludy hell they are beautiful! I do photography at school but now I realise that my photos are no match for these! :o
Eric
June 4th, 2009 9:46 pmI 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.
imdalex
June 15th, 2009 6:45 amAmazing HDR Photos !
Deepak
June 15th, 2009 9:19 pmthis 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
Pratik
June 16th, 2009 11:03 amJUST AMAZING !!!
shah
June 26th, 2009 4:22 amits good but ooooooovvvvvv v v v goood
mereediiith
June 27th, 2009 12:10 pmthose are some of the most spectacular pictures i have ever seen. absolutly breath taking!
Davius Max
July 11th, 2009 4:43 pmYou 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?
Mike
February 4th, 2010 9:46 amVey well said. You could add that if you don’t keep up with the changes and advancements you’ll get left behind.
William Smith
February 6th, 2010 5:38 pmThat’s a very good attitude. I know for a fact the mantra “live and let live” is the path to having great relationships with all those around us.
P.
April 16th, 2010 6:35 amso instead of clubbing our dinner to death we have factory farming and slaughterhouses. weeeeeeeeee ! lol
Phanes
October 24th, 2010 7:39 pmYes, I’m just waiting for movies to be made with this technique. Do any cameras exist that can take all three exposure levels at once?
BadRad
December 22nd, 2010 6:23 amYes … the Sony NEX-5 produces HDR in-camera … not much control other than standard exposure. It appears to flatten the contrast, pulling up the shadows and dampening highlights.
JOSE
September 5th, 2011 9:50 pmyou can check pentax new cameras.. it has HDR functionalities :)
John
August 4th, 2009 9:04 pmHDR seems to be something that people either love or hate. For those non-purists, hdr lovin’ people, check this out: Okinawa HDR photography group….or maybe it should be called “graphic arts group the way some people would view it.
Tom
August 5th, 2009 7:39 amHDR is a great technique but it doesn’t have to come from expensive fancy photoshop add-on’s. As much as i love photoshop why use it when you can do it for free!! Check out this link to a page explaining how to make professional HDR with free open source software.
http://freehdr.blogspot.com/
Lunarstudio
August 18th, 2009 9:48 amHDR photography was a technique mostly developed for virtual lighting in 3d applications. One of the founders of the technique is Paul Debevec. His research and work can be seen at:
http://www.debevec.org/
Cameras by default shoot at one exposure leaving light areas either blown out or underprocessed. HDR by default mimics the changing human eye more closely by allowing for various exposure adjustments. Essentially, they are multiple photographs shot of the same scene at different exposures then blended together. The computer can then accurately dial up and down the intensities of various light sources within a scene and even “guess” what an object may look like beyond the initial exposures taken.
For the 3d graphics world, this has huge implications in allowing 3d lighting artists to have greater control over illuminating their scenes. General photographers have taken this method and applied it to their still photography since Photoshop first popularized it by adding HDR in their CS releases – but keep in mind that it has it’s original roots within 3d itself.
I have a few examples of HDR images being used to light 3d models and various backgrounds on my website. Please check out the following 3d renderings using HDR photography – and look at the bottom three rows for some examples of scenes lit using HDR panoramas.
A well shot HDR will give the user an impression of what a scene actually looks like to the naked human eye. The examples that are shown on this page are often exaggerations of lighting conditions that are possible with tone-mapping software. Some of the results I think are brilliant. To others, these images may seem like an abomination and gross over-exaggeration of what “reality” really is. But needless to say, I think of this as an art form.
Keep in mind that these are essentially photographs superimposed on top of one another. It takes a lot of skill to shoot these scenes as you have to be still (especially at lower exposures), be very wary of moving objects as to not introduce further blur, and also have an eye for composition as well. It takes a lot of patience and experimentation on the photographer’s part. HDRs by themselves (for the most part) serve very practical purposes in the 3d artist’s world and most do not look like “exaggerations,” although they do tend to produce more accurate lighting conditions as a whole if done properly.
Cuddy
December 19th, 2010 8:01 amThumbs Up on your explanation.
To only call these HDR photography can be misleading and this sample needs to represent what HDR started out as.
The examples given “Photo Illustrations that employ the use of HDR techniques” would be my definition.
An analogy would be to say everyone wearing a rainbow colored tie-dye shirt is gay. Oh, I guess they would be. But I digress.
Here’s one example of what HDR photo processing started out to be:
http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/individual/2006/08/digital_photography.html
ForestWander Nature Photography
August 27th, 2009 10:59 amThese are all great.
I will certainly have to try doing this with 1 shot images.
These are real works of art.
Chris
August 29th, 2009 7:16 amLOL at all the snobby dips#!tz posting comments. Anyone who thinks their subjective opinion is canon is an ass by definition. Love ‘em, hate ‘em, its just an opinion and you aren’t the arbiter of all that is right and proper in this world. Perhaps the haters just lack imagination, or have never experienced “enhanced” modes of consciousness. Sometimes the world does look that this, and more.
Mike Criss
August 29th, 2009 7:48 amI really like the realistic HDR. I have lots of examples of not overdoing it.
http://www.akphotograph.com/Alaska%20Blog/
Patrick
September 27th, 2009 11:18 amREALLY BAD ;
One cann’t admire the photo’s for the simple reason that the site is working too slowly, sooo sloowlyy ….. At a snail’s peace !!
Jay
September 30th, 2009 9:18 pmApart from 4-5 pictures, most of them look terrible – pastel like and grossly overcooked. Very few photographers can cook up a decent HDR image without those exaggerated halos. The problem is not so much with HDR images as with the people who ‘mix’ them. They always get a little carried away. Instead of keeping the HDR effect subtle, they max out all the settings.
John Neel
October 3rd, 2009 7:53 amI think HDR is very rarely done right. There’s too many cartoonish-looking images out there that give HDR a bad name. Here is an example of what HDR images should look like:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42823328@N08/
Yvette
November 11th, 2011 5:33 pmI like the various degrees of HDR technique, depending what an individual is going for there is something useful at any level. Hey, it is all art what is the big deal? The originals are still available for any purpose intended. I can’t wait to get the software; it looks like so much fun! This is what it is all about, huh?
deng
October 6th, 2009 10:49 pmgood~~~~!
natasya
October 18th, 2009 6:07 ami swear, that’s picture is really really good.
love it.. :)
Steve
October 21st, 2009 4:19 amThose results of the HDR-Photographies here are incredible. If you need some Links with informations ( Tutorials, Software, Books, etc. ) and of course some inspiration, don’t miss Best of High-Dynamic-Range – Fotos, Weblogs, Tutorials, Software, Books.
Theodor
October 21st, 2009 10:41 amHow on earth did they take those bird pics in HDR? And how did they take that moving boat in HDR?
Did they use a different process or are they fake?
Ivan
October 21st, 2009 11:55 pmAwfull pictures.
KItch 100%
Peggy
October 25th, 2009 7:42 pmHDR is a technique. How long does it take to work a “photograph” and get it tone mapped, etc. I realize it takes usually 3+ photographs and appears to work best with a tripod. I am interested in how long from start to finish the amount of time it takes to make one of these photographs.
creativebrain
November 2nd, 2009 2:25 amgreat photograph taking.. just awesome
Baba
November 5th, 2009 9:18 amPlease check out this pic here…. http://www.flickr.com/photos/justbaba/4072091400/
steve
November 10th, 2009 1:24 amI beg to differ. I find these pictures not fantastic but eye-hurtingly, stomach-churningly ugly. It takes a total lack of visual culture to think a good photo is one with its color saturation and contrast pushed to extremes and nothing like the real world. They are garish and vulgar. They are batch-produced, software-automated kitsch. I really think this “HDR”-craze is a new form of visual pollution that involves no-one but the most conformist and unimaginative people out there, the kind that dances to every new macarena without an iota of doubt if he sees other people doing just the same.
Angela
December 11th, 2009 12:42 pmIf HDR photography produces ugly pictures, then so is the art of Thomas Kinkade.. here is an example for ya of a painting that people love and looks just like an HDR photo: http://www.gallerydirectart.com/t-361.html .
I think the problem with HDR photography is that the tone-mapping process still needs much further development. If you understood the process, you would understand why some of the pictures look so deeply saturated and appear to be “over done” as a result. It is not really HDR, nor the person who takes the pictures, that does that but the algorithm by which the tone mapping software chooses the “correct” pixels from the many layers (as many layers as pictures that are mapped on top of one another) to be “the” one showing. Some software averages the layers into one while others just pick one… most don’t allow any custom selection of which layer to be chosen for the particular pixel. Lots of work still needs to be done but HDR is definitely the way to go!
MoreOrLess
July 4th, 2011 12:44 amI agree Kinkade is a perfect example of what HDR often(there are well done examples that will hopefully increase in number with time) is to photography, cheesey overdone crap loved by those with poor taste in art.
Yvette
November 11th, 2011 5:41 pmIt is just art in another form, what is the big deal?
David Macdonald
November 10th, 2009 4:34 amLike all new techniques, people will go bananas over it for a while, some will rave, some will froth at the mouth. Right now it’s being completely overdone, used simply for its own sake instead of being needed or suitable. But once the dust has settled we will be the beneficiaries of another tool that, properly used when it’s needed or appropriate, will have its place and special uses and further expand our medium.
I remember, in my business (movies) when the “Steadicam” was invented. Suddenly camera work was going crazy, rushing headlong up and down stairs, along twisting corridors, getting on and off moving vehicles, and all manner of crazy self conscious showy gimmicks that, for most part, added nothing except “cleverness” to either narrative or photography. Now, a good few years on, we have a wonderfully useful tool that, used in proper context, has made many a remarkable shot possible and enriched the spectator’s experience without, in most cases, them even being aware that a remarkable piece of technology has made possible the previously unthinkable.
But right now HDR is being turned into a young fad that I think I can happily wait out ’till it matures a bit. On the other hand I am already starting to borrow some of the techniques and avenues it has opened up ….. and that, for me, is how it should be ….. never close a door ………
Martin
November 18th, 2009 1:59 pmIts funny how much controversy there is on HDR. Just like David Macdonald said. It’s a new technique that takes photographs to a different level. Of course it’s not the end all of photography. But why go all against it?
90% of the people aren’t photographers, they don’t care how the photo is done as long as it leaves behind an emotional impact.
Just like color photography didn’t end black and white, neither will HDR end standard photos.
I’ve launched my own photoblog which has lots of HDR but also some non HDR.
http://martinsoler.wordpress.com/
Parisa
November 29th, 2009 9:24 pmthey are some really fantastic shoots, i also saw a really nice HDR photo on http://zooomn.com/portfolio/hdr-high-dynamic-range-photography/
Steve Morgan
December 6th, 2009 2:57 pmI find it hard to believe that people can make such horrid comments on what has taken so long to accomplish, is it jealousy or what, i know the truth hurts on times but this may be the persons first attempt at doing something like this, !! think before critisizing.
vianey
December 14th, 2009 7:16 ami love them!!!
aliaskajan
January 1st, 2010 11:27 amnice hdr images
http://www.alias3dmedia.com/tutorials/2d-tutorials/photoshop/photoshop-hdr/
thank you :)
Green_Complex
January 6th, 2010 5:30 amI have a lot of my own HDR Wallpapers up for free on this wallpaper site:
wp.green.cx
Anyone else is free to post their own as well!
Justin Moore-Brown
January 11th, 2010 12:33 amGreat list as always! Thanks for posting the link throughs to other ways to find these great photos!
Lovely
January 22nd, 2010 7:47 amI think these are great images, and some of them have been made so surreal and emotive with the HDR. However, some of them, for my personal taste have gone a little too far. They’ve gone from beautiful and surreal into the overly plastic where they look like very poor CGI lifts from a film.
The best pictures are acquired when the elements come together at the time of taking the shot – a little bit of editing enhances this. I’m not against HDR, but some of these are no longer powerful for me…
turkisboy
January 24th, 2010 9:44 pmperfect !!!
Asier
January 25th, 2010 10:38 amThank you for sharing. Some are truly inspiring. ;-)
Here are some of mine too..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zorrrro/3957317728/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zorrrro/3641107389/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zorrrro/3581571684/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zorrrro/3518386991/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zorrrro/3169709783/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zorrrro/3144474981/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zorrrro/2835970728/sizes/l/
Cheers.
bob
January 27th, 2010 10:36 amI am really impressed by all of your picture,
i would love to get up to that point one day,
i am now learning some HDR on a site that
is : http://www.photoserge.com it’s explained verry simply
hope i’ll get to your level one day and good luck !
bob
February 2nd, 2010 3:08 pmverry nice we can olso have verry interresting cours on HDR on that site : http://www.photoserge.com
Daniel Morales
February 5th, 2010 6:33 pmLike we say here in Puerto Rico “Que Brutal!”
bob
February 19th, 2010 1:55 pmvery nice
enjoyed it
it is really a success i am learning HDR and that is exactly the kind of photo i would like to get up to
see also this site where we can learn with very simple courses
Ken Kaminesky
February 21st, 2010 9:53 pmHDR is like any other kind of photography, it can be well done or poorly executed. In the end it’s all subjective and everyone is free to like or dislike as with any kind of art.
The more people use it the more good HDR photography there will be. I use HDR to varying degrees in my travel photography and I’m always interested to see how others use it. Sometimes I love what I’m seeing and sometimes I find some HDR hideous. In the end it’s just my opinion.
Thanks for showcasing some HDR imagery Smashing :^)
Here is my take on HDR
Cheers
http://www.kenkaminesky.com
vaibhav
March 11th, 2010 8:21 amnice photos wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Bob Johnson
March 14th, 2010 2:44 pmI’m a fan of HDR but many of these photos look just terrible. HDR is a tricky skill to master, though, and get professional results.
I can spend 5 minutes in Photomatix making a better HDR, and I have — it has nothing to do with jealousy.
In fact, all of you could do the same thing pretty easily once you’ve been shown how — it’s not terribly difficult.
Many of these people appear to be very competent photographers (composition, exposure, choosing a great subject, waiting for the perfect light, all the normal things). They are far from masters at HDR, however.
Just check out that halo artifacting effect around the three in the third to last photo….
nyker
March 17th, 2010 5:36 amWhat a shame that this technique to just capture all the tonalities of a scene outside the range of a camera’s abilities is being so terribly abused to churn out such garish, unnatural-looking photographs.
BTW, many of these so-called “HDR” photos aren’t HDR at all. Some are composites (such as the one with the Paris building- look at the sky; it’s a picture of the helix nebulae); others are just overprocessed garbage tweaked to death with various Photoshop plugins. The only image that is probably legitimate HDR is the last one of the Malaysian skyline.
Louis
March 22nd, 2010 11:41 pmthere is so much art out there today some agree some dont. we live in a world where people like to bring you down and some build you up,but at the end, there are two worlds one we measure with line and rule, the second we feel with our hearts and imagination. So love thy neighbour.
From down under
Brian Ruiz
March 24th, 2010 11:48 amwow these pics r awesome!!!
Aaron
April 4th, 2010 2:37 pmNice stuff. I’ve seen a lot of overly processed HDR knocking about on Flickr but these examples are spot on. Think 1 or 2 may have been processed using a single image. I’ve dabbled in HDR http://aaron.storry.co.uk/hdr-photography/ but still loads to learn!
TyphoonK
April 5th, 2010 2:21 amThere are nice photos in this collection and some I personally dislike. HDR technique is interesting and can produce some interesting results. However, I do not like how some people use HDR, which is trying to make every single pixel visually compelling and vibrant.
Take the shot of the bird flying over the stone wall as an example. Nice composition, but I would have thought the bird was the focus point in the shot. Now there’s so much detail and color in the sky that the bird’s presence doesn’t feel as unique. The rock wall has so much emphasis that it also detracts from the main focus.
Sometimes its great to wow everyone with a rich and colorful landscape. Other times a shot has greater impact and depth if one object is isolated, and I think some HDR users forget this technique.
xiaojinge
April 15th, 2010 12:15 am很好看啊！！！
Jessica
April 21st, 2010 1:43 pmi usually don’t like photographs that are over-edited but i really like this collection! the photos look like paintings.
HOSEIN SHAMS
April 24th, 2010 12:48 amno bad
Alasdair
April 26th, 2010 2:57 amWow, these pictures are really great! Check out my HDR photos at http://www.macleod.arknet.co.uk/photoblog and leave some feedback :D
Tanveer
April 26th, 2010 11:08 amIt’s a treat for the eyes. HDR has no limits to experiment with.