Applied carefully, High Dynamic Range-technique (HDR) can create incredibly stunning pictures which blur our sense of the difference between reality and illusion.

“In computer graphics and photography, high dynamic range imaging (HDRI) is a set of techniques that allows a greater dynamic range of exposures (the range of values between light and dark areas) than normal digital imaging techniques.

Here are 25 stunningly beautiful HDR photographs.

25 Stunning HDR Pictures

( photo by klados25 )

( photo by Rickydavid )


( photo by raycollister )

HDR Picture

( photo by t.beauchemin )

( photo by Compound Eye )

( photo by cloudzilla )

( photo by stevacek )

HDR Picture

( photo by blakelipthratt )

HDR Picture

( photo by blakelipthratt )

HDR 10

( photo by Bartek Kuzia )

( photo by Dubtastic )

HDR 12

( photo by Kris Kros )

( photo by Stuck in Customs )

( photo by Altus )

( photo by Oblivius Dude )

( photo by svf1972 )

( photo by antiguan_life )

( photo by raymondluijbregts )

HDR Picture

( photo by Asoner )

HDR 20

( photo by James Neeley )

HDR Picture

( photo by Fort Photo )

( photo by NY_Doll )

( photo by Franck )

( photo by )

( photo by Jeff Clow )

More Resources:

Bridal Shower Photography Tips



  1. I like a few of these, to tell you the truth. The first one to me is spectacular. I also really like the cornfield one, though less bloom would have been preferable IMO. And the canoe one is really good. HDR tends to be overdone, yes, but when done right, it can be mindblowing. I was searching for the feeling it gives me when I see a great HDR shot and the only thing that comes to mind is “futuristic 1950s pinup”. LOL – that’s a compliment – cuz I love the fifties retro era. 🙂 Thanks for sharing the shots!

  2. Absolutely stunning! I especially like the one with the woman and the horse. It just seems like such a good photo!

    This is in response to Linda. Art should not always have to show us something that is unattainable or beyond ordinary living. Most of us will never know anything but that. I personally think it is worse to try to tease an audience with fanciful pictures of places they will never see than to make what we see everyday more glorified than it truly is. What these men and women have done is show us the beauty in everyday experiences. Perhaps the photographer believed that these images are beautiful. In that case, who are you to decide that these pictures are not art.

    Now, just to make sure you understand where I am coming from. I am not saying Linda is wrong; she is entitled to her opinion, but what I am saying is that we shouldn’t judge should somebody’s creativity based off of a leaky acid test. As a Christian, I see constant attempts of my fellow brothers and sisters to indoctrinate an acid test for every single situation there is, such as how revival comes and the way God moves in certain situations and what style of music God finds agreeable and what what constitutes a proper-looking church, etc. But beauty is not easily indoctrinated.

    BTW, my previous statement was NOT political; so don’t read too far into it.

  3. To Patrick: Make sure you know what you’re talking about before you comment. Most modern DSLRs, and even many point-and-shoot cameras have an auto bracketing feature, which takes a series of shots at multiple levels of exposure with a single click. It’s not a matter of getting a subject to hold still.

    Lots of opinions in the comments on this one, and most of them either full of crap or simply don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Several of you, including “Linda”, need to settle down before you have a heart attack.

  4. okay..
    those pictures are really stunning..
    but there is the fact that they are technically enhanced..
    i do not agree much on this type o art..
    let me see some natural shot…:D

  5. Oh PLEEEEZE people. How petty and uppity several of you sound to so many of us out there. I am a very amateur photographer who just enjoys doing it for fun. I have owned a DSLR for a couple years now, and just use it on weekends and vacations and enjoy the learning process of it all. However, in my opinion, there is merit in all areas of photography. Whether you simply are all about getting the “perfect, incredible shot” on your card without use of software, or your skills are behind the editing of shots or even if what you love is developing your own film and you would never be caught having todays “computer” for a camera, it is ALL art to somebody. And really, isn’t so much of why we do it for our OWN personal interests and desires. Not simply to please someone else?

    A lot of you really need to get over yourselves. How unwelcoming it feels to amateurs to hear these comments about someones work. Variety is the spice of life and people don’t put their work out there in hopes to reach everyone with the same feelings they have when they look at a piece of work they are proud of. Every single one of the creators of these photos should be proud of their work, regardless of YOU enjoying it or not.

    Thank you for posting these photos. Ironically, just several hours before finding this site tonight, I shot some bracketed photos with a goal of trying out some HDR and tonal mapping software. I figured why not try it. I enjoyed the hours I spent both on the shooting side and trying to load and play with the software. It was fun, and that’s the most important part of it all. When it ceases to be “fun” anymore, then go find something else to do. I think some of you are long past due for finding that new “something”. 😉

  6. Get your heads out of your own sphincter and for God’s sake leave Linda alone. She is entitled to her opinion. I agree with much of what she said. Some of these images are hideously overcooked and are as far away from art with the human touch as you can possibly get. Overdone HDR is nothing but mechanical, electronic, off the shelf bucket of arse gravy.

  7. Linda, go find a whole in the ground and fuck yourself. I agree that they don’t look nice, but to the creators, they probably are masterpeices. What are you, anyways, a Da Vinci or something? I have seen, but not made, better.

  8. Linda’s a pretentious art snob. The art world is filled with that kind of self-centered, self-satisfied type.

    As for the photos above, the bike looks awesome as does the ship on dry land. The others look very nice but too “unnatural” for my taste.

    I’m a photographer but I only do “industrial” photography and nothing “artistic” at all. So, *if* I was a photo snob, I *could* say that NONE of those photos are worthwhile since they are all altered to some degree. In my line of work, if I alter one of my photographs even slightly, my “art” would become worthless.

    The smoke (they’re not clouds) in that prairie fire is also beautiful.

  9. Good HDR photography isn’t easy, wether you like them or not a lot of time, effort and skill have gone into these photos and the photographers responsible are clearly very proud of themselves. If they consider their photos art, fair play to them, i’ve seen much worse “art” than this, I assure you. The people responsible for these shots needn’t listen to anyone, except themselves. I believe a photographer should be able to showcase their work without having to listen to some of the drivel in these comments. Well done guys.

  10. Linda:
    These are very pretty, but they hold no real interest other than that they are massively over-worked in Photoshop.

    This statement is very true… for you. But to state it so “matter of fact” without taking in account for all that may be viewing it would be a very brash remark.


    These are all photographs of nothing, that say nothing to the viewer.

    Again, very brash. Have you spoken with every viewer? And even more important, have you spoke with every viewer that will be arriving to look at them? I can’t see how one person can make a blanket statement that covers such a wide group of people, especially when dealing with the subject of art.

    Art, in my opinion, has no boundaries. As long as the creator finds meaning, peace, solitude or anything else in a piece, then how can someone state that it isn’t art. If others find something in that piece also, then great. But no where that I’m aware of does it state that art must be popular or appeasing to all, or even the majority.


    I didn’t learn anything new about myself or humanity from them, and I was left emotionally unmoved by them. The only thing I felt was disappointment, that I was being asked to wade through a collection of overt cliches or snapshots. It took me less than a minute to scan these images. Many of them are so familiar now that I wonder if these haven’t been swiped from some other site.

    Much better worded, at least it was done with “I-Statements” rather than generalized statements that seem to speak for everyone as a whole.

    And personally, I don’t find meaning in everything that is labeled as art, but I guess that is where personal taste comes from and why we have so many different styles of art in the world.


    I don’t mean to slam this, but the purpose of art is to take us somewhere beyond our everyday experience, such that we get a glimpse of our own souls and the soul of the creator of the work. Technical prowess may help, but it is no substitute for true creativity.

    The purpose of art? Hmm, my opinion on the purpose of art; to evoke feeling. Now whether that feeling resides only in the creator or floods the entire population with earth-shattering emotion, to me, makes no difference.

    I doubt anyone would accuse Ansel Adams of not being an artist in his own chosen media. But I challenge anyone to prove that everyone is touched by his work and that his photos have given everyone the feeling you described as “a glimpse of our own souls and the soul of the creator of the work” because I am pretty sure that I can find a few folks that would look at his art as blah, boring and just another photograph instead of art.

    This is the acid test: was a human really required to produce these images, or could they have been produced by a computer program? Art is not art if the human behind the work cannot be detected, or could have been eliminated. Human art reveals the uniqueness of the artist and the way they perceive their subject. True art is a singular, unforgettable act of creation which no computer can possibly produce or emulate.

    Show me that please.

    Was a human needed? I say yes, as it was the human that composed and photographed the original images. A human had to see the shot, set up the shot, take the shot. And yes, a human had to guide the computer to process the shot, as I’m sure they made adjustments to the process until it became what they envisioned as a final piece.

    There are many art pieces that are greatly aided by “non-human” interfaces. Take music for example. There are many musical artists out there that create their art through the use of computers, some of which are completely created by one person and computer programs where not a single physical musical instrument was ever present (besides when the computer program was originally created). Should we be so bold to state that music created that way is not art? I would imagine there are many out there that would disagree if we did. And I would also imagine that the music created in that fashion has touched at least one person in the world.


    I’m sorry if this post is entirely directed towards Linda, but it seems that she has the strongest opinion about what is and isn’t art. And the blanket statement of what is and isn’t art, doesn’t help to encourage creativity, in any form, but rather encourages conformity within a community that is built on creating what one individual sees and sharing with all who wishes to view it, whether it be just the artist or the entire world.



  11. Linda,

    While I could sit here and grill you to figure out what sorts of abstract art without clear meaning (including absolute music) are really art, that’s not really the point of this gallery.

    HDR photography is a TECHNIQUE which many of us are learning in the hope of creating more expressive images. The images posted here are intended to be studies in what HDR can do, and I don’t think that the person that collected this gallery meant it as anything more – these photos are “stunning”, not earth-changing.

    Perhaps you wish to say that because HDR photography requires several exposures separated in time, it is limited in its range of artistic expression because it is not well suited to catch humans in motion, but every medium and technique has limitations. This is why both music and painting are art.

    So my question really is, to you and to the other contributors to this thread, what can one do to better harness HDR to create great art? What does it do well, where does it really help? (Where does it fall short?) Is there a shot you wish you could have used it for at some time in the past? What would it have done for that shot?

    The nature of digital photography means that there will always be many more photo enthusiasts than great photographic artists. Constructive criticism will help more photographers become better artists, but destructive criticism will do just the opposite, but at the end of the day you cannot stop the spread of a technology, because technology is just a form of knowledge.


  12. I am impressed by the way you mastered this topic. It is not often I come across a website with attractive articles like yours. I will bookmark your feed to keep up to date with your future updates.Like it and do keep up the complete work.

  13. Please add more stories. I would like to publish this in our company publication and yes, credit goes to you.

Leave A Reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here