25 Truly Stunning HDR Pictures
Posted on Sep 06, 2008 | Comments 165
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.
( photo by klados25 )
( photo by Rickydavid )
( photo by raycollister )
( photo by t.beauchemin )
( photo by Compound Eye )
( photo by cloudzilla )
( photo by stevacek )
( photo by blakelipthratt )
( photo by blakelipthratt )
( photo by Bartek Kuzia )
( photo by Dubtastic )
( 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 )
( photo by Asoner )
( photo by James Neeley )
( photo by Fort Photo )
( photo by NY_Doll )
( photo by Franck )
( photo by g.s.george )
( photo by Jeff Clow )
Popularity: 25% [?]
Posted in: Digital Pictures • Featured
Only a very few people have understood what I was trying to say. Congratulations if you did – you know who you are. To the rest, allow me to explain;
Art is art because it conveys meaning from one person to another. Beautiful things made to decorate are lovely, and even worthwhile, but they are distinct from art because they lack meaning or significance – they are legitimate not as art but as “designs”, as I mentioned to Cyril above.
Of course there is a place for design in the world, and HDR photography is fine for that. And beauty of course has a place, especially man-made and even computer-generated beauty. But true art is not art merely because it is “pretty” or “beautiful” or “artistic”. That is a preschool definition. If you make something pretty, and you want a pat on the head or a gold star, go back to elementary school, or else stop putting your work out into the world to be critiqued.
Educated adults understand that the true purpose of art is to express and project meaning in a world which is completely devoid of any inherent *objective* meaning. We understand this from Existentialism, which in essence teaches us that the very effort to convey meaning is art itself, even if it is not beautiful, so long as it succeeds in communicating some *subjective meaning* to someone somewhere.
Now if you don’t like this definition, you really need to come up with a better one, because just telling people to “shut up” is never an answer. Not in the adult world at least. But even if you absolutely hate this definition and cannot come up with a better one, you should nonetheless give this one very careful thought, because within it lies the difference between truly great art and a world full of very “pretty” mediocrities.
Linda – What you’re saying doesn’t make any sense at all. Mostly in that your entire explanation is just filled with double ended explanations to the point where it almost looks like you’re having an argument with YOURSELF…it’s really kind of strange.
Art is whatever you want art to be. The “meaning” you talk about may exist for one person but not another. Essentially you’re trying to inflict your personal OPINIONS about what is “art” and what is “design” onto others, setting yourself as the all great and powerful knower of what has meaning and what doesn’t. Meaning is a ~VERY~ personal thing which has to do with the sum of our being, personal experiences, our emotional state, the essence of who we are. And even if something is merely “beautiful” or “artistic” (oops, that was one point where you argued with yourself), it *STILL* has meaning.
Everything has *SOME* level of meaning for somebody. To try and say that something has no meaning at all doesn’t really make any sense unless you completely take out the human equation. There was *SOME* meaning…even if that meaning was simply to invoke a sense of peace, contentment and the like through prettiness and beautification. Basically what you said is that whenever anyone looks at something “beautiful” it doesn’t ever have any meaning for them…which is completely absurd. How could something be recognized as “beautiful” unless it has *SOME* level of meaning to a person?
Once again, anything can be art and it’s all subjective…HOWEVER, there *ARE* objective ways in which you can critique art. Such as color composition/theory/contrast, typography, lighting, perspective, design form, user interface or recognizable design elements (mostly when talking about web design art), intended audience, intended meaning, etc, etc.
The two most important factors there being INTENDED AUDIENCE and INTENDED MEANING. You *CANNOT* make any sort of true objective critique without knowing those two things. Without knowing them all you have is art for art sake, you can’t make any kind coherent critique…unless you do what I did earlier and play out potentialities, making multiple presumptions and then playing out multiple critiques from different perspectives. But even doing that you cannot make any definitive judgments about a piece of art.
Only if the artist reveals their intended audience and their intended meaning can you actually truly critique art. And if the artist chooses to keep it a secret, or hidden, for whatever reason, that doesn’t somehow stop it from being art nor does it magically make it meaningless. It simply prevents anyone from being able to critique the work on any true objective level. It’s *STILL* art, it *STILL* has meaning for people looking at it, it just can’t be critiqued.
Most of these photos canot possibly be real hdr, because hdr involves multipe shots of different exposures and that means thre is more than one click of the shutter therefor the birs, chicken guy next to canoes wouldnt have stood still enough for them to overlay perfectly however if it was just from 1 raw image than i could see it working. nice pics though.
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!
[...] 25 Truly Stunning HDR Pictures | Digital Pictur… [...]
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.
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.
This photos are very beautiful…
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
Enhanced BUT nice
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”.
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.
Gee…Can’t find any good words…Outstanding…
This way is one of digital photo art
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.
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.