25 Truly Stunning HDR Pictures
Posted on Sep 06, 2008 | Comments 168
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 daniel cheong)
( 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 )
Related Posts:
Posted in: Digital Pictures • Features
I don’t get it? What’s so special about these? I’m rather disappointed by them.
Stunning as they may be, only the one with the canoes is HDR done right, the rest just look like a set of filters slapped on, but the canoe one is excellent.
These are very pretty, but they hold no real interest other than that they are massively over-worked in Photoshop. In that respect, I commend the creators for their technical prowess, but these images are not really art.
These are all photographs of nothing, that say nothing to the viewer. 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.
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.
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.
Great..thanks a lot
Linda you are an uptight moron. Get off your pedestal and see how it really is when people are just trying to have fun with photography. This is not the Louvre.
I don’t think these are the best subjects. Try: http://flickr.com/photos/urbantiki/sets/72057594101068281/
@Linda Wright:
Who’s to say what art is and isn’t? Maybe the point of most of these is to show everyday life, and the beauty of it. You seem to be bitter for no reason.
**quote**
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.
**quote**
who says that is the purpose of art, oh great and wise humongous piece of shit?
Linda, you are just an idiot. The shanghai neihborhood one is great, the conoes are gooda and the ship is also good.
forgot to mention the eagle one- great!
Linda,
“This is the acid test: was a human really required to produce these images,”
I’d say to you, is the camera itself human? No, it is machine, just like the computer. So, by your definition all photography fails your “acid test”.
You’re all assholes. If those photos don’t speak to you, you’re already dead.
Linda Wright, lets see some of your work and see if you can do better.
Linda, I would bet you the riches of the entire world that there isn’t a work of art that couldn’t be produced or emulated by a computer.
What an absurd statement. Just look at the pretty pictures and stop whining.
“I didn’t learn anything new about myself or humanity from them”
omg… faggott
Sorry Linda I do not agree. I think the detail and colors of most of the images are markable. The HDR process really gives the photos a surreal feeling. I especially like what it does to clouds, for example, the foreboding quality of the clouds in the last photo.
God, these look so fake. I hate HDR.
IMO, HDR is only an effective tool when you can’t tell that its HDR. With the exception of the canoes, the old fighter plane and bicycle on the dock, these are grotesque.
Really, Linda? That’s pretty deep, considering it states the emphasis is on the technical prowess, even if it’s not really all HDR. I bet a machine could have written your post though. Where is the line drawn?
I’m not a fan of HDR. I only find 3 of these images aesthetically pleasing. I understand that others appreciate the abstract look of HDR but to me they look like bad cardboard cut outs.
Linda, honestly–you are so full of crap. To think that your reaction to these photographs is a universal reality is about the most narcissistic thing I’ve heard in a long time.
Art is an expression of the people who make it: no more, no less. If you get something out of it, great. If you don’t, then you don’t, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not art to SOMEONE. I can go into any museum and see some art that I like and some art that I don’t–but the fact that it’s all in a museum means that it’s art to enough people that it’s worth putting on display, regardless of whether -I- like it or not.
As a professional cinematographer I can categorically state that the most popular images show us reality in a way we normally don’t experience it, either through subject matter that we haven’t experienced or through a perspective that is brand new to us. HDR is a new perspective, and I enjoy these pictures a lot because they show me subject matter that I don’t experience every day in a way I’ve never seen any of it before.
Are they great art? Who cares? They look cool and enough people enjoy them that I found this link through a social networking site. You seem to be in the minority.
These images took a certain amount of skill to create, and in spite of the fact that you think that they were made on autopilot I doubt you could do as well. To imply that someone took some insipid pictures, fed them through an automatic piece of software, and reaped the results above shows that you are stuck firmly in the 18th century, no doubt criticizing oil paintings as being too heavy-handed and dictating that art doesn’t exist unless it was fingerpainted using watercolors mixed with the artist’s own blood.
All that is required for art to be art is the act of expression, regardless of the tools used.
If, in your view, the real purpose of art is to catch of glimpse of your soul or the soul of another, based on your response above I’d say we got a pretty good glimpse of your soul–and it ain’t pretty.
Linda Wright -
i suppose everyone has to conform to your definition of what art is ?
I Fail to see how choosing variables within a software package is Anny different from choosing variables within an environment when you take a photograph (moving camra around in 3d space choosing exsposure).
allso you seem to be affended that people may use a pc instead of dipping film in chemicals? is color film not valid? maby developing is excluded from art ?
i bet back in the day when painters used new acrylics ore different color paints as thay came available people would call them out for not being true artists as thay had used technology to aid them in there artistic endeavors.
I have done a Fair bit of HDR photography as well as traditional and non digital in the end its all just a way to capture light and then maby present it in some other form.
granted some people might be lazy and just do default photo shop filters to photographs, but you know what if that’s what thay wanted to do and intended to apply that look to there image then that doesn’t somehow stop there work from being art. ( and actually by the looks of it these photographs probably went through a fair bit of tweaking to get them to where thay r and no the computer doesn’t do it for the person it just removes laborious number crunching.)
within the next 200 years (probably 20) a computer will be able to produce an image that makes you cry simply by scanning your brain knowing exactly what kind of imagery emotes you and then producing it and you wont be able to tell it was computer generated at all .
all so you have to remember that everyone perceives the universe from there perspective and from within their brain totally isolated from everyone else. just because landscape photography and computer aided post processing doesn’t turn you on doesn’t mean it doesn’t hit the buttons for other people.
Oh yah nice images
! lol
The HDR thing is much too over done these days. It looks fake and plastic and shows no appreciation for getting the shot technically right in the camera.
Linda-
You’re so wrong, it kills me. I generally don’t post, but I feel like I have to in this situation.
“True art is a singular, unforgettable act of creation which no computer can possibly produce or emulate.”
What is that supposed to mean? You can recreate paintings on the computer, you can print tons of copies of shit. That doesn’t mean it’s not art.
Furthermore, just because YOU don’t see value in these images does not mean others, or the creators, do not. For instance, I see no value in ANY painting I’ve ever seen… modern or not. I do not dismiss it though, just because I don’t see it.
Hey Linda: “Not art”?! The MONA LISA was created by a computer !
@Linda Wright: Pretentious much?
Linda, you’re being way too critical. These are definitely art as is any photograph. Having been created by a human is not at all required. Art doesn’t have to convey any sort of message either, it is perfectly okay for it to just “be there” and be beautiful.
That being said, some of these are amazing. I wish I could get higher res of many of them.
Seriously, get over yourself. If your expectations for every photo require you to have a meaningful transcendental experience while viewing, you must lead a awfully depressing life. None of these were touted as such, just appreciate them as pretty pictures. This being said, most have an ethereal look to them — I’ve never been a fan of overdone HDR. The canoes and the bicycles are well done though.
Clearly, the first two comments are from people who doesn’t know HDR processing and the myriad variations thereof. Linda Wright is telling us the purpose of art when she apparently lacks understanding on the subject. If she thinks that her definition of art should be applied in someone else’s HDR creation, then she has completely missed the entire subject of Art.
PS I don’t agree with Linda Wrights opinion (sorry Linda). Though HDR is not my cup of tea, it is as valid a form of photography as any other. Linda’s argument was once used to berate photography as a form of artistic expression (ie you are not painting the picture yourself).
Agreed about the canoes. Most of these are complete overkill.
I just can’t wait for Elvis on black velvet. Kitch is high art compared to these excretions.
@#2
The title of the website is “25 Truly Stunning HDR Pictures”
While I agree with your explanation of art, no where in the title does one claim these to be art.
They are simply pictures. Take them as that only and don’t look much futher into it.
And as a graphic designer I can tell you A LOT of beautiful art can indeed be produced by a computer program.
I really liked this collection. There is some fantastic ‘shopping evident here.
Linda, while I appreciate the vehemence with which you present your point of view, I think you are wrong.
I find that, more often than not, I really have to look closely at an image to find the meaning that an artist put into it. Just because these were created, or edited, in Photoshop does not mean that they hold any less value than a hand-painted picture.
Your argument that true art cannot be created by a computer program: bullshit. Technically, a computer could have generated the Mona Lisa (to use a famous example). Did it? No. Neither did it generate these. These were made by humans, via computers. Just because the artists used computers doesn’t mean they lack creativity. The first picture is a gorgeous picture. I imagine it took a fair bit of creativity to produce that. Even if the base image is a stock photo taken by another person, the choice of colors and highlights is fantastic.
Your definition of art seems to be a very biased. You seem to insinuate that because the artists used Photoshop, they are substandard. That cuts off a whole genre of art. There are some AMAZING Photoshop artists out there, who have created some amazing works of art.
So, take your biases and stuff them where the sun don’t shine, please.
I do not care whether these pics pass the “Is It Art?” test… if someone calls something art then it is art… maybe not worthwhile art but art nonetheless.
I happen to call every work here worthwhile. Prove to me that it isn’t… you can’t, because a negative can’t be proven.
And don’t tell me that a human was not required to produce any of these works. Show me a totally automated system that can select the time and place to take a photo, that perfect frame to process, and exactly when to stop processing that frame, and I’ll eat these words.
Linda: Sometimes a great looking image is a great looking image. Also, maybe you should get over yourself.
All Hail Linda telling us what is and isn’t art. Art is.
Linda Wright. At the risk of sounding as negative and pompous as you already have, your post came across as more arrogant and unappreciative than a spoiled child.
I found these images to be very entertaining and beautiful, and though my eyes are apparently not as “talented” as yours, I will obviously find beauty in many more things than you.
The author of this article has no obligation to post what you believe to be worthwhile, so why post such negative comments in the first place? If you don’t appreciate the post, then don’t comment, and move on. Why go out and attempt to ruin the post for others?
Johan — What do you mean by HDR done right? I’m concerned that you’re taking an overly literalist position towards the technique, when it is much better used to create artistic distortions to bring across different ways of seeing.
Linda — You’re certainly correct that these are very much works created in a digital realm, but your assertion that they are not really art is foolishly conservative and somewhat ignorant of their intent. This style of art, as its intent, brings to the light a great deal of detail present in a scene that would not otherwise have been noticed. In the selection of scenes with relevant but oft-overlooked detail, as well as the minute control of what detail to emphasize in those scenes, an artist brings their perspective on the world to the viewer.
Your test is fallacious. Would you assert that a painting is only art if it must necessarily have been created by a human rather than a paintbrush? Of course computers (and cameras and communication infrastructure and various other electronics) are used throughout the process of bringing the artists’ vision to us as the viewing audience.
These works are presented as art. In this critical step, we as an audience are told that they DO strongly represent the uniqueness of the artist and the way they perceive their subject. Necessarily.
It is your right as a viewer to admit that you have not received meaning from the work. But to claim that it is not art — I apologize, that is something you simply cannot legitimately arbitrate.
And on a quite different note, you are taking an incredibly confused position on the difference between a computer and a human… Are you talking to us here on this blog? Or is a computer? Keep in mind that all of the electronics required to create the artwork, to hold online discussions — all of it — was created, engineered, and designed by humans.
For the most part, these are not true HRD’s. And as previously noted, just over worked snapshots. Really over worked in some cases.
Note to self… nvr date anyone name Linda Wright, or at least not when she is on her period.
I enjoyed the pictures, thank you.
I think these photographs are a stunning demonstration of HDR. The color and contrast in these pictures is simply amazing, and I can’t wait until this sort of technique becomes available on the typical digital camera. Linda criticizes the choice of subjects for being cliched, but I think she misses the point: these photographs are not intended to be museum pieces, and criticizing them for lacking significant artistic merit is both pretentious and irrelevant. Photography is not primarily a branch of the fine arts.
I think Linda’s comments are not far from the truth.
Most of these pics are over-filtered pablum.
And you don’t have to be a chicken to critique an omelet, peeps.
I do not agree that they are -good- examples of HDR. Even when you are going for the flattened dynamic range as a look, to make a photo look more like an illustration, you shouldn’t have halos around the objects in the photo.
Some are almost textbook examples of what one should avoid or at least watch out for when applying HDR through any process.
This opinion should not be confused with enjoyment of these images, nor with anyone’s definition of art. but as a nudge towards self examination of whether this is the best crafting of the data or if thought and subtlety could improve the matter.
Lol Did the site not update ??
so everyone thought thay were the only person to counter :inder and her crap opinoin?
lol when i posted it came up as number 2, but just comming back now and my post is like 15 down so im gussing the site got stuck when the Digg massive came on down.
so funny how linda got trash talked by 20 difrent people
Geat Collection. Love it.
Charm of Beauty.
These photos capture your eye and attention, but they are not all good examples of HDR. They are examples of what happens when someone starting off with HDR discovers tonal mapping and goes nuts… sorta like when someone starts HTML and discovers the BLINK tag.
A good HDR is one where you didn’t notice it was a HDR. These all are obvious tonal mappings gone wild.
I so wholeheartedly disagree with Linda! Until the artist has done something with the photograph, it’s just a mechanical capture that can be real pretty. The great photographers always dodged and burned, used various effects. That we can do it now digitally demands the same creative decision making process as any other art form.
I just enjoy HDR no matter what. It may not be the original photograph, but it’s an extremely cool manipulation that is designed to “re-work” the original work. The fact is that though these pictures have smoother edges, odd colors, and may look stupid to you in some cases, a human being had to take these pictures in the first place! I love messing with HDR, and I think that in a lot of cases it enhances angles and the focal point of the image. These are not always meant to be replacements! The original images still exist somewhere out there. I loved the comment “Just look at the pretty pictures and stop whining”!
Everyone here clicked on the link….just enjoy it and be happy! The first picture, the ship, is really awesome!