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 have seen this exact thing several times on other sites. Regardless, these are not ‘photographs’ now, more like ‘art’. Some of these would be excellent without all the heavy HDR. I’m not an HDR hater but these are way overdone. They look like those Elvis paintings for sell at flea markets.

  2. I agree with Linda. Photographs should tell a story, and have a point of view. These butcher the true art form of photography. And this is only my opinion. That being said i find it funny that everyone commenting against Linda is saying she’s wrong. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and sees art in a different way…

  3. for those saying linda is right, then why does her definition of “art” make no sense at all. instead lets get some opinions from some one that went throught art school, art history, photo illustration, and photography. linda, u think u know about photography but u are just boasting you own opinion. this is a TYPE of photography here people. its not the king its not neccesarily the best. its a just a way of showing incredible depth and contrast. if you photoshop haters out there cant stand HDR well then u better get used to it. alot of photo competitions allow photoshopped images. almost all digital photographers, in some way, enhance their images. wiki HDR and u can figure out why some photographers choose to stack these differently exposed pictures. photographs are ment to please they eye and captivate viewers. and these pictures do that well.

  4. I think Linda is on to something. From a technical perspective the images are pretty. But that it. I’m glad people had fun, and pretty things are fun. But there are postcards in the world already. If the goal was pretty pictures that was achieved, and perhaps the critics are correct this is not meant to be more than pretty pictures. Neither good nor bad, just pretty. This may not be the forum for cutting edge art, one that dips in to the political, for that i would recommend ;Aperture, Doubletake, and La Nueva Luz.

  5. people are having fun here doing what they do

    most of the of the photographs are nothing special, all of the HDR is unskillfully done, some comments are unnecessarily angry and
    everything we all have to say is non-sense πŸ™‚
    but so much fun to do

  6. I think these are great – love the HDR thing. Face it photogs, photoshop is here and here to stay… GREAT Work people don’t let these photo snobs get you down! (I think they are just jealous because it makes their “pro” pics look like S) πŸ™‚

  7. It’s obviously difficult to define art and determine what is art. At it’s heart I think it should be something created by a person (with whatever tools) that engages the mind and senses (although some may not realize it, this can also be in a negative way). Now, in that sense, I think that whether or not an observer thinks something is art or not says more about the observer than it does about the art.

    When we look at these photographs, we form mental networks of other images, sounds, stories, etc. or we don’t. If we glance thru in “less than a minute” how many nuances can we find. How many mental stories can we imagine. If photography is to tell a story, and some see those stories and you don’t. That should say more about you, than the photograph.

    With one person, these photos may each be a entire novel of imagination. With another complete garbage. Great art to one, art drivel to the next. But sitting here, it looks like these works evoked emotions both positive and negative. Sounds like art to me.

    I think Mark Twain said it best:
    You can not depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.

  8. enki is right: for special social categories like some people that are posting here these images are pretty. that doesn’t make them artistic or of any value. but these are probably the people that buy the worst kitsch in casino shops and touristic souvenirs to decorate their houses (other pretty images). by not recognizing their right to consume the art that they can afford (moneywise and culturewise) is a little bit too far. enjoy these images! it doesn’t mean that i don’t see that they are a senseless piece of crap

  9. Linda, While I was not entirely following what you said, I agree with your premise. A photograph should stand on its own merits. Aside from cropping, brightness and contrast corrections, and perhaps a color temperature adjustment, I do not enjoy any further enhancements.

    I was in the photography business when the Cokin filters came on the market. When I saw what they were doing to otherwise good pictures and photographs, I refused to carry them. I finally relented and sold a few filters of another brand, but I remained steadfastly opposed to placing gadgets between the subject and the film. This form of “enhancement” is just a return the old Cokin filters, except that it is now done electronically.

    I’m glad you took a stand and I support you 100%!


  10. Personally, I agree with Linda, and I’m kind of surprised that you all reacted so violently to her opinion. These are pretty pictures, I liked them, but they’re forgettable after 30 seconds. That being said, I don’t think there is anything wrong with pretty pictures, and if you enjoyed looking at them, then cool. I guess I just don’t see what the big deal is.

  11. loves Linda’s comment. I agree with her. Most of the pictures here are overdone to a result where u can see halos on the subject. THe best HDR so far in this is the canoe shot having nice composition and beautiful HDR. While the rest i am sorry to say are not.

  12. Well, I managed to get you all talking about art instead of just consuming it. I even got a few of you to start thinking about art, instead of just talking about it.

    My work is done here. πŸ™‚

  13. Ha, Linda W. – #3 + a few # above; Well done !!…..

    (and just as I expected, back at #53)…

    Yes, your (Provcative) Art WAS done here indeed !

    Please keep it up; Debate is everything !!
    (Dare I say ‘Debate is ART’; Ha !!!)

  14. As someone who shoots HDRs I am more than willing to view the work of other photographers who use the technique. Some of the images here are outstanding, some are quite good. All are worth viewing. Leave it to someone who hasn’t shown her work, who hasn’t put herself out there, to come here and condescend. It takes all kinds.
    Thanks for the collection.
    Best regards,

  15. I’m a crap photographer and a non-existent artist and I don’t have a very good ear when it comes to playing an instrument that requires to pitch it.

    But I do still have an opinion on art and music, and I know what I like and don’t. The photo’s weren’t my cup of tea.

    So why do people have to bash some body else’s opinion of the photo’s? Although I must admit quite a lot have a really pompous attitude to others opinions.

    Then there are those that just have to say something, cause it makes them feel good. Constructive criticism is always welcome in my world, destructive is a waste of time and space. Just in case you wonder what I’m into it’s troubleshooting computer systems, and I’ve met a load of prats along the way.

    I personally prefer real world pictures, the sort that I’ve seen from sea level to 10,000 feet up a mountain. Most of the time a photograph even video don’t give anywhere near the same perspective to actually being there.

    But I am in awe of real artists (Painters) who create in water or oils, or the likes of Julian Beevers street art.

  16. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Full Stop.

    Where you notice a ‘halo’, like the eagles, it was intentional by the artist…even though I might disagree with that choice.

    My favorites are the rooster (with depth of field effect to the right and rising sun far left) and the incredible horse & woman image. Remember, these are ‘images’, not purist photos. Anyway, in composition and other criteria, many of these are unassailable.

    Anyway, if you disagree with me you are wrong… πŸ˜‰
    And anything you can do, I can do better… HA!
    Surreal, you complain? What the heck’s so great about

  17. Wow, Linda made a comment about the “art”. I disagreee with her (mostly), but it was her opinion. Isnt that what this is for?

    Why are all the other comments about Linda and not the artwork? If you say she cannot judge the art for all, how can you judge a person from one comment?

    Personally, I only actually like a handfull of these pictures – especially the cloudy road. I can however appreciate that all the pictures are of great quality. I am able to relate to some and find meaning where others are lost on me. Whilst the bike picture bores me, I am sure that many others would enjoy it.

  18. Boy, Linda sure pissed a bunch of folks off! Linda I’m not mad at you. You know opinions are like elbows, everyone’s got one!

    Great pictures that definitely provoked a lot of thought!

  19. I like these images, I don’t fully agree with what Linda says but… honestly, you other folks are no better. Instead of commenting on the images, all you did was insult Linda like a bunch of uneducated rednecks. She stated her opinion, it’s HERS. She’s intitled to NOT LIKE something. You’re the arrogant ones. There ARE people who have different tastes than yours, you know? Besides, while she stated her opinion in a polite manner, you answered her like animals, with so much hatred and agressiveness that it’s almost scary. You people must be really frustrated in your daily lives. I wonder whether you’re proud and happy with yourselves after you spread around these samples of wickedness.

  20. I have a picture on here and for someone to say it is not art does hurt. Then I just started with Photography and was completely new to it. That Photo meant a lot to me and pushed me to go further. For the HDR I just used a program called Dynamic-photo HDR with JPEG images. It is a great program to simulate and make the dynamics of a picture stand out. I am still new and until I get Adobe products working on vista πŸ˜› I will be using this to to adjust contrast ect.

    I think of every one of my photos art. They don’t have to be great just inspiring.

  21. Linda—
    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.


    Wow, Linda made a comment about the β€œart”. I disagreee with her (mostly), but it was her opinion. Isnt that what this is for?

    No one says she can’t have an opinion, but it’s the tone of her opinion that seemed to annoy people, including me.

    This is the acid test: was a human really required to produce these images, or could they have been produced by a computer program?

    By her own “acid test” these images ARE art. None of these images can be produced by a computer program alone. They can be produced with a manual camera, and/or DSLR, and a software program, all controlled and managed by a human.
    And everyone of those images “could have been done in a darkroom” in a much more laborious way.
    If they were done in a darkroom, then, somehow, they would have been “art”, according to Linda??…lolol. How myopic.

    Then she had the gall to say “her work is done here”?…LOL
    It’s pretnetious of Linds to think she did “any work here”.
    I think Linda needs to go back to whatever academic environment she came from because any true artist would never place parameters on what art is or isn’t…

  22. About “Linda”s post about art; someone had to design the computer program to render things, and artists can even program Photoshop to do things for them automatically. Humans are involved every step of the way. They are just using different tools to express art.

    The bottom line is the HDRI isn’t possible without computers, so it’s just a matter of what degree you use them.

  23. Art is all about going beyond an expectation. These pictures are created in that spirit. They give a look of photography and painting and tell me that the artist saw something beyond the obvious. A different interpretation is what makes art so exciting. Calling yourself an artist does not make you one. Challenging your own limitations and finding yourself when you do, does.

    I would be interested to see what the naysayers work looks like that allows them to presume that these photos are not art because they have been altered. How do you think the Impressionist era started and became so successful? They didn’t listen to those who could not see.

  24. Although I love HDR, I do feel that many of the above images have been over-processed to the point of them looking fake. The point of softwares such as Photomatix is to enhance and create beautiful pictures without people being able to tell that post-processing has been done.These pictures have lost their beauty because they have been over worked

  25. Only white men is stupid enough to invent a million dollar device and replace his own few cents invention thus to obtain the same result.

  26. hey everyone: my two cents. Photography (capturing decisive moments which impact the viewer) is cool; digital art is cool ; studio photography is cool ; sports photography is cool ; tripods are cool ; handheld street photography is cool ; impressionism is and so is expressionism ; wildlife photography is awesome but so are still lifes ; combat photography – wow ; but so is wedding photography… and… Linda is cool for her thoughts on the matter ; so are the proponents of digital art – they are right too …. point being, not everything is where it’s at for everyone so… that is why there is the expression ‘birds of a feather flock together ‘ ; …everyone just back off and either just enjoy the digital art or if you DON’t happen to dig it, just be happy — just be happy — for the people who DO enjoy it. Don’t we all have alot more to worry about ?!?!?! mamma mia !!

  27. i’m a photographer and the same time a graphic artist. i love the effect of HDR to ordinary photos. it tickles my eyes when i see one. Great work!

  28. Linda, Linda

    Whereever you are right now…..
    I feel so sorry for you, thats all I can say.

    Try to enroll yourself in a computer class, and maybe you can use that as a media to express yourself in an artform.

  29. Well all are good, and useing HDR photo is all good, theres no cut and past no adding 2 or more photos into one, (you can if you like to) but HDR is the number of photos useing diffrent EV +1 0 1.0 etc of the same shot, and merged into a HDR processing program on the computer!, that is a True HDR processing of course you can add or lessen saturation brightness darkness contrast or even gamma to the photo, HDR is another artistic technique of photographing like sepia or negative or even black and white! make you photographing exciting! useing HDR πŸ™‚

  30. These pictures capture surralistic beauty, its a shame some people are too close-minded to appriciate them; however their responces simply indicate they obviously are miserable within their pathetic exhistance to the point they cannot appriciate art that was presented before them. Thank you for posting these lovely pictures.

  31. everyone is entitled to their own opinions but linda is dictating to us about what art is. i strongly dislike her attitude “say nothing to the viewer” who are you to tell me what the pics say to me. i found these on stumble and enjoyed them for what they were, interesting picture. HDR is not everyones cup of tea but some people think the ARTISTS have tried to create true to life pics, in my opinion HDR should be different to what we normaly can see.
    as for linda saying “my job is done” wel what a load of bull. you did nothing apart from slate other peoples work, it wasnt even expressing your opinion, to me it sounded as if you thought you are the queen (tyrant) of art and you’d decided that these photographers work was something any body could create and therefore its crap.
    i dont usualy post but linda rattled my bones

  32. I agree with Linda about these photos, but not about the other stuff. This is stock photography, which does require technical artistry, but there isn’t much value to it, these pictures will never be famous or change the art world, or anything like that. They remind me of Thomas Kincaid and his commercialization of art, which killed it. Plus his crap is just ugly.

  33. The problem with Linda’s argument is that photos have been manipulated in the darkroom for ages. Nobody would claim that Ansel Adams was not an artist or that his photographs are not art. But he spent hours in the darkroom with each negative, carefully adjusting the developing process to produce an image that no longer was what the camera captured. That the darkroom is now digital makes no difference. IT IS THE SAME PROCESS.

    Art is in the eye of the beholder and Linda has no right to proclaim something as art or not for anyone other than herself. The wording of her post was arrogant and presumptuous is that she claimed to be the arbiter of art for other.

  34. Linda says,

    “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.

    Well I say to you that the computer and the program itself are both works of art. They would not exist without a person having created them. As surely as man created the camera and the paint brush to help him create art. He created the computer and photoshop.

    There are many items of creativity that displease me. I find the coin with George Washington and Barrack Obama on it appauling. I think the pipes and wire in the KC Skyline are a waste of taxpayer money but they are still works of art. They still stir emotion and cause me to feel. Obviously these pictures caused you to feel or your writing would not have been so critical and full of emotion.

    Show you a singular unforgettable act of creation you say. I show you the computer and all its components, I show you Photoshop and how many times the software artists have recreated thier tool to allow them to create thier world in a new way. I show you the digital camera used to generate the multiple images required to create the masterpieces above. I show you the individual input and editing of the photographer as he snapped those shots from that particular location at that particular moment to get that particular effect. Then he used the other tools created by other types of artists to create a picture that could only be created by the team work of all of those people using that particular program with those particular features and algorithyms. because to have done it in any other would have produced a different piece of art. and then and only then did he add the finishing touches using all those tools that finally gave him complete ownership. He adjusted and trimmed and corrected till it looked just perfect to him (or her) and then he published it so that you could FEEL!

    What you felt…thats as much about you as it is the art!

  35. Most of these are *REALLY* over saturated…and I don’t think the “artists” understood *WHY* it was they were doing it, other than they thought it “looked cool”. Generally the only time you want to over saturate an image is when you’re trying to invoke a fantasy or dream like feeling with your work. Generally speaking if you’re trying to invoke a sense of nature and naturalism as many of the subjects seem to suggest then you *REALLY* don’t want to over saturate the colors, otherwise you’re going to get conflicting messages being given off with your work. Overall none of it is ground breaking or anything, but with some proper color correction a few of them would make for some semi-decent prints to hang up around your office or whatever.

  36. GUYS!!!! Chill out! Some of these pics are nice, just because most of them aren’t as good as say Marc Adamus, deosn’t mean that people can’t have fun with photography! Photos are something that the photographer took because they thought it was a good shot, it didn’t need to be. If people have more fun with HDR than just normal photos, then there is no reason to criticize them. Some like impressionist art, some like realism. Just leave it alone.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

Leave A Reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

twenty − 14 =