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 )
146 Responses to '25 Truly Stunning HDR Pictures'
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- 6 Tips To Take Quality Pictures Of Flowers
- Do You Want To Add Art In Digital Photography?
- 3 Tips For Using Shadows In Your Photography
- How To Take Great Pictures Of Pets?
- 4 Easy Digital Photography Tips
- How To Take Good Pictures On A Mid Sunny Day?
- Brilliant Tips To Organize Photography Studio
- Image Sharpening To Get High Quality Digital Images
- Decide Megapixels For Your Camera Lens
- How To Add Color To A Black And White Image?
- January 2009 (2)
- December 2008 (9)
- November 2008 (8)
- October 2008 (9)
- September 2008 (12)
- August 2008 (14)
- July 2008 (17)
- June 2008 (12)
- May 2008 (11)
- April 2008 (14)
- March 2008 (12)
- February 2008 (12)
- January 2008 (14)
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!
I love these pictures.
I wonder how much the godly camera costed!
Awesome job.
:]
Hey, these are good. I have a similar collections for planes on http://vishnufafat.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/amazing-cockpit-views/
Well, Everyone……
Perhaps YOU do not understand art !?!
One of the main purposes of Art is to provoke reaction, Yes ?..(Feel free to disagree, expletives not necessary)
Well, if so with her remarks above Linda W. has hence seriously succeeded in becoming an Artist; Perhaps this is just what she intended…
and YOU all became her unwitting critics ??
Native-American, African, you-name-it ART has been assimilated by Westerners (Westernized) as art since they developed their own notions on what art can be. If you were in an art history class and someone said Duchamp’s ready-mades weren’t art would you call them a twat in class? I’m sure you have your own opinions on what is and isn’t art so why not actually discuss it. Art is open for interpretation by whatever anyone thinks - some may find these photographs to be art while some may think they are destined for a calendar of obvious cliches. Damn it, isn’t everything art? If everyone in the world were to disappear, would art still be art? I know photography or HDR wouldn’t matter much to the cockroaches, they’d be eating all of the circus peanuts. Let’s see a stunna HDR picture of THAT.
Seems like most of these with live subjects would have to do the “cheap” way of HDR. Take one picture, then change the exposure on it at least three different levels, then use an HDR app like Photomatix to combine them. Generally I take three different shots on a tripod, with different exposure settings. But if the subject is moving, things will blur.
There ARE a lot of halos around objects in these shots.
Holy birds?
…just sayin’.
@56
How can you understand something that everyone has a different opinion about? Everyone understands their own perception of art, but never the perception of others. This is what we call subjectivity, and thats why people will always argue about it.
Us being critics of a critic must then mean we are all artists. Funny that.
I started posting my creations on Webshots a few years ago.It was something I’ve wanted to do since I was a child.To me its an expression of something you feel from day to day and can take you out of yourself.My friends and family do not understand how I am able to create from filters,but I don’t expect to win any prizes..altho they have asked me to print them out as greeting cards.But hey,let them go on webshots and print them out themselves.It would certainly save my ink!hahahaha!! I adore these photos and I’m very thankful to have eyesight to view them for I know those who do not.I simply love the cows to pieces!
i love art
i love tech
i love art using the latest tech!
One pic can truly be consider as HDR’s (the canoes one). The rest are overdone.
I have a HDR wallpapers collection here:
http://www.Wallpapers-room.com
lol i agree with Linda about these hdr looking to over done but thats it. the rest of you have minds the size of a peanut if you’re going to let this woman anger you over tome p(r)etty HDR photos that anyone with photoshop or photomatix can create or recreate if they had the time. Relax and go create your own HDR and then you can consider it your own personal art.
The bike on the pier is by far the pick of all these shots.
HDR, the crack-cocaine of photography. While I enjoy taking these kinds of shots and experimenting with photoshop filters, true photography is beyond simply setting up a tripod somewhere and playing with various exposures.
Also, many of these photos appear to be post-processed HDR from a single shot as opposed to actually taking a series of multiple shots with various exposures.
HDR is a fad and it will seem quite dated in a few years. It is a fun technical experiment though but simply being able to take HDR shots and process them doesn’t make you a photographic genius.
These images are nice, but doesn’t a real HDR photo need to be taken at multiple exposures? The ones with animals in them are just jerked around in photoshop. Any monkey can do that.
Call it art or not, but if it’s taken from one exposure, don’t call it HDR. Call them synthetic HDR photos. That would be more accurate.
There’s way too many overly sensitive commenters here.
Linda, you’re completely right. Exactly my first thoughts too…
What the…, the correct chronological order of the comments here is gone!
Linda, you seem to have touched a nerve there. Whatever happened to “everybody has a right to an opinion?”
Ehm guys … the colors are all wrong. Yh, really.
This page was pretty clearly labeled as containing HDR Photographs, so why did so many people who hate HDR even look at it much less comment how much they hate HDR? If you don’t like HDR then take yourself off to the Louvre website or whatever floats your boat and try not to fall off your high horse on the way.
very nice pics. hdr photos always look amazing.
well crafted cliché but not art.
juvenile insults but not discourse.
The HDR photographs look really good.. Dont take those seriously who say these are bad. I found the photos very good!! Anyways your page is a top suggestion by Digg.. good work.
Linda, I’m with you. Great technical capabilities, no so much on the composition for the most part.
HDR doesn’t need to look like an overworked acrylic. - it’s just easier to make it look like a heavily saturated painting. Unfortunately, that point seems to have been lost by most of the people playing around with HDR.
I really liked all of these. These shows us things we see every day in a new way. It doesn’t matter to me if these are ‘art’ or not. I still enjoyed them.
Stunning, yes. Beautiful, no.
I agree with Linda. The essence of art is the undisturbed beauty of the human aspect. Digital artists often rely to heavily on their technology to the point that they have become lazy. These photos are rather bland, anyone can turn up the saturation levels in Adobe Photoshop. I want the artist who illicits my raw emotions that I never new I had. These people are just hacks.
wow. let’s get linda.
who’s a bunch of big boys then.
@David @z @arnie @uh-huh @jeremiah
gutless
Really cool photos. Thanks for sharing these. Please ignore the haters. I loved the bicycle and the one with the reactors. Well done.
*S*
The bicycle is not HDR. It’s just a gradated tobacco filter:
http://www.adorama.com/ckp125.html
Easily done in-camera without anything digital.
Nice CHEMTRAILS morons. Wake up and save your lives.
True, the one with canoes looks the best. They have a look of digital animation. Almost game quality.
A waste of time, this got nothing to do with real photography. Anyone with lots of time to waste can manipulate images to look like this with PS.
This is not real photos.
To be honest, this is NOT HDR it is a Photoshop filter from Topaz-labs that works with exposure…
I will say the pictures are indeed pleasing to the eyes, but they are not real photography.
They are so heavily edited that they are not photos anymore.
The idea that digital art is not the same as are is utter bull, if trent reznor can (to some people) define his generation with digital music how can you say he is not an artist? Video games though commericial are completely digital and can tell a story in a way better then any movie how is that not art. simply put art is not confined by anything, art can be found in almost anything, if you express yourself, the way you do so is your art and no one has a right to tell you just because it did not bring out any feelings in them its not art because they are wrong art is truely art if it brings out feelings in yourself, im a musician and a bit of a photoshop artist, now i dont put much work in my photoshop works i just do them for fun and i find them artistic and im proud of them they are full of filters and people on here would probably slam them but at the end of the day i look at them and think they are great, they are artwork and they are how i express myself, from a music stand point its the same way people may not like the music i play but it dosent remove it as an artform because no one but me relates to it, end of the story is, i dont like you linda wright, you have no idea what art is and why artists do what they do
i agree with Linda
I agree with DogBreath on the use of HDR but in making the list I might have also added the shot of the eagle.
HDR is a difficult process to accomplish, I’m actually pretty bad at it.
My cohort in photography, however, is not.
His flickr stream is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/theodorebaschak/
The thing to keep in mind about HDR is often the images do not look the same in small size as they do resolved up at full size. The micro-contrasts at small size seem un-natural, because it is an effect we are used to seeing on a larger world (our brain micro-contrasts all the time).
“The only thing I felt was disappointment, that I was being asked to wade through a collection of overt cliches or snapshots.”
Spoken by someone who has the inability to see beauty in the ordinary, or in an image that says nothing.
I think I’m in love with Linda right now.
I agree with Linda, I think most people on here don’t look any deeper than “ooo pretty colors” when looking at these shots.
Technically these shots aren’t worth much merit. Only a few show much thought other than, Hey lets take a picture and mess with it in Photomatix!
Like the Dog and the Eagle shot are the worst for this, take away all that post processing and what do you have… a mediocre picture with a centered subject, taken with an extreme lens (wide or telephoto) So the photographer can be lazy and not worry about composition.
Art or not….SOMEONE’S got MADDD Photoshop skills…
I’m sorry, but all of you are arguing over the ‘value’ or individual statement of perception.
Art is simply a mirror into one’s own self. so if Linda thinks it’s not art… then it’s not. but if the rest of us (capable thinking intelligent and unintelligent souls) think it is, who is to argue the validity…? I think Linda should learn to use her words… after her opinion matters to someone, somewhere… I’m sure. I think… maybe…
the hdr picture are significant because of the diferent exposures, thats what makes them interesting to the eye. it dosnt have to be the most amazing thing to capture it’s more about looking for new subjects and capturing the levels of color contrast, highlights mids, and lows. these are amazing pictures.
What a load of rubbish, my kids can do better than that and they are 4 and 6.
Art, fine every one has their choice of art but looking at this is not worth my time and all you commenting on here need to get a life and see what is really out in the world. Get off your computers and see with your own eyes the true beauty of what this planet has to offer with out the filters and masks.
Linda, it is time you got over your fear of PhotoShop. Do you have a deep underlying fear of image software? Also thanks to everybody who commented on this page, I clicked on the link to view the images, which nobody claimed was ART and had a good laugh reading the comments.
Oh and one more for linda - please don’t be a bitter person or consider jumping off a bridge. You will find that people are usually nicer if you accept them for what they are instead of critizing and patronising them .
HDR is a post process style not possible without the aid of a computer and software. So it’s less photography (capturing light) than it is digital imaging (pixel manipulation). There’s nothing wrong with that. Some people like it, some don’t. Personally, I find most HDR overdone, creating images that are unpleasing to look at beyond the initial “wow” factor. I’d prefer a little more subtlety (craft) among the practitioners without compromising the uniqueness of the style.
99.99% of photography isn’t art. Why? Because about 10 billion photos are snapped every day. Personal expression, wholly of itself, isn’t art either. Otherwise I’m making art right now as I type.
Art implies craft. Ansel Adams is famously quoted “You can have craft without art but you cannot have art without craft.” And more specifically to photography, Edward Weston notes “Composition is the strongest way of seeing.” I’d argue, that for any photographic image, composition is more foundational to achieving art than any method of post processing.
It’s funny to note how many photographer’s often feel the need to refer to themselves as “Fine Art Photographers”. This doesn’t occur anywhere else in the art world. No one says “I’m a fine art sculptor” or “I’m a fine art ballet dancer”. I did this myself at one time.
Those of you Linda bashing should really be ashamed of yourselves, largely hiding behind the anonymity of the web. There’s enough ill will in the world without all these baseless “f**k off” comments.
Like so many things, these would be SO nice if the HDR tweaks wern’t SO overdone and obvious. Granted a couple of them are quite nice, but most of them look more like paintings than photographs. All things in moderation folks!
Linda Wright could not be more correct. Great piece, Linda.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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
but so much fun to do
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)
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.
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
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%!
Rich
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.
Stumbled across this page from my friends page and like the vivid colors in these photos.
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.
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.
wow linda u must be the chancelor of all art and all that is good. get over yourself
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 !!!)
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,
Louis
This thread is hilarious.
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.
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…
And anything you can do, I can do better… HA!
Surreal, you complain? What the heck’s so great about
reality?
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.
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!
You know Ed, that now some poor guy with no elbows is going to be posting angry comments about you next. lol
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.
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
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.
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.
——————————————————-
Den—
Wow, Linda made a comment about the “art”. 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.
——————————————————
Linda—
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…
Too manipulated to be true or impact producing……..
HDR can’t replace a sense for lighting, positioning and most importantly choosing the right motif.
[...] blog is more geared towards photographers but they have a great post titled 25 Truly Stunning HDR Pictures and they don’t lie, so have a [...]
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.
I think they are fantastic pics, love em
Lol, linda hasnt replied to any of the comments directed at her
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.
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
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.
I am with you Linda
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 !!
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!
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.
[...] kiedykolwiek zastanawialiście się jakim artystą trzeba być żeby zrobić takie zdjęcia to już Wam tłumaczę. Otóż trzeba skorzystać z technologi HDRI (High Dynamic Range Imaging). [...]
I love those pics!
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
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.
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
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.
[...] http://www.digitalpicturezone.com/digital-pictures/25-hdr-pictures/ [...]
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.