[FredderiK]

Taken on the north coast of Iceland.

[Jourgenz]

Powerfull. Nice

[mikefertynnz]

Impressive

*noob question* how is that effect achieved? (photoshop?)

[Rnlvifov]

Impressive

*noob question* how is that effect achieved? (photoshop?)

Multiple exposures composited into a single photo.

[JesikaFlpk]

Impressive

*noob question* how is that effect achieved? (photoshop?)

yep multiple exposures merged togather in photoshop and then play around with tone mapping, (or other post processing software that alows you to merge photos and play with tone mapping).

[Taunteefrurge]

awesome can i get that for my desktop?

[sztc38tg]

Very nice![thumbup]

Ive been wanting to try this. But I still need to purchase CS3.

[MrsGoo]

awesome can i get that for my desktop?

Thanks for you comments...will have to make another picture suited for desktop...this one has a weird resolution.

[Vzkdgdqx]

Not to hijack this thread but I just won CS2 off of ebay for $107. Full un-opened retail version! Sweet, HDR here I come![thumbup]

[Phighicle]

Amazing.[thumbup]
Just a suggestion- try the same shot, and use the rule of thirds. I don't follow it usually, but it would add so much to this -already- amazing shot.

thanks for sharing!

[robstamps]

Amazing.[thumbup]
Just a suggestion- try the same shot, and use the rule of thirds. I don't follow it usually, but it would add so much to this -already- amazing shot.

thanks for sharing!

Yeah i was thinking of cropping the horizon a bit to make it lower...will try that thanks for the suggestion.

[DeronBoltonRen]

Yeah i was thinking of cropping the horizon a bit to make it lower...will try that thanks for the suggestion.

Don't laze around and go get this picture again! It's really worth it, I would go back there for it.
It's quite a money shot tbh, and no doubt it's a hanger. -Unless it's too far away from your home.

[Metrujectiktus]

can we get a wallpaper size image?
1680X1050

[XiWm9O9S]

Technically, these are not HDR images, they are regular images with multiple exposures layered on top of each other. True HDR images are just higher bit depth. 32bpc instead of 8bpc!

But it looks great! I usually hate the look of these 'fake HDR' pics, but I was super pleasantly surprised to see yours looking really good!

[Jorcelirl]

Technically, these are not HDR images, they are regular images with multiple exposures layered on top of each other. True HDR images are just higher bit depth. 32bpc instead of 8bpc!

But it looks great! I usually hate the look of these 'fake HDR' pics, but I was super pleasantly surprised to see yours looking really good!

what..?
HDR photo is a photo that has High Dynamic Range.
A photo gains this high dynamic range from two or more exposures. it has nothing to do with bit depth.
as long as the photographer saved the shadows' and the highlights' data(by exposing each single photo for shadows\highlights\mid light), it's an HDR photo. Dynamic range isn't bit depth.

[gogFloark]

what..?
HDR photo is a photo that has High Dynamic Range.
A photo gains this high dynamic range from two or more exposures. it has nothing to do with bit depth.
as long as the photographer saved the shadows' and the highlights' data(by exposing each single photo for shadows\highlights\mid light), it's an HDR photo. Dynamic range isn't bit depth.

You are kind of mixed up. An HDR image can be created by using several exposures, it can also be recovered by scanning in film negatives at a higher bitrate, such as 8, 10, 12, 16 or 32bpc. However, to view the HDR image it must be converted into a tone mapped format that is viewable on screen and downsampled to 8bpc.

If you are viewing the image on a computer monitor, you are viewing a translated output of the HDR information. Because computer monitors have low dynamic range. A computer monitor is only 8bpc.

The look you are describing is called tone mapping, to be precise. True HDR images don't look any different from regular images unless you look under the hood so to speak and start making adjustments to the image.

Dynamic range IS bit depth! Because RGB only goes so far. HDR images are not RGB, they have millions more levels than what is seen, which is why I use them in computer animation, rendering and even film editing because it retains the dynamic range of film colorspace. What is colorspace? Bit depth. What you see on the screen is not HDR, but a representation of the information contained within. Basically, RAW format on your camera is for this same reason. There are more bits per channel so you can recover areas overexposed and underexposed. Where as with RGB, what you see is what you get.

Look up Paul Debevec, one of the pioneers of most techniques used in creating modern HDR imagery. Also, OpenEXR is an HDR format. http://www.openexr.com/about.html

[actioliGalm]

You are kind of mixed up. An HDR image can be created by using several exposures, it can also be recovered by scanning in film negatives at a higher bitrate, such as 8, 10, 12, 16 or 32bpc. However, to view the HDR image it must be converted into a tone mapped format that is viewable on screen and downsampled to 8bpc.

If you are viewing the image on a computer monitor, you are viewing a translated output of the HDR information. Because computer monitors have low dynamic range. A computer monitor is only 8bpc.

The look you are describing is called tone mapping, to be precise. True HDR images don't look any different from regular images unless you look under the hood so to speak and start making adjustments to the image.

Dynamic range IS bit depth! Because RGB only goes so far. HDR images are not RGB, they have millions more levels than what is seen, which is why I use them in computer animation, rendering and even film editing because it retains the dynamic range of film colorspace. What is colorspace? Bit depth. What you see on the screen is not HDR, but a representation of the information contained within. Basically, RAW format on your camera is for this same reason. There are more bits per channel so you can recover areas overexposed and underexposed. Where as with RGB, what you see is what you get.

Look up Paul Debevec, one of the pioneers of most techniques used in creating modern HDR imagery. Also, OpenEXR is an HDR format. http://www.openexr.com/about.html

.... I'm not mixed up. [no]
Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

[Anymnillulky]

.... I'm not mixed up. [no]
Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

This method was developed to produce a high dynamic range image from a set of photographs taken with a range of exposures. With the rising popularity of digital cameras and easy-to-use desktop software, the term "HDR" is now popularly used[3] to refer to this process. This composite technique is different from (and may be of lesser or greater quality than) the production of an image from a single exposure of a sensor that has a native high dynamic range. Tone mapping is also used to display HDR images on devices with a low native dynamic range, such as a computer screen.

...

This is different from traditional digital images, which represent colors that should appear on a monitor or a paper print. Therefore, HDR image formats are often called "scene-referred", in contrast to traditional digital images, which are "device-referred" or "output-referred". Furthermore, traditional images are usually encoded for the human visual system (maximizing the visual information stored in the fixed number of bits), which is usually called "gamma encoding" or "gamma correction". The values stored for HDR images are often linear, which means that they represent relative or absolute values of radiance or luminance (gamma 1.0). HDR images require a higher number of bits per color channel than traditional images, both because of the linear encoding and because they need to represent values from 10−4 to 108 (the range of visible luminance values) or more. 16-bit ("half precision") or 32-bit floating point numbers are often used to represent HDR pixels. However, when the appropriate transfer function is used, HDR pixels for some applications can be represented with as few as 10–12 bits for luminance and 8 bits for chrominance without introducing any visible quantization artifacts.[4]
...

Images with too much "HDR" processing have their range over-compressed, creating a surreal low-dynamic-range rendering of a high-dynamic-range scene.


Here the dynamic range of the image is demonstrated by adjusting the "exposure" when tone-mapping the HDR image into an LDR one for display. The above sequence uses an image rendered with Radiance using Paul Debevec's light probe of the Uffizi gallery. The rendering software produces a high dynamic range image. When making the JPEG images, one selects a part of that range for display. This is similar to how a conventional camera captures only a portion of the dynamic range of a real physical scene.
The middle exposure is the desired exposure and is likely how this scene would normally be presented. The exposure to the left is 4 EV darker, showing some detail in the bright clouds in the sky. The exposure to the right is 3 EV lighter, showing some detail in the darker parts of the scene. This shows why compositing is desirable; a composite image can retain the interesting details from all three exposure settings. Did you bother to read it? Because it sounds a hell of a lot like my post... [rofl]

I said I liked his image because he very successfully applied the tone mapping without giving it too much of an "HDR" or fake-hdr style look to it. I usually hate those pictures because they just look like a solarized mess. I like this one because it just looks very well exposed.

Hey, OP, can you give a link to your Flickr stream? Thanks!

[Jannet.K]

Did you bother to read it? Because it sounds a hell of a lot like my post... [rofl]

I said I liked his image because he very successfully applied the tone mapping without giving it too much of an "HDR" or fake-hdr style look to it. I usually hate those pictures because they just look like a solarized mess. I like this one because it just looks very well exposed.

Hey, OP, can you give a link to your Flickr stream? Thanks!

Sure...lol I'm not going to get involved in this hdr discussion yet haha...im just starting this photography hobby. All my shots are taken on the crappy Canon kit lens (18-55). I'm getting 2 new lenses this summer/autumn. Link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aribr

[CurtisTH]

Sure...lol I'm not going to get involved in this hdr discussion yet haha...im just starting this photography hobby. All my shots are taken on the crappy Canon kit lens (18-55). I'm getting 2 new lenses this summer/autumn. Link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aribr

Cool, I searched for "frosty" and there were too many. And I couldn't tell the stream link from the image you posted.

I really like when the HDR process is used as little as possible invasively into the appearance of the image. Some of the ones on the Wikipedia article exhibit the really bad tone-mapping which screams "fake looking stuff" to me. But, that's just personal taste.

Man, you live in a very cool looking place! Or at least near some.