I thought it was a still from Dark Knight.

That is stunning. Almost Crow-like..

weird... thats been my background for a while

There I am, standing atop the building that's two buildings right of the building with the yellow sign on the left side of the photo. You know what I'm doing there? Preparing myself to save lives. Because I'm a superhero. Woosh. I'm WooshGirl. That's the sound I make when I enter a scene of violence. Here is my theme song:

WooshGirl, WooshGirl,
Look at her fly, look at her twirl.
She's probably a bit
Stronger than you.
And if she's not,
What are you gonna do?
Judge her for it? No, that's kind of sexist.
Look out.
Here comes WooshGirl.
(Woosh)

Beautiful. Now I need to try it with my film camera. Gotta lock down that tripod.

Totally cool. If you like this, you'll also probably like Daniel Oliva. He does something similar but paints it.
[www.danieloliva.com]

I love stuff like this.

'Tis a beautiful city we live in.

@CodePink: I think I love you.

@In Other News...: Ditto. It's now my background and my boss and I just stared at it for two minutes. HUGE day for productivity.

@CodePink: Holy Commie, WhooshGirl! That's wonderful!

Gorgeous.

Gawker's doing a "Pic of the Day" now? Where have I been...

Sigh.

Speaking as an obsessive Flickrite, HDR has become something of a nasty cliché on the website: glowering Goth clouds and Thomas Kinkade sunsets in HDR shots are as good a guarantee for crowd-pleasing as kitties and "sexy" lady pics. This one's very good, though, fairly tasteful. Night HDR shots generally fare better than day shots to me.

@SybilDisobedience: I love your avatar! Who made that?

Another thing: the central focal point of this composition is the Milford Plaza, which is, as anyone knows, the center of the universe.

Looks like the cover of a Mark Helprin novel.

Thanks very much Gawker. I was carefully kindling a hate for this city, or disgust, or even indifference and now you've made me love it again. Curses!

@LadlySack: Shall we do a kickline on 8th Avenue in top hats and tails?

@mels9573: Your boss reads Gawker with you? Cool.

@CodePink: I will watch your TV show/movie. Great special effects!

@In Other News...: As long as we stay over on 8th, we'll be fine; if we drift between 7th and 8th, we'll be susceptible to the insane vortex that exists at the center of the universe. Hallmarks of the vortex include blue-haired theater goers and High School kids on school-sponsored tours of the city. Stay strong on 45th. Stay strong...

Since when is the Empire State Building on 40th St?

@In Other News...: Yes. I'm on after HEROES. No one really watches my show because by that time, they've had enough heroes. It's sort of a tragic time slot, really.

Why the hell would you need HDR to shoot a night cityscape? HDR is used to overcome inherently high contrast scenes (e.g., where there is a bright window and a dark interior space). This shot should have just been a single long exposure.

Anyway, here is an NYC cityscape (by Michael Kenna) that I love: [www.michaelkenna.net]

This is great, Nick. Thanks for sharing.

God, I miss living in New York.

@vulturesquadron: Oh, that is fucking beautiful. Wish I could get a higher res copy of that.

@mels9573: My background too...finally replaced my Jim Halpert fake motivational poster wallpaper.

I've been using this wallie for about a month. It pretty much has taken over every screen that I use. Excellent Image!! I dedicated about 20 minutes one day to Google mapping where the photo was taking from. Possible Local [ [tinyurl.com]]

@Dickdogfood: I was about to decry the use of the "K" word, but then I saw some HDR pictures in full color rather than mostly in black and white and now I see the Kincaide reference.

But this shot really is ghostly and wonderful. If it were a day shot, it would totally be for sale at a mall kiosk.

Wow, everyone is being so NICE today. Yesterday someone told me to get a lobotomy.

@vulturesquadron: I'd assumed there was slight manipulation of the foreground vs. background exposures.

Also, I agree with Dickdogfood, these HDR "compilations" can get a little too Thomas Kincade-y.

@Mary Mouse: I guess it's working!

@LadlySack: Yeah, but "Show World" is almost across the street! And although it may just be a shell of its former self, there is something naughtily sentimental about a neon-clad marquee that once signified lotsa nakedness and lewdness. That I never patronized. Ever.

@CodePink: How about you take over the spot after Kimmel's? I'd stay up for that.

@FitnessMadeSimple: Um, I'm pretty sure we're the same person. Don't worry, I'm still a creeper and look at the picture of Jim ever once in a while.

@In Other News...: I wish my boss was that cool. I just had the screen open and she walked by. We had a nice bonding sesh over it though, which was cute.

@Mary Mouse: We didn't mean it. Carry on with yo' bad self.

@vulturesquadron: I don't think the results are the same, but let us know what you find.

@LadlySack: Michael Kenna is sort of my personal favorite when it comes to landscape. Check out the rest of his site...it's well worth it. Also, I recommend his book on Hokkaido. I have literally been lost in the pages of it since I first opened it.

@In Other News...: They're the same, but it really depends on post-processing and the camera.

Not to get all geeky about it, but if I shoot a long exposure shot on a camera with adequate dynamic range (e.g., Phase or Leaf back) and then pull down the highlights and boost the shadows, I have effectively "tone mapped" the image to the exact same effect. The only reason to use HDR in this situation would be if your camera isn't capable of retaining highlight and shadow information, which is quite possible. In that case, HDR is only being used to simulate performance of a better camera.

@Dickdogfood: Hahah. Yes, indeed.

1. HDR is an old trend, Nick. Old enough for Sunday Styles to run a piece about it.
2. This picture is also old.
3. HDRI, and more precisely the tone mapping process that follows, is abused so much that it's now widely scorned. It helps idiots convert a picture into crazy colors by moving a slider control in Photoshop. (This example is more subtle than most, tastefully and thankfully, but the haze effect looks more like Vaseline lens smear than fog, and was probably added in post-proc. Also worth noting that this is a view of the most Disneyfied section of town, literally, so the picture is nonsense)

Again, a long exposure can get a better effect with night shots. It's still gimmicky but it's a skillful technique to obtain dramatic images.

As for HDRI used appropriately: This one's one of mine, done poorly because I did not get much shadow detail, but the lights on the Woolworth Building can be very intense in spots and the combination of multiple exposures helps balance out the lighting detail on the tower. Also, it was cold and I was drunk.
[www.flickr.com]

If anyone cares a giant copy of this image is available :

[upload.wikimedia.org]

Holy HDR! All it needs is Commisioner Gordon to turn on that kleig light that flashes the GAWKER logo in the sky...

@vulturesquadron: Okay, going to go hide with my puny little point-and-shoot now.

Three things that are bad about the Batman movies:

1) An aging, tired, Beetlejuice as Batman with bad afro-mullet hair (the shag in the back killed me)

2) Um, Danny Devito (just always)

3) Jack Nicolson in old man joker pants (did anyone else catch how high those jammies were?)

(For what it's worth, I have to confess my shamelessness with another gimmick that'd make most serious photographers here retch: panoramic software, especially Autostitch.)

So what if this technique is old news if people like the photo? Don't we talk about old news all the time on this blog?

But it's beautiful! And it actually captures what New York looks like

@vulturesquadron: Maybe you're right with a digital camera, but you couldn't do it without HDR on a film camera. There's no way film has the dynamic range to get unblocked highlights and shadow detail in a photo like this without multiple exposures.

And I'm still wedded to film, even though I always digitize it. My Bronica S2A is way too cool to dump for a cookie-cutter digital camera.

Thanks Denton I am now fucking homesick ! Just returned from lunch at Canary Wharf - which is like Manhattan crossed with Epcot Disney.

@Dickdogfood: I use PanoTools all the time. No shame in stitching--it's been a staple of landscape since the early days.

@Dickdogfood: Ah, yes, the poor man's fisheye. For what it's worth, my Tokina 12-24mm pretty much captures any wide scene that I need. And if it doesn't capture it, I probably don't need it.

PS If you look VERY carefully you can see Joanne Lipman swinging from the mast on No 4 Times Square.

@BOO_BOO_HOFF: Perhaps so. Film and I broke up long before scanning was really an option.

@BrianVan: Not always a question of field of view. With stitching, any X megapixel camera has basically infinite resolution. Plus, you can do some really cool depth of field effects that no lens could actually achieve in the real world. Also, fisheye distortion can be removed by tilt/shift lenses or changing the image map geometry.

OK, Gawker is not the place to do earnest photo geek talk. I will shut up now.

The day I leave this place is a day that will never come

@vulturesquadron: Also, you can also achieve some very interesting distortion effects by screwing around with software settings, or stitching together photos not taken from a stationary point.

Reminds me of my all-time favorite use of flash:
[celluloidskyline.com]

I actually have the original as a desktop for like a month now, it's way brighter then this.