Question on GND filter use and DSLR images

My question is primarily for those who have made the switch from film to digital or those that shoot both regularly.

Currently I still shoot film for all my serious nature photography and I have two GND filters, a 2-stop soft step and a 3-stop hard step. I am contemplating rounding out my GND filters with a 2-stop hard step and a 3-stop soft step. However, I anticipate making the jump to digital this year with the purchase of a D200. I have read from quite a few people who say they seldom or never use their GNDs with their DSLRs as they'd rather take two shots with their DSLR and blend the images into one final image with Photoshop. With film its critical that I get the image as close to "perfect" in camera. What I'm wondering is what are your thoughts on using GNDs to balance exposures with a DSLR in the field versus not using them and just taking additional steps (and time) at the computer blending two images into one. I'm curious to know if, in your opinion, there are compelling reasons not to purchase these additional GNDs. Thanks.

Doug, I still use my ND-grads. In fact, in most ways I shoot digital as if I were still shooting film. However, as your (and my) computer skills advance (maybe your're there already), the ability to combine two exposures in PS will be tempting. But there's also a school of thought that says to get the image as right as possible in the field, and then eliminate any ND-grad use evidence in PS.

Along the same lines as Todd, I'd say do what your comfortable with.
I haven't done alot of blending but, for example, the Sage Country image I had at the capitol was a blend of 2 exposures. It took me an extra 5 seconds (or less) when shooting and an extra 5-10 minutes in PS using the blending method on on Luminous Landscape. I haven't done a lot but from what I've done so far it's really not difficult or time consuming. There might be some nuances to setting up specific shots that I'm missing and there's also the possibility of combining 3 or more images which will of course take more work. I can see maybe 3 exposures but I don't think I'd mess with any more than that unless I had extra PS time on my hands.
I guess my advice is to give it (blending) a shot before you buy more filters and if you don't like it right away go ahead and get the filters.
This brings up a similar question that I have (maybe the same question worded differently):
Which is better? Does using the GND or digital blending produce a more pleasing or "better" image, or is there no difference?

The is an interestin article in Outdoor Photograpger about High Dynamic Range imaging in Photoshop CS. Has anyone tried it?

The HDR technique, from what I gather, is best used when you take at least four, and ideally around 10 images, approximately one f-stop apart. It sounds like a really cool technique, albeit for a limited number of situations, like the Alamo shot in the article.

Always glad to see your name pop up in CNP, Steve-O!

Does anyone have a good example of using HDR that looks "natural". It sounds like a great idea but the examples atht I have seen look 'off'.

I am a strong believer in trying to get the image as close to perfect during the initial exposure.

RichV

Be it laziness or lack of patience, but the less I have to do in Photoshop the happier I am. I would agree with Todd, treat digital like you would film, get it right the first time and you will spend more time shooting than editing. My thoughts anyway.................J

I'm with the rest. The fewer processes that I have to master, the better. Since I shoot LF and use my GNDs there, it's a breeze to shoot digital the same way. Plus, I like being able to look at the LCD and see how the image turned out rather than hoping I have all of the individual exposures necessary to make a good image in PS.

The only time I shoot multiple exposures is when I know that the GND won't be sufficient (I don't have a wide variety - only a 2-stop SS). I have shot multiple images and blended in PS in those situations with good results, but it's not a process that I find enjoyable or particularly easy. For me, it's good for salvaging an image, but definitely not a preferred standard operating procedure!

I've actually been watching ebay for additional Singh-Ray grads - a 3-stop soft and 2-stop hard. They typically go for only a few bucks less than buying new though.

I've tried HDR, but I think that the example in Outdoor photog is over the top. I really think that 4-5 exposures over a three stop range is going to yeild a more realistic image, consistent with the look of print film. Beyond that, I think that HDR just looks too weird to me. I thought the tool was easy to use and the technique described in the article was good. Where I see it having alot of value is when you have jagged areas that just won't allow a GND, like the walls of a canyon.

One thing I think is particularily valuable is that HDR lines up each images before starting the dynamic range function. If you have any minor camera shift, HDR can correct it to line up all of the images. This is hard to do on your own in the old exposure blend method for PS CS and earlier.

My career is based on computers, design tools and such. To me, photoshop is easy and quick to use, unless I'm trying to "save" a shot and applying alot of masking. To me,its better than writing code any day. However, I'd rather use a GND to get the shot right in the first place.

Another option is a program called Photomatix

http://www.hdrsoft.com

Art Lund

I think Todd nailed here as I have been treating my DSLR identical to the SLR with Film usung the Polarizer and 3stop soft step GND.

Darren,

Thanks, While those both look very cool. They dont loook exactly natural ( not necessarily a bad thing). Just depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

Thanks again.

Rich