How many are still using NDG's? With software becoming so versatile I can see them becoming obsolete. I have a couple and use them when I need to, usually handholding them. I haven't got the PS NDG tool down yet. It just doesn't look right to me. Any thoughts?
Keith, I think Bruce is referring to Graduated Neutral Density filters.
If so, my theory is get the best image you can on the film/sensor. This makes processing much easier. While digital tools are getting better, they are no substitute for a properly exposed RAW file or piece of film. True, using ND Grads in the field can be somewhat frustrating, but at least you have (reasonable) assurance that you won't have to do rescue work in post processing.
Bruce, since you say you are handholding the filters, why not invest in a holder with appropriate adapters for your lenses? These accessories will take away a lot of frustration in placing the filter correctly, but will also keep you hand away from the lens where movement may result in vibration.
Yes, I was talking filters, sorry for the confusion. I actually do know what these are believe it or not.
I'm with you so far Preston, but if software can produce the same results why add another piece of glass to the image quality equation?
Preston-I do have a holder and the ring adapters but lately I've been handholding and I like the idea that I can move the filter a little up or down during a long exposure to soften the grad line. Sounds good in theory, kind of like light painting I guess. I've got the big 4X6's so I have plenty of room to keep my hand out of the way. I'm experimenting. I can see advantages to both methods depending on the situation. However, maybe as my PP skills improve I might lose the filters, but I like working in the field far more than in front of the monitor.
"..if software can produce the same results why add another piece of glass to the image quality equation?
That's it in a nutshell for me. It doesn't take long at all to blend images in PS. Certainly not much longer than placing and adjusting GND filters. Not sure what sort of 'rescue work' is involved when one properly exposes the separate exposures, unless one is referring to the 'rescue work' needed to salvage parts of the image (trees, mountains, etc.) lost to shadows due to them being inadvertantly included in the grad. line of a GND filter.
Just looking at the number of photographers in the Landscape gallery who use digital blending techniques as opposed to traditional GND filters convinces me that the traditional filters will eventually lose favor with most landscape photographers in the very near future.
I use GNDs, old imperfect analog technology. When you first look at two versions of an image, one with and one without GND, the difference is compelling. The image without the GND gets deleted. I guess you could accomplish this in PS, but if the highlights are blown, you can't bring them back, and if the shadows are blocked, you can introduce noise in brightening them digitally.. I'd rather use PS to correct the shortcomings of using a GND than to correct the shortcomings of not using one.
When you first look at two versions of an image, one with and one without GND, the difference is compelling. The image without the GND gets deleted. I guess you could accomplish this in PS, but if the highlights are blown, you can't bring them back, and if the shadows are blocked, you can introduce noise in brightening them digitally.. I'd rather use PS to correct the shortcomings of using a GND than to correct the shortcomings of not using one.
Actually, none of the above has any bearing whatsoever on shooting two (or more) properly exposed images and combining them in PS. We're discussing the substitution for physical GND filters, not the elimination of what they accomplish.
Many of our shoots are for hand-off to clients directly from the camera, and in fact they're the biggest portion of our annual income. No post processing is budgeted nor is time allowed in the project schedule. Therefore GNDs are a standard for us. Get it "right" on first capture or go home and kiss a high-dollar client goodbye.
That being said, sure. We dink around with the computer alternatives to DNG's on our own time. They're fine for hobby and art shooting and for long winters when there's all the time in the world for us to prep images. And those eventually end up in our stock offerings. But prices for stock are so low we don't invest much time or effort in it. If we were marketing prints, then digital blends and such would certainly move up a notch in our world. But there too, income versus effort is too low for us.
Different applications for different environments. As a business we have to go where the money is.
I am kinda the odd man out, here. If the subject brightness range is great enough to use an ND grad, I do so because I am shooting large format film. Making a bunch of exposures and blending them is simply not an option for me. Therefore, I do my darndest to get it right on a single slab of film.
As a hobbyist I'm constantly blending exposures but I've never used the grad. ND effect in PS. I'm completely self-taught so this could just be more due to what I've been exposed to on this site and others. I have a GND but found it very awkward to use and I didn't get the results I wanted. Maybe if someone showed me how to use them I would consider using them if they worked better than combining exposures in PS. JM2C.
I have a GND but found it very awkward to use and I didn't get the results I wanted. Maybe if someone showed me how to use them I would consider using them if they worked better than combining exposures in PS.
There are kernels of many insights in what you say, Dean. GND's are just another tool, and like any new tool, awkward to use at first if not always. They suit some folks and not others, and familiarity goes a long ways in their use. Leaning over the shoulder of a competent user can really shorten the learning curve, too.
If you're getting the results you want within the sphere of your work, the only reason to learn how to use one is simply to add another tool to your "tool kit" against the day you might really need it. Blending and such is fun and controllable and gives great results. I learned the ins and outs of GNDs pre-Photoshop in the days of film, much as Preston uses them with 4x5 (as do I). They're quite comfortable for me and it's natural to grab one when I need it. Doesn't mean I don't see the value in blends, and I'm happy to use them when allowed.
Thanks for all the thoughful responses. For now I'm staying with the "best image in camera" approach but I'm predicting at some point I'll stop using filters.
...but I'm predicting at some point I'll stop using filters.
Nah, they're just another tool that you can use as you need. The only hard and fast "rules" in photography are the ones other folks try to impose on you. If you view rules as just another possible tool among many other possibilities, you become much more versatile.
Nah, they're just another tool that you can use as you need. The only hard and fast "rules" in photography are the ones other folks try to impose on you. If you view rules as just another possible tool among many other possibilities, you become much more versatile.
A man after my own heart! Really good advice, Mr. Pennington!
With the ability to do targeted exposure adjustments to RAW files in PS5, grads have become almost obsolete to me (but I still carry them). Also, the "right" exposure is completely dependent on the situation. If the dynamic range is too high and the horizon has mountains and/or trees, then the right exposure for me is about 5 bracketed shots. I pick the best two, sometimes three, and do a manual blend in PS5. I also find the new selection tools to be very useful for blending. Grads certainly have their purpose, but lately they’ve just been taking up space in my pack.
In rapidly changing conditions or movement (trees blowing quickly in the wind) that crosses over the DR, than a gND may still have some use (cause the blend would be tough if not impossible) but this is such a rare case that the added expense, weight, and hastle don't justify it if you're using a DSLR. I used gNDs for a couple years, then started blending and the filters started gathering dust but i kept them handy--finally after a couple years of not even finding a need for them, i cleansed my pack of them once and for all
I've got a couple of GNDs and have been using them less and less in the field. In fact, on my last major trip, I used them a few times and also took the shot without them. After processing both of them in LR3, I found I liked the digital GND applied better than the glass as it looked more natural and there was no issue with vignetting. I'll probably still pack them with, but they'll just be extra weight to carry.
I use them on a regular basis but am not as concerned with getting it just right (strength-wise) as I was with film. I find myself using one just "strong" enough to hold the highlights then fine tuning things with the gradient filter in LR.
In my experience, using a GND better helps maintain foreground contrast. If you shoot toward the sun at sunrise/sunset without one, much of the foreground will be lost to flare and decreased contrast. You could get around this by holding up your hand over the sun for the foreground shot, but quite frankly, it's easier with a filter.
Ben makes a good point, although shooting towards the sun is going to be tricky regardless of the method. My hat works just fine for me, and its cheaper than the grads (but i break lots of things... ) Another plus of grads is they make you look like a cool pro photographer, and you get lots of funny inquiries from non-photographers who are perplexed by your funky gear.
But it really is just a matter of what technique you are comfortable with, and what works best for what you're trying to accomplish.
Posted by Scott Lawson on July 19, 2011 at 9:40 PM
I agree with Stan's earlier comment regarding movement. A scene of fast moving clouds and their reflections is best shot with a gnd filter. Even a few seconds between 2 exposures might be enough that the reflections don't line up with the clouds. I've also run into issues at the coast trying to blend a 1/4 second exposure of the sky with a 1 second exposure of the foreground (for example). Normally I'll blend the 2 shots together a little below the horizon, but the difference in water texture can be obvious. My usual solution for this is to take 4 exposures of the sky, overlay them to simulate a longer exposure and roughly match the water texture of the 1 sec exposure, then blend that with the fg exposure. Probably better done with a gnd.
Posted by John Williams on July 20, 2011 at 10:09 AM
I agree, motion is the biggest reason to use grads (and that darn grad line is one of the biggest reasons not to).
Discussion
23 repliesIf so, my theory is get the best image you can on the film/sensor. This makes processing much easier. While digital tools are getting better, they are no substitute for a properly exposed RAW file or piece of film. True, using ND Grads in the field can be somewhat frustrating, but at least you have (reasonable) assurance that you won't have to do rescue work in post processing.
Bruce, since you say you are handholding the filters, why not invest in a holder with appropriate adapters for your lenses? These accessories will take away a lot of frustration in placing the filter correctly, but will also keep you hand away from the lens where movement may result in vibration.
--P
I'm with you so far Preston, but if software can produce the same results why add another piece of glass to the image quality equation?
Preston-I do have a holder and the ring adapters but lately I've been handholding and I like the idea that I can move the filter a little up or down during a long exposure to soften the grad line. Sounds good in theory, kind of like light painting I guess. I've got the big 4X6's so I have plenty of room to keep my hand out of the way. I'm experimenting. I can see advantages to both methods depending on the situation. However, maybe as my PP skills improve I might lose the filters, but I like working in the field far more than in front of the monitor.
Just looking at the number of photographers in the Landscape gallery who use digital blending techniques as opposed to traditional GND filters convinces me that the traditional filters will eventually lose favor with most landscape photographers in the very near future.
That being said, sure. We dink around with the computer alternatives to DNG's on our own time. They're fine for hobby and art shooting and for long winters when there's all the time in the world for us to prep images. And those eventually end up in our stock offerings. But prices for stock are so low we don't invest much time or effort in it. If we were marketing prints, then digital blends and such would certainly move up a notch in our world. But there too, income versus effort is too low for us.
Different applications for different environments. As a business we have to go where the money is.
--P
There are kernels of many insights in what you say, Dean. GND's are just another tool, and like any new tool, awkward to use at first if not always. They suit some folks and not others, and familiarity goes a long ways in their use. Leaning over the shoulder of a competent user can really shorten the learning curve, too.
If you're getting the results you want within the sphere of your work, the only reason to learn how to use one is simply to add another tool to your "tool kit" against the day you might really need it. Blending and such is fun and controllable and gives great results. I learned the ins and outs of GNDs pre-Photoshop in the days of film, much as Preston uses them with 4x5 (as do I). They're quite comfortable for me and it's natural to grab one when I need it. Doesn't mean I don't see the value in blends, and I'm happy to use them when allowed.
Nah, they're just another tool that you can use as you need. The only hard and fast "rules" in photography are the ones other folks try to impose on you. If you view rules as just another possible tool among many other possibilities, you become much more versatile.
A man after my own heart! Really good advice, Mr. Pennington!
--P
But it really is just a matter of what technique you are comfortable with, and what works best for what you're trying to accomplish.
Filter holders are cumbersome. restricting and time consuming IMHO. I prefer to handhold so I can blend the transition better if needed.