I shoot a lot of images at high altitude in CO -- often midday as well as the blue and golden hours. I have found it necessary to use a 3-stop ND filter to tame the light from the sky. A fellow photographer uses multiple exposures and HDR post processing instead of ND filters.
This seems to have advantages ( less between lens and image, less clutter and eqpt to carry) and disadvantages (tinkering with the image).
Any thoughts about what practice is better? Instinct tells me that I should retain skylight filter and polarizer even if I dump split ND.
I'm typically shooting landscapes and flowers RAW with a Nikon D7100 (DxO 14-stop dynamic range).
Precisely the question:
Which is better, split ND from the outset or blending in HDR post processing? And WHY?
It may be more a matter of taste or preference rather than significant difference. Some don't like the sometimes "artistic" (rather than true-to-life) appearance of extreme HDR images. Or may prefer to see the near-final image immediately rather than wait to set the result after post processing of multiple exposures. Others prefer to shoot one mid-range RAW image and combine it in post processing with over-exposed and under-exposed images looslessly created from the original RAW image to produce a final HDR image. They fear the reflections and flares and glass distortions (color or shape even if filter is called "neutral" density) that can be produced by introducing filters between the subject and the lens.
Just trying to determine what the current prevailing opinion is -- and WHY.
Graduated ND filters have their place. A high quality filter will not degrade the image to a visible degree. I prefer to make single exposures, even with digital capture, so I still have a few Sigh-Ray GND's in my kit. This image from Yosemite would have been nearly impossible to blend in Photo Shop, so I used a GND upside down to tame the reflection.
I think Andrew's suggestion is a good one because it is fairly easy to do and retains a non-HDR look: Make two exposures. One each for the sky and landscape and then blend them in PS.
Your question is one that does not have a pat 'either-or' answer. Experiment with different workflows to find one that fits with your skills and taste.
--P
Blending images gives you more flexibility in creating the final product. One only needs to look at John Williams' images to see that. Having said that, there is no multiimage blend that can reproduce the results of a polarizing filter (yet).
Also. I find that, although landscape photography is considered still photography, giving the shooter ample time to set up and shoot at his discretion, I find it to be anything but that. A cloud is at just the right spot to create diffused light but will be gone in 30 secs. The mist is sitting over the water perfectly but rising or the sun is breaking through. Adjusting filters at times like this is near impossible. Whereas postprocessing is done in the quiet of your room 3 weeks after the critical moment. Those filters can be a hinderance to good photography.
Igor, while I agree with you that current editing software with well written algorithms make things much easier, I have to take exception with this statement:
Those filters can be a hinderance [sic] to good photography.
There was a lot of great work done using ND Grad filters on film years before the very sophisticated blending routines became commonplace. Granted, they were not easy to use, and there is learning curve to use them well, especially in rapidly changing conditions, but it was done. Like any tool in photography, one needed to work with them to realize their utility.
--P
My two cents is to do whatever is easiest and gets you the results you want. I find blending to be very powerful, but I'm well aware that it is a time-consuming process. I have used graduated density filters before and they are much easier than blending in most situations, but I rarely use them because I find I get better results with blending; I enjoy the quest for perfection. YMMV
Discussion
6 repliesThis seems to have advantages ( less between lens and image, less clutter and eqpt to carry) and disadvantages (tinkering with the image).
Any thoughts about what practice is better? Instinct tells me that I should retain skylight filter and polarizer even if I dump split ND.
I'm typically shooting landscapes and flowers RAW with a Nikon D7100 (DxO 14-stop dynamic range).
Patrick Nixon
NPN 1607
Which is better, split ND from the outset or blending in HDR post processing? And WHY?
It may be more a matter of taste or preference rather than significant difference. Some don't like the sometimes "artistic" (rather than true-to-life) appearance of extreme HDR images. Or may prefer to see the near-final image immediately rather than wait to set the result after post processing of multiple exposures. Others prefer to shoot one mid-range RAW image and combine it in post processing with over-exposed and under-exposed images looslessly created from the original RAW image to produce a final HDR image. They fear the reflections and flares and glass distortions (color or shape even if filter is called "neutral" density) that can be produced by introducing filters between the subject and the lens.
Just trying to determine what the current prevailing opinion is -- and WHY.
I think Andrew's suggestion is a good one because it is fairly easy to do and retains a non-HDR look: Make two exposures. One each for the sky and landscape and then blend them in PS.
Your question is one that does not have a pat 'either-or' answer. Experiment with different workflows to find one that fits with your skills and taste.
--P
Also. I find that, although landscape photography is considered still photography, giving the shooter ample time to set up and shoot at his discretion, I find it to be anything but that. A cloud is at just the right spot to create diffused light but will be gone in 30 secs. The mist is sitting over the water perfectly but rising or the sun is breaking through. Adjusting filters at times like this is near impossible. Whereas postprocessing is done in the quiet of your room 3 weeks after the critical moment. Those filters can be a hinderance to good photography.
--P