GND or HDR?

[stuman16]

So is there really any reason for a GND filter in the days of HDR and blended exposures?

Can't you pretty much do the same thing with two exposures blended together in photoshop as you would with a GND?

[jacuff]

Yes...

Some of us still shoot film in the days of HDR and blended exposures. :lol:

Ok seriously, it helps you get it in one shot, instead of 2, 3, or more and then having to do more processing. You can do without a grad filter.

[Ook]

Can't you pretty much do the same thing with two exposures blended together in photoshop as you would with a GND?

Pretty much, and you also have the benefit of being able to specify your "virtual" GND to any level - 2 stop, 3 stop, 10 stop, whatever. Also, you aren't limited to a straight-line for the graduation, so you can deal with fiddly bits like tree branches in winter.

However, each exposure like this will take time in photoshop to blend them together (I'm not really considering automated HDR as being in the same category as GND). So, if you're coming home from a day out shooting with a few landscape-type shots amongst other subject matter (say wildlife), I'd say that the blended-exposure technique has the edge in terms of control and quality.

However, if I were going on a two-month vacation and anticipated having several hundred (or more) landscapes, I'd bring a GND. Another downside is that bringing a tripod is a bit more important with blended exposures than with using a GND.

[Picture North Carolina]

So is there really any reason for a GND filter in the days of HDR and blended exposures?

Can't you pretty much do the same thing with two exposures blended together in photoshop as you would with a GND?

Couple of thoughts:

- If using only two exposures, you've pretty much dedicated yourself to manual blending in PS. HDR applications such as Photomatix don't do their best work on two exposures. They need three minimum, 1 or 2 fstops apart. 5, 7, and 9 even better. So you're shooting lots of frames and filling up cards with HDR.

- Sometimes with certain shots it's a battle in HDR apps to maintain a natural look. It can be done, but they produce halos, they saturate colors, etc.

- Subject movement. With HDR multiple exposures you may have ghosting problems with things moving in the multiple exposures. Anti-ghosting settings in HDR apps are not perfect. Sometimes they work really well, sometimes not. With GND, it's a single shot.

- With GND you're afforded the luxury of metering a little more toward the shadow end of the spectrum because the GND is reducing light for you on the top end. This allows you to squeeze a little bit more out of shutter speed if you need it. With HDR bracketing, you're going to have that one frame (or multiple frames) that are 1, 2, or 3 stops down. Because AEB changes shutter speeds, not aperture, that means some frames may be shot really slow. (subject movement, etc.)

[opus13]

i find that GND images tend to be much more palatable over HDR's. 99.99% of HDR's look bad, simply because the maker (that's the best term i can find) adds the process after the fact, instead of shooting with keeping that process in mind. it's always an afterthought that produces plastic-y sh!t:/

just using the digi-GND in lightroom can produce some great results with a bit of judicious application.

[Perry Ge]

GND every single time. I'd give away all my gear and stay left with a rebel and kit lens before I'd let anyone take away my GND filters.

[argyle]

Definitely GND. Many HDR's just look too overcooked, IMO. More importantly, its very hard to blend exposures if you happen to have any type of foliage or clouds in the composition, and its a windy or breezy day...you'll most likely never get the images to blend properly. Ditto for any moving water in the image. Use a GND, and bracket your exposures just to be sure.

[stuman16]

I didn't mean to say that HDR was a replacement for a GND. I agree many HDR shots look over processed.

But couldn't you do exactly the same thing as a GND with two exposures in photoshop.

I don't think blending two exposures in photoshop with a mask is very difficult, even if there are trees or clouds.


I was at Sammy's the other day and was about to by a GND set up. I realized I was going to have to spend a few hundred dollars for a holder and a few filters.

I like the results I have seen people get with a GND, but it is tough to justify the cost when I can spend a little time in post processing and get the same result.


So convince me, why should I buy a GND?

[luigis]

Because things move?
Because you may be waiting for a special light or event and you can't take 2 pictures?
Because it is a good idea to see the result of your composition in the LCD instead of waiting to process everything?

So convince me, why should I buy a GND?

[argyle]

I don't think blending two exposures in photoshop with a mask is very difficult, even if there are trees or clouds.

I was at Sammy's the other day and was about to by a GND set up. I realized I was going to have to spend a few hundred dollars for a holder and a few filters.

I like the results I have seen people get with a GND, but it is tough to justify the cost when I can spend a little time in post processing and get the same result.

So convince me, why should I buy a GND?

I always try to get the image captured correctly, so I don't need to spend a lot of time sitting in front of a monitor. Don't take this the wrong way, but it doesn't sound like you want people to "convince" you to invest in a GND setup...more like you want your hesitance to be validated.

You don't need to spend hundreds of dollars to get started. You can pick up a Cokin P arrangement (holder, adapter ring, and a filter or two) for much less than that (under $100). With GND kits, there's cheap and expensive, and everything in between.

[DrPablo]

You can't handhold an HDR shot at 1/1000.

This is a handheld grad ND shot:

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/103906854.jpg

[hypertech]

You can't handhold an HDR shot at 1/1000.


While I would agree with you, that shot didn't require a 1/1000 shutter speed to stop motion nor would there be enough movement between successive exposures to make a difference.

I could see this being an issue if you had a moving subject, but for landscapes, I don't see it as a factor.

[argyle]

...I could see this being an issue if you had a moving subject, but for landscapes, I don't see it as a factor.

Landscapes can have moving subjects...the post that you're commenting on may not, but many landscapes can and do. One needs to use the right tools for the right job...sometimes filters are needed, sometimes they're not.

Here's a landscape shot with a moving subject. Very windy day with up and down gusts, and I was testing a vintage manual focus Leica 35mm on my 5D. No way I could have taken multiple shots for blending afterwards...not with this much movement. I used my CPL and 2-stop soft GND set at an angle to follow the tree line as close as possible. Made for very quick and easy PP afterwards.

http://northlake.smugmug.com/photos/380732327_bhyiq-XL.jpg

[DrPablo]

While I would agree with you, that shot didn't require a 1/1000 shutter speed to stop motion nor would there be enough movement between successive exposures to make a difference.It was shot at 14,000 feet above sea level with glaring sunlight and snow. I used an aperture of f/5.6, which is the 'sweet spot' of this lens, and STILL I needed a shutter speed of 1/500 based on spot metering. This was shot with Velvia 50, which needs to be underexposed to protect highlights and to enrich colors.

Furthermore, there were vicious gusts of wind and I couldn't hold the camera still very well under those conditions.

The clouds would have blown out if not for the GND filter, esp because I was using high contrast slide film. And finally, by darkening the clouds and sky I shifted the emphasis to the domes and the snow, which I preferred.

[HappySnapper90]

I am refreshingly surprised and glad to see so many people stand up for using GND filters instead of HDR. Now over and dpreview, you'd be skinned alive for standing p for an old technique that to most there digital has made obsolete. I generally shoot more film than digital. My goals this year are to get an EOS-1v with PB-E2 to go along with my EOS-3 with same grip (and Pentax K1000 though I need to find a diopter correction lens of -4 or -5 (which I lost) in order to use it again), GND filters, and a good durable tripod.

[Gentleman Villain]

GND and polarizing filters respect available light and it's moment in time. The original colors, tones, delicate contrast and gradients of a single moment in time can be portrayed similar to how the eye sees it....

On the contrary, HDR shows no respect for natural light and shows no respect for a single moment in time. It renders detail in a way that the eye cannot see...it disregards the relationship between highlight and shadow by making them almost equal....and stitches several pieces of time together so that no single moment is dominant. The result is that HDR looks unnatural and surreal....it's always flat...and it has no concept of time.

I happen to like it when photographers intentionally use HDR to portray surreality. For example, a photographer might blend multiple exposures of a single scene taken at vastly different times....maybe part of a scene is captured at sunset and the rest is captured at night. This is a very interesting and surreal look....But it is not natural.

If a photographer wants to capture the glory of a single moment then it is probably still best to do it the old fashioned way....with GND and polarizing filters etc.

It's really simple:
GND/polarizers are natural
HDR is un-natural

Both techniques have their place...one is not better than the other. BUT, each technique has it's own individual advantages and disadvantages. These differences should be understood so that photographers are free to choose what technique will convey the idea behind an image the best. TO simply say that one is better than the other, or that one is old fashioned etc....shows a sad misunderstanding of the basic building blocks of photography (light & time)

[Ook]

It's really simple:
GND/polarizers are natural
HDR is un-natural

Fair enough, but the more important point of this thread (which seems to have been forgotten after post #8 ) is GND versus manual-blended exposures, not GND vs HDR. I still maintain that manually-blended exposures is an important technique to have a handle on. Though it's not always feasable when dealing with moving subjects/no tripod etc, it has the same benifits of using non-destructive Photoshop techniques - instead of making an image adjustment at the scene, you're saving images to separate layers, essentially, and you can then specify the details of your "GND" in post.

Won't bother re-iterating the negatives that I mentioned in my previous post.

[forsakenme720]

If a photographer wants to capture the glory of a single moment then it is probably still best to do it the old fashioned way....with GND and polarizing filters etc.

It's really simple:
GND/polarizers are natural
HDR is un-natural


This isn't true at all. Maybe you just don't know the proper way to make HDRs look "natural," as you would say. There's even plenty of HDRs posted to this site where people couldn't tell they were HDR. Either way though, using filters is just as "unnatural" as combining exposures. One technique is old and one is new. Now that's really simple.

[AustinRoepke]

HDR is also limited on the xxD series to +/- 2 stops, I think. It is on my 30D, at least.

I'll get ND grad's someday, but for now I make do with HDR :)

[jacuff]

HDR is also limited on the xxD series to +/- 2 stops, I think. It is on my 30D, at least.

I'll get ND grad's someday, but for now I make do with HDR :)

No, HDR isn't limited on the xxD series to +/- 2 stops. Auto Exposure Bracketing is and it's limited to three shots, but you can still create an HDR out of several images with more than a 5 stop range. Just put you camera in Manual mode. Keep the aperture the same and manually adjust the shutter speed. If you're camera is setup in 1/3 increments, its 3 clicks of the wheel for 1 stop.

[forsakenme720]

HDR is also limited on the xxD series to +/- 2 stops, I think. It is on my 30D, at least.

I'll get ND grad's someday, but for now I make do with HDR :)

That's if you only do three exposures. With your 30D you can go +/- 3 stops. I know this because I do with my 20D ;)

[AustinRoepke]

No, HDR isn't limited on the xxD series to +/- 2 stops. Auto Exposure Bracketing is and it's limited to three shots, but you can still create an HDR out of several images with more than a 5 stop range. Just put you camera in Manual mode. Keep the aperture the same and manually adjust the shutter speed. If you're camera is setup in 1/3 increments, its 3 clicks of the wheel for 1 stop.
That's if you only do three exposures. With your 30D you can go +/- 3 stops. I know this because I do with my 20D ;)

Oh. Just goes to show how much I still have to figure out. lol
I'll keep quiet until I know what I'm talking about :)

[Gentleman Villain]

This isn't true at all. Maybe you just don't know the proper way to make HDRs look "natural," as you would say. There's even plenty of HDRs posted to this site where people couldn't tell they were HDR. Either way though, using filters is just as "unnatural" as combining exposures. One technique is old and one is new. Now that's really simple.

The photos on your page prove my point exactly. It's actually kinda funny :)

[forsakenme720]

The photos on your page prove my point exactly. It's actually kinda funny :)

I never implied I was going for the "natural" look (whatever that means), but if you looked at all my photos, you would see that I have a wide range of styles I use, but yeah, my main style that I like the most isn't trying to replicate nature, but once you realize that you can't replicate nature, then your brain will make room for a lot more information ;)

[Gentleman Villain]

(whatever that means) ;)

classic

[forsakenme720]

classic

Why don't you actually respond to my posts? If you think you're right, you can at least say more than just your petty little insults.

This is what I mean by there is no such thing as "natural," or if there is, where do you draw the line between natural and unnatural? There would have to be a definite line to cross. Anyway -->

quoting SlowBlink:

All creative photography is a departure from a faithful recording of what is seen by the human eye. Black and white, bleach bypass (my fave) are all tools accepted within photography for the last 100 years. A photograph doesn't stop being a photograph until you take a match to it or shred it. The purist argument or opinion comes up quite often from people using digital cameras, which is to me an oxymoron.

Photographers were airbrushing photo's in the 1800's, Painting photographs in the 1900's and using HDR in the 20th century. Photography will continue to grow and evolve like painting or sculpture or any other medium. Nothing will stop it from being photography until you remove the camera from the equation. I used to restore and retouch archival photos, did the image cease to be a photograph when the spot tone hit the paper? Not in my opinion, nor did it become a painting when I used dyes to tint an old black and white. Photoshop/Gimp is the new darkroom. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. :)

[stuman16]

I always try to get the image captured correctly, so I don't need to spend a lot of time sitting in front of a monitor. Don't take this the wrong way, but it doesn't sound like you want people to "convince" you to invest in a GND setup...more like you want your hesitance to be validated.

You don't need to spend hundreds of dollars to get started. You can pick up a Cokin P arrangement (holder, adapter ring, and a filter or two) for much less than that (under $100). With GND kits, there's cheap and expensive, and everything in between.


No offense taken but I don't think I'm looking for validation. I'm pretty much on the fence about the GND thing still. If I am convinced that a GND would expand my options or have some advantage that is meaningful to me then I would purchase a setup. I really love some of the photo's I have seen posted here that were taken with a GND, but I wonder if I should be able to achieve a similar result in post processing.

Maybe "convince me" is the wrong tack. I just want to solicit the knowledgeable opinions here to help me make my decision.

I don't mind spending more time in post processing. I'm a tech guy and have been a power user of software applications for a loooooong time. I enjoy spending time tweaking my photos almost as much as the time I take shooting them.

If I do purchase a GND setup, I will not be looking to cut costs. I purchase good quality equipment because I want to be sure that my equipment is not what is limiting my results. I wouldn't put a cheap polarizing filter on my L lens, and I wouldn't put a cheap GND on it either. Also I wouldn't spend the money on a cheap setup just to try it out because, chances are, I would end up buying a better quality setup later if I did like the effect.

[forsakenme720]

No offense taken but I don't think I'm looking for validation. I'm pretty much on the fence about the GND thing still. If I am convinced that a GND would expand my options or have some advantage that is meaningful to me then I would purchase a setup. I really love some of the photo's I have seen posted here that were taken with a GND, but I wonder if I should be able to achieve a similar result in post processing.

Maybe "convince me" is the wrong tack. I just want to solicit the knowledgeable opinions here to help me make my decision.

I don't mind spending more time in post processing. I'm a tech guy and have been a power user of software applications for a loooooong time. I enjoy spending time tweaking my photos almost as much as the time I take shooting them.

If I do purchase a GND setup, I will not be looking to cut costs. I purchase good quality equipment because I want to be sure that my equipment is not what is limiting my results. I wouldn't put a cheap polarizing filter on my L lens, and I wouldn't put a cheap GND on it either. Also I wouldn't spend the money on a cheap setup just to try it out because, chances are, I would end up buying a better quality setup later if I did like the effect.

Why not just try a program like photomatix? It's free to try. Regardless of what anyone says, you can get realistic results with that program, like if you don't want it to look like it's been post-processed a lot. And if you don't think that's gonna work for you then try some GND's. I have both, and honestly, I don't carry my GND's with me anymore because I don't need them anymore. I always carry my tripod with me anyway because I think tripods should always be used for the most part.

[stuman16]

I have a licensed version of Photomatix and use it all the time. I do HDR in photoshop cs3 as well. I have done a few images where I have blended several exposures in Photoshop with masks too.

I've just seen some images done with a GND that really inspired me and I thought that maybe I'm missing something. Maybe they would allow you to capture movement such as water or clouds in a way that you can not do with multiple exposures? I don't know, maybe I'm just looking for an excuse to buy more gear :)

[forsakenme720]

I have a licensed version of Photomatix and use it all the time. I do HDR in photoshop cs3 as well. I have done a few images where I have blended several exposures in Photoshop with masks too.

I've just seen some images done with a GND that really inspired me and I thought that maybe I'm missing something. Maybe they would allow you to capture movement such as water or clouds in a way that you can not do with multiple exposures? I don't know, maybe I'm just looking for an excuse to buy more gear :)

Lol, well if you have money to blow, more gear is always fun. Go for it :)