Will a neutral density filter help balance my photos?

[lsquare]

I'm fully aware that in cases where the dynamic range of the environment exceeds what the sensor can record, then there will be clipping like in this photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lawrencejjlee/3321073246/in/set-72157614560169619/

I know about graduated neutral density filters. They seem like a perfect accessory to address my problem, but the problem is that it won't be practical for those snapshots moment or for travel photos where people will be part of the picture. So instead, I was thinking of getting a neutral density filter since it can reduce light entering the camera and I don't need to make sure the separation part in the graduated filter is set properly or else the photo will look odd. So my question is, let's say I have a 0.6 stop ND filter slapped on my camera, is it likely that clipping will be less of an issue since less light will be entering my camera? I realize I may have to shoot at a higher ISO because of the loss of light, but I'm willing to do that just to ensure that clipping is reduced in my photos. Currently I'm using a Nikon D300, but I guess any advice given here will apply to any cameras out there. Thx in advance for the help!

[ed rader]

I'm fully aware that in cases where the dynamic range of the environment exceeds what the sensor can record, then there will be clipping like in this photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lawrencejjlee/3321073246/in/set-72157614560169619/

I know about graduated neutral density filters. They seem like a perfect accessory to address my problem, but the problem is that it won't be practical for those snapshots moment or for travel photos where people will be part of the picture. So instead, I was thinking of getting a neutral density filter since it can reduce light entering the camera and I don't need to make sure the separation part in the graduated filter is set properly or else the photo will look odd. So my question is, let's say I have a 0.6 stop ND filter slapped on my camera, is it likely that clipping will be less of an issue since less light will be entering my camera? I realize I may have to shoot at a higher ISO because of the loss of light, but I'm willing to do that just to ensure that clipping is reduced in my photos. Currently I'm using a Nikon D300, but I guess any advice given here will apply to any cameras out there. Thx in advance for the help!

you can also compose without the sky in your picture. i know that's not what you asked but it's a lot less hassle when just casually shooting.

ed rader

[lsquare]

you can also compose without the sky in your picture. i know that's not what you asked but it's a lot less hassle when just casually shooting.

ed rader

Thx for the suggestion, but I would still like to get some responses to my question.

[opus13]

if the sky is blown a full .6 ND wont do anything for you, just force you to re-expose for the same exposure levels... re-blowing the sky.

try a circular polarizer first, and then a GND. or use the GND tool in lightroom in a pinch.

[Shadowblade]

Tripod. Multiple exposures. Photoshop.

First exposure for highlights (sky, reflective water, etc.).
Second exposure for shadows.
Third (or more) exposures if the dynamic range is very great.

Then one exposure with the people in it.

Merge in Photoshop.

[lsquare]

if the sky is blown a full .6 ND wont do anything for you, just force you to re-expose for the same exposure levels... re-blowing the sky.

try a circular polarizer first, and then a GND. or use the GND tool in lightroom in a pinch.

I don't understand what you're saying by .6ND won't do anything for me. What do you mean by it forces me to reexpose for the same exposure level?

I actually got a B+W MRC 010 polarizer not too long ago, but sadly I haven't had the time to use it. I know the polarizer also acts like a 2x ND filter, but I heard it's not good to take photos of people with it. I also recalled reading that there might be some slight color cast problems.

I've already told you, graduated NDs are not practical for people shots or when you're going to tourist sites to take photos. I can see the benefits and advantages of GNDs, but I dont' think it's for a everyday thing.

[lsquare]

Tripod. Multiple exposures. Photoshop.

First exposure for highlights (sky, reflective water, etc.).
Second exposure for shadows.
Third (or more) exposures if the dynamic range is very great.

Then one exposure with the people in it.

Merge in Photoshop.

Not practical when you're in a place like the Forbidden City in Beijing. There are loads of tourists and if I were to try something like that, then will be ghosting issues. I don't want to clean that up in Photoshop.

[FlyingPhotog]

Not practical when you're in a place like the Forbidden City in Beijing. There are loads of tourists and if I were to try something like that, then will be ghosting issues. I don't want to clean that up in Photoshop.

Shoot RAW and create three different exposures from one frame in post...

As for your ND issue, a solid ND won't allow you to hold back only one part of the frame. That has to be either a GND or else blending different exposures in post.

All a solid ND will do is cause you to have the same blowouts, just more slowly... ;)

[lsquare]

Shoot RAW and create three different exposures from one frame in post...

As for your ND issue, a solid ND won't allow you to hold back only one part of the frame. That has to be either a GND or else blending different exposures in post.

All a solid ND will do is cause you to have the same blowouts, just more slowly... ;)

1. Good idea, but won't the picture appear rather HDR-like and not very realistic? I know adjustments can be done, but I don't think it'll be newbie friendly.

2. That's exactly what I wanted to know. If a solid ND won't do much to help my cause, then I guess my B+W circ. polarizer won't do me any good either in terms of preventing the sky from blowing.

3. This is more of a general question aimed at everyone. Besides including the sky in the photo and taking pictures at times of the day there the DR won't be as great to cause the skies to blow out, what other methods are there to cope with the DR limitations in today's sensor? Oh yea, I know a GND is mentioned, but again, I really don't think it's practical for the kind of photography that I'm doing. I'm going to totally dismiss the idea of getting a GND right now so I hope someone will stop suggesting that. Thx!

[FlyingPhotog]

1. Good idea, but won't the picture appear rather HDR-like and not very realistic? I know adjustments can be done, but I don't think it'll be newbie friendly.

Not automatically. You can do very subtle blending of specific highlight and shadow areas and still retain a natural look. The key is the degree to which you attempt to stretch the overall dynamic range and how broad you make the contrast. Search for a member here who goes by "rustyjaw" and take a look at his HDR work. Pound for pound, some of the most natural and understated HDR work being shown on POTN.

2. That's exactly what I wanted to know. If a solid ND won't do much to help my cause, then I guess my B+W circ. polarizer won't do me any good either in terms of preventing the sky from blowing.

You are correct. A CPL, while variable in its effect, is still a consistant eater of light across the entire frame.

3. This is more of a general question aimed at everyone. Besides including the sky in the photo and taking pictures at times of the day there the DR won't be as great to cause the skies to blow out, what other methods are there to cope with the DR limitations in today's sensor? Oh yea, I know a GND is mentioned, but again, I really don't think it's practical for the kind of photography that I'm doing. I'm going to totally dismiss the idea of getting a GND right now so I hope someone will stop suggesting that. Thx!

The simplest way is to simply wait until Mother Nature gives you balanced light. Bear in mind that with long exposures (on a tripod with a cable release) you can gather amazing amounts of light during twilight at dawn and dusk. Far more than your eye perceives. This is (IMO) where science and art meet. Chart the hours for civil twilight in your area and take advantage of the "crossover" from daylight to night and back again.

[S-S]

HDR is a processing techinique and like any other, it can be totally overdone... so if youre not a fan then just dont overdo it!

something i learned in sketching class years ago: "make sure the lights in the dark areas stay darker than the darks in the light areas - in this way your masses will hang together properly"

remmeber that a shadow area should still LOOK like shadow, but you should be able to see detail if you "HDR" it properly
same with the highlights

[SkipD]

3. This is more of a general question aimed at everyone. Besides including the sky in the photo and taking pictures at times of the day there the DR won't be as great to cause the skies to blow out, what other methods are there to cope with the DR limitations in today's sensor? Oh yea, I know a GND is mentioned, but again, I really don't think it's practical for the kind of photography that I'm doing. I'm going to totally dismiss the idea of getting a GND right now so I hope someone will stop suggesting that. Thx!NO filter of uniform density can change the dynamic range of the light hitting the film/sensor in a camera. All it will do is uniformly reduce the amount of light getting past the filter. The difference between the brightest and darkest portion of the image is still the same difference.

Colored filters can change contrast for black & white images by controlling the how light from the scene passes through it based on color (an orange filter will hold back blue light, etc.). However, you don't want to use colored filters for colored images except, of course, if you're trying to make some wierd image.

The only filter type that can control the total range of brightness in an image is a filter with varying densities - and with the denser portion(s) of the filter blocking light from the brightest portion(s) of the scene. A polarizing filter may be able to reduce a few specular hilights in an image but will do nothing with a sunset shot, for example.

[S-S]

you can also use lightroom v2 to add an artificial GND filter to the scene

or, if you shoot away from the sun the details in the sky should remain visible

[lsquare]

you can also use lightroom v2 to add an artificial GND filter to the scene

or, if you shoot away from the sun the details in the sky should remain visible

Thx for the suggestion. I checked out another thread on POTN where the GND filter from LR was used. The result looked good, but a bit unrealistic imo. I do have LR 2.3, but I'm still quite new to it and I'll need to learn how to use the GND feature effectively. However, what can the GND feature in LR do for me if the sky is already blown out? I don't think the GND can "fix" the photo.

[FlyingPhotog]

Thx for the suggestion. I checked out another thread on POTN where the GND filter from LR was used. The result looked good, but a bit unrealistic imo. I do have LR 2.3, but I'm still quite new to it and I'll need to learn how to use the GND feature effectively. However, what can the GND feature in LR do for me if the sky is already blown out? I don't think the GND can "fix" the photo.

Are you shooting RAW or jpg?

RAW isn't indefinately recoverable but it's more flexible than jpg...

[lsquare]

Are you shooting RAW or jpg?

RAW isn't indefinately recoverable but it's more flexible than jpg...

Yes, I only shoot with RAW. Sorry for not being clear earlier. I don't think shooting in RAW will necessarily prevent skies from blowing out since the photo in that link was taken as a photo and converted to JPG via Photoshop CS4.

[S-S]

Thx for the suggestion. I checked out another thread on POTN where the GND filter from LR was used. The result looked good, but a bit unrealistic imo. I do have LR 2.3, but I'm still quite new to it and I'll need to learn how to use the GND feature effectively. However, what can the GND feature in LR do for me if the sky is already blown out? I don't think the GND can "fix" the photo.

the photo below uses 2 LR GND filters, a darkening one for the sky & a lightening one for the foreground. i dont think it looks unrealistic in the slightest. it was shot with the sun behind the camera & basically looks identical to the scene on the day.

but if the sky is already #FFF then yes, you're basically stuffed. there has to be some data for any software fix

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=348694&stc=1&d=1236746519

[FlyingPhotog]

This image also had the GND filter applied in LR. As you can see, it not only brought the top of the sky back into line with everything else, it also allowed some color to come back as well as it put some better contrast in the two planes that are leading the formation...

http://www.pbase.com/flyingphotog/image/108209721/original.jpg

[hollis_f]

You are correct. A CPL, while variable in its effect, is still a consistant eater of light across the entire frame.

But isn't more of the light from the sky uniformly polarised than the light reflecting from your subject? So a CPL may be able to semi-selectively darken the exposure of the sky more than the subject?

[SkipD]

But isn't more of the light from the sky uniformly polarised than the light reflecting from your subject? So a CPL may be able to semi-selectively darken the exposure of the sky more than the subject?The answer to the first question is No. As you change the angle of the camera's aim relative to where the sun is in the sky, you will see that there is quite a variation in the effect of a polarizing filter.

If you use a polarizing filter on an ultra-wide lens with a blue sky all around, you will see quite a variation in the blue across the image.

The only "selectivity" you have with a polarizing filter is changing the angle of the polarization of the filter. That can control how much effect the filter has on reflections in front of you and, within the limitations I mentioned above, the darkening of a blue sky. You cannot do anything to change the effect of either independently of the other.

[lsquare]

Thx for the info guys! I think I'll practice using the methods described here and use the GND feature of LR to bring the foreground "back to life". I think I'll just deal with the noise as that's probably more of an acceptable compromise for me. I really appreciate the advice here guys and you saved me money from not only buying a 2x ND filter, but also a GND filter!