GND filters no longer useful?

[Michelle Brooks Photography]

I just got Nathaniel Coalson's Lightroom 2 book and he states that gradual density filters are really no longer of use considering what you can do in PPing, that a ND filter is all you need. To quote, "Using bracketing and HDR blending techniques eliminates the need for split NDs".....Thoughts?

[kencas]

I would disagree with that statement - especially here in Australia (and NZ for that matter) shooting landscapes! There is just too much difference between shadow and light, so using an ND Grad makes perfect sense in reducing the dynamic range of a scene before it reaches the sensor. As the thinking goes, if you lose information beyound the limits of your cameras ability to capture highlights or shadows, then you simply can't get it back!

Yes - one can do a HDR construction, but I'm of the old school whereby one strives to get it right first, not in post-production... :cool:

ken

[Muskydave22]

I disagree as well, might as well get it right before the light hits the sensor than spend what could be hours sitting in front of the computer getting it just like the GND did when you opened the shutter.

dave

[Michelle Brooks Photography]

I disagree as well, might as well get it right before the light hits the sensor than spend what could be hours sitting in front of the computer getting it just like the GND did when you opened the shutter.

dave


It's interesting, what you both have stated is exactly what the author keeps reiterating in the book--get the best image possible in camera so you have more to work with in Lightroom! I was thinking of selling the .09 Lee soft filter I bought becuase I have to invest even more $ for the adapter and holder, but maybe I should hang onto it.;)

[mike_d]

Until you can do natural looking HDRs without a tripod and without any special PP skills, I think ND grads will still have their place.

[DANATTHEROCK]

First image is a RAW straight from the camera. Second image was shot seconds later using a Singh Ray Galen Rowell 3 stop soft grad ND filter and was slightly processed (increased sharpness and vibrancy) in Photoshop Elements 6.0. My vote is for the ND filter anyday. A very valuable tool for any landscape photographer. This and my CPL are almost as valuable to me as the tripod.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2135/2471308669_fffe110709.jpg




http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2019/2471306931_149ab1393a.jpg

[ed rader]

First image is a RAW straight from the camera. Second image was shot seconds later using a Singh Ray Galen Rowell 3 stop soft grad ND filter and was slightly processed (increased sharpness and vibrancy) in Photoshop Elements 6.0. My vote is for the ND filter anyday. A very valuable tool for any landscape photographer. This and my CPL are almost as valuable to me as the tripod.




first image gets my vote, and it ain't even close :D.

ed rader

[woos]

first image gets my vote, and it ain't even close :D.

ed rader

I bet the second one would look quite awesome printed on a nice luster paper though. :) (and I like them both)

[Jon]

first image gets my vote, and it ain't even close :D.

ed raderSecond's got a colour cast at least in the clouds - take that out and you'd likely change your call. The clouds stand out better in the second, which is one of the purposes of a GND (or HDR).

[freaking102]

I was thinking of selling the .09 Lee soft filter I bought becuase I have to invest even more $ for the adapter and holder, but maybe I should hang onto it.;)

try hand-holding the filter, you may find you don't need the adapter and filter holder

[Woolburr]

First image is a RAW straight from the camera. Second image was shot seconds later using a Singh Ray Galen Rowell 3 stop soft grad ND filter and was slightly processed (increased sharpness and vibrancy) in Photoshop Elements 6.0. My vote is for the ND filter anyday. A very valuable tool for any landscape photographer. This and my CPL are almost as valuable to me as the tripod.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2135/2471308669_fffe110709.jpg




http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2019/2471306931_149ab1393a.jpg

First image wins by a landslide. Not exactly a testimonial to filter use.

For the OP....hang on to your filter...the results with a filter on camera are typically far better than the results from digital filters applied in post-processing.

[Quad]

I think the author was right in many situations. GND filters are not so great with non flat horizons. Processing works better with mountains, buildings and other subjects with light/no light divisions that do not follow a GND's straight line. Just wanted to give a bit of the boost to the other side. Still if you can do it properly in camera then it is that much easier.

I will add that if you do the work in post and make it as simple as a GND filter it is dead simple and take little time. A bracket exposure and a gradient mask takes little time and it is less stuff to carry and buy.

[DANATTHEROCK]

The clouds stand out better in the second, which is one of the purposes of a GND (or HDR).

That is what I was trying to show. Glad someone caught that. These were taken the day I got the filter just to test out its effectiveness (which is clear).

[Mike R]

I disagree as well, might as well get it right before the light hits the sensor than spend what could be hours sitting in front of the computer getting it just like the GND did when you opened the shutter.

dave

+1 "I can always fix it in PS" is not photography

[Jon]

That is what I was trying to show. Glad someone caught that. These were taken the day I got the filter just to test out its effectiveness (which is clear).
Yeah. I suspect the post-processing may have thrown off the colour balance, making the clouds look "off" a bit, and that's part of what people aren't liking in the GND version.

[Hikin Mike]

I don't own any GNDs, I bracket my shots with the intend of using layer masks. That said, there are situations, like windy days, that you really need a GND. :D

A 3 different exposure shot using layer masks in CS2.
http://www.imagesinthebackcountry.com/images/web_temp/_MG_9704.jpg

[scot079]

I just got Nathaniel Coalson's Lightroom 2 book and he states that gradual density filters are really no longer of use considering what you can do in PPing, that a ND filter is all you need. To quote, "Using bracketing and HDR blending techniques eliminates the need for split NDs".....Thoughts?

I think PP is no substitute for getting it right in camera.

First image is a RAW straight from the camera. Second image was shot seconds later using a Singh Ray Galen Rowell 3 stop soft grad ND filter and was slightly processed (increased sharpness and vibrancy) in Photoshop Elements 6.0. My vote is for the ND filter anyday. A very valuable tool for any landscape photographer. This and my CPL are almost as valuable to me as the tripod.

The first exposure is fine so there's no need for the GND. I only use a GND when I cannot get a good exposure in the camera?

+1 "I can always fix it in PS" is not photography

+2

[Gaussian_Blur]

Hiken Mike,


That is a beautiful pic! Where did you shoot it?:)

[Hikin Mike]

Thanks. :oops:

Yosemite, along the Tioga road. That's Mammoth Peak in the background. Taken a few weeks ago and that's not toilet paper in the foreground, it's snow. :lol:

[jdizzle]

I think everyone answered the OP's question. I pretty much feel the same with getting it right in-camera.

[ed rader]

I think everyone answered the OP's question. I pretty much feel the same with getting it right in-camera.


which in the real world doesn't happen often enough or we would just shoot JPEG.

i strive to get it right in camera but i'm not obssessed with doing so.

ed rader

[Livd]

I also tend to think the beauty of photography is the process of taking the photo. and express it the way we want the audiences to see. Using the GND or not. as long as the final result is what you visualized. Its all good.

having that said, I still believe getting the shot right before PP is valuable.