If I have a tripod, a remote, and photoshop, what good are GND filters?

Something that's been on my mind recently, as I weigh the purchase of filters against saving the money for other equipment. I've always done some artsy landscape stuff on the side for fun. Here's where I'm hitting a roadblock:

Any gradient on any GND filter can be reproduced in photoshop with a gradient mask and exposure bracketing in camera.

Here's what I'm thinking:

Take bracketed exposures, just as an example lets say +/- 2 stops. On a tripod, with a remote release, in succession (I am assuming anyone who bothers with the hassle of filters and adapter rings etc is going to be using a tripod for serious landscape work)

Go to photoshop.

Stack the layers on top of one another (let's say I want the sky from the -2 and the foreground from the 0ev exposure)

Click the layers mask button

Apply a gradient to the top layer, revealing whatever is below, in this case, we'd fade from the darker sky exposure into the lighter foreground exposure.

And this creates a completely controllable, very adaptable GND filter, with no loss in IQ, and infinite options for blending - hard edge, soft edge, reverse, upside down, diagonal, whatever. No color casts, no schlepping of filters, no spending hundreds of dollars on high quality filters (do note that I am NOT including neutral density, which obviously has no replacement in photoshop etc, only graduated neutral density)

Yet I see people running around with hundreds of dollars of filters - I have to be missing something. I have always wanted to have a play with GND and get some cool landscape stuff, but I'm just trying to weigh the pros and cons here.

Simple answer=Some people like getting it done in camera instead of sitting behind a computer.

Is one way really better then the other? Honestly the answer to that can be rather objective and a whole nothing topic.

But like I said, simple answer is getting in done in camera instead of in computer. In the end both work.

All the stuff required to replicate the GND effect on a computer is one giant soul-crushing bore. Other than that, yeah, you can save a little money.

Less time I sit in front of a computer the better!

Love Photography.... Editing Kills me....

If you're shooting for a paper or a magazine like National Geographic, the blending in PS wouldn't fly. Plus I'd much rather be out fiddling with filters than adjusting layers at home.

Doing it with filters in front of the camera to save time is just lazy. If the photo isn't worth spending five minutes blending two layers in Photoshop, then it probably wasn't worth taking. Think about how much time Ansel Adams spent in the dark room.

What the OP suggests is a good idea and I generally recommend it over GND filters in 2011. The net result is better for a few reasons. Firstly you get greater control of the exposures of the foreground and background respectively.

Secondly, you get fine control of the blend itself - you get precise control of the width of the gradient, and can modify the mask to fit more complicated scenes, avoiding artificial looking blackened hill tops and the like.

You may still wish to invest in polarising filters and some normal ND filters depending on what you'd like to do. Somewhere like http://maxsaver.net/ is much cheaper than adorama etc for filters.

There is one catch though - blending won't work well for some scenes with moving water at intermediate to fast shutter speeds.

I'd say getting it right when the shutter is released is better than doing it at home.

Filters - X Dollars
Holder - X Dollars
Tripod - X Dollars

After downloading, finding that you barely need to tweak your shots...

Priceless!

Some shot can not be done with GND anyway: read a book recently (forgot the name, sorry), a photo took through a U shape dark cave for a distant beach at sunset. So the author did multiple exposure bracket - the cave itself and the distant beach all 'correctly' exposure with PP.

What about when there is motion in leaves, trees, clouds, water ... aren't filters better at taking care of this complication?

GND's are not that expensive and need only a minute or two to put in front of a lens. Why not bracket your shot, then try a couple shots with the filter. Compare the two at home. It's what I do.

Maxdave wrote in post #13324245
What about when there is motion in leaves, trees, clouds, water ... aren't filters better at taking care of this complication?

Bingo. When things are moving, it makes it very hard, maybe not possible to use blending multiple shots.

I use both methods, depending on the scene. I prefer the filters as I don't enjoy sitting in front of my computer if I don't need to.

noodle_snacks wrote in post #13324030
If the photo isn't worth spending five minutes blending two layers in Photoshop, then it probably wasn't worth taking. Think about how much time Ansel Adams spent in the dark room.

I look at it this way: 5 minutes x 12 images = 1 hour. And I usually have a lot more than 12 images to process after a good day's shooting, which would mean a lot more than an hour at the computer. All of my images require some amount of PP; but I try to keep that to a minimum. Even when fiddling with filters, being outdoors in the presence of beautiful scenery is a lot more enjoyable than sitting indoors going cross-eyed at a computer.

In no way do I envy Ansel Adams for the amount of time he had to spend in a dark, stuffy room, breathing noxious chemicals. I am very happy that I do not have to do that in 2011. I am pretty sure that Ansel -- great lover of Nature that he was -- maximized the amount of time that he spent outdoors, and would understand and fully support my use of GND filters.

And, of course, the fact that I use GND filters whenever feasible and appropriate for the scene, in no way rules out exposure bracketing for HDR when needed.

It's not even a five minute process - it is literally a thirty second process in addition to adding contrast, curves, saturation, etc etc.

I can usually see what 2-3 shots are going to be THE ONES, if you know what I mean. Those portfolio shots, the best of the best, even if I have hundreds of images to get through. I don't mind applying a few extra minutes to these in post. Sure beats fiddling with filters during the decisive moment!

And as far as blending moving surfaces, the whole point is that we can fine-tune exactly WHERE we want the gradient to fall! In a few cases there might be a bit of overlap, but I guarantee if it's grass or leaves we're talking about it wouldn't matter because of motion blur anyway (granted the exposure is going to be a couple seconds+) If you're using a program like photomatix I can understand having difficulty with moving parts, but in photoshop we can select what we want and what we don't want to be blended. More control. Every part of the process can be controlled to perfection.

While it is definitely gratifying to get something right IN CAMERA, make no mistake, I love that too - I can understand the whole filters thing for shooting with film. But in this case the 'digital darkroom' just makes so much more sense to me. The amount of control you get with this method simply is astounding for what is literally less than a one minute process. Unless you're a photojournalist, you're going to be spending some time on editing your photos - if not, you're missing out on potential.

Open from lightroom or aperture straight to photoshop
Stack photos
Click layer mask, hit d for default foreground to background colors, then hit g to bring up gradient tool
Click and drag where you want the gradient to be, fine tune if necessary
Voila!

When people say GNDs are not that expensive, I'd consider the ~$500 outlay for a set of quality filters pretty expensive, especially compared with that of photoshop, which has endless applications. And like I said, less fiddling in the field during the decisive moment has it's benefits.

These are just my thoughts on the matter - not trying to be a dink or anything, but genuinely curious because I am having trouble seeing the benefit.

Amfamora wrote in post #13323945
Less time I sit in front of a computer the better!

Love Photography.... Editing Kills me....

Same here