NIK or NDG?

Hi, Really a question for anyone who uses or has used the option of doing it in camera by the use of NDG filters and has used NIK software products.
What in your opinion is the better option?
Does NIK give all you would expect from say a LEE NDG in front of the lens or do you think software degrades your image?
Thank you for any and all input.
Russ

I don't think the NIK filters can do what a NDG filter can do.

Graduated ND filters are un-replicable in post processing in a single exposure. It compresses the dynamic range of the scene before it hits the sensor. Once you are on the computer, those parts of the dynamic range your camera didn't capture by not using a grad ND filter aren't going to exist.

If you want to use software to get the "grad ND effect" you need to be taking multiple exposures and combining via layers or HDR. This carries its own set of limitations.

Ultimately any scene which exceeds the range of the sensor will require an ND grad, or multiple exposures.

Well, I'll offer an "alternative" viewpoint:

We have a degree of latitude with Raw "data" and post-processing that goes significantly beyond what jpegs can do, and with film without some real darkroom skills and such.

I also have a problem with GNDs in that they darken the image over a straight line -- so if parts of your scene are above this line they get darkened whether you want it or not...so in post-processing you are still "stuck" with having to boost those areas that are too dark.

In practice, well I have a couple Lee "kits" with GND filters and such, but honestly never use them. Around here there are many trees and hills that jutt up into a scene. That being said, we do have oceans in the area and I wouldn't be adverse to occasionally making a trip to the coast and playing with them, it's just not a habit I've gotten into!

As I've said, shooting Raw can make a big difference, since there is good data in the highlight areas that can be recovered, bright blue skies can be "tamed", and so on. I'm not saying that I'm an expert in such things, it's just my preferred approach.

Also, there is a Graduated Gradient tool in Camera Raw/lightroom that is pretty interesting to play with, something that would be interesting if someone who was skilled with a GND filter could work over an unfiltered shot with the Graduated Gradient in ACR/Lightroom!

As an added thought, a pretty established "Photo Safari" leader/photographer, Joseph Van Os, posted in his "gudelines" for people coming to one of his Safaris/workshops about GND filters:

He said that for a long time he just insisted that photogs bring/use GND lenses, but he changed this, telling film shooters to bring the filters, but leaving out that requirement for digital shooters. I thought that was interesting and a bit surprising, coming from a long-time nature shooter!

Those are definitely some good points, for example, guess which one of these was a GND filter and which one was a single, no filter exposure that was a merge of two different raw processings?

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

tonylong wrote in post #15285039
Well, I'll offer an "alternative" viewpoint:

We have a degree of latitude with Raw "data" and post-processing that goes significantly beyond what jpegs can do, and with film without some real darkroom skills and such.

I also have a problem with GNDs in that they darken the image over a straight line -- so if parts of your scene are above this line they get darkened whether you want it or not...so in post-processing you are still "stuck" with having to boost those areas that are too dark.

In practice, well I have a couple Lee "kits" with GND filters and such, but honestly never use them. Around here there are many trees and hills that jutt up into a scene. That being said, we do have oceans in the area and I wouldn't be adverse to occasionally making a trip to the coast and playing with them, it's just not a habit I've gotten into!

As I've said, shooting Raw can make a big difference, since there is good data in the highlight areas that can be recovered, bright blue skies can be "tamed", and so on. I'm not saying that I'm an expert in such things, it's just my preferred approach.

Also, there is a Graduated Gradient tool in Camera Raw/lightroom that is pretty interesting to play with, something that would be interesting if someone who was skilled with a GND filter could work over an unfiltered shot with the Graduated Gradient in ACR/Lightroom!

As an added thought, a pretty established "Photo Safari" leader/photographer, Joseph Van Os, posted in his "gudelines" for people coming to one of his Safaris/workshops about GND filters:

He said that for a long time he just insisted that photogs bring/use GND lenses, but he changed this, telling film shooters to bring the filters, but leaving out that requirement for digital shooters. I thought that was interesting and a bit surprising, coming from a long-time nature shooter!

I have used the OnOne Photo Tools filters for Photoshop. It includes graduated software filters that work with Photoshop, for example - Graduated Cool-Warm, Warm-Cool, graduated blue, etc. With RAW files and PS layers it can make a difference

NDG filters has better filters and will have a better result.