ND graduated filters or the adjustment brush in Camera Raw

I'm old fashioned when it comes to filters and feel that what you can achieve in the field is better than trying to apply the effect in PS. I use 4x6" ND graduated filters for mismatched exposures like dark ground/bright sky landscapes, but of course could use Camera Raw gradient Adjustment brush to do the same.

I wonder what others do. Please post as to why you do as you do.

With film the options afterwards were limited, difficult, and expensive so the rule was "get it on the film". That was especially true with ND grads and chrome. There just was little other choice and you pretty much had to live with the decisions you made when you made the chrome.

Now we have greater DR (and it is improving all the time) and cheap and effective PP options. So I prefer to have my camera original RAW file as unaltered as possible. This allows much more flexibility afterwards. I also prefer to carry a much lighter load in the field than in the film days. I carry three glass screw-ins (3 stop ND, 8 stop ND, and CPL) in 77mm with step rings for smaller lenses. It all fits in one small pouch that hangs on my belt. Everything else is done in post. ETTR gives me lots of options.

Besides, that grad line is almost always in the wrong place or too straight for the image.

I use both...

The grad and adjustment brush (I use them in LR) are great tools, but When you push them too far, the image looks less real to me and more "photoshopped." I've read many blogs like Matt Kloskowski's where he says grad filter are dead to him and he does that adjustment in post. My opinion is those software tools are only good for about 2 stops, depending on the camera you are using, how well you exposed the image and how good your post processing skills are. There are many situations where the difference in exposure is far more than 2 stops, so the grad filters still have a use. I'm also old school enough like the OP says to to try get it as right in camera as you can. Then touching up the image in post is like icing on the cake.

My basic issue with graduated neutral density filters is that anything sticking up into the sky -- like buildings, trees, and sailboat masts -- gets underexposed. So if one had an absolutely flat horizon, such a filter might be useful. But how often does that happen? Pictures taken with these filters look awkward to me.

Agreed. It's highly dependent on what your subject and composition is. Sometimes you can fix that in post but it can be tedious i.e. sailboat masts and other relatively small items.

joedlh wrote in post #17320123
My basic issue with graduated neutral density filters is that anything sticking up into the sky -- like buildings, trees, and sailboat masts -- gets underexposed. So if one had an absolutely flat horizon, such a filter might be useful. But how often does that happen? Pictures taken with these filters look awkward to me.

Well, ND's are subtle, like vignette effects, assuming you're using soft edges. I'm trending away from GND's at the moment. Just not very happy with them, and going back to HDR/blending/digital brush + grads.

I might even sell them off at this point.