Post Your Graduated Neutral Density Sample Shots Please

chuckie365 wrote in post #12380298
Nice shot Gixxer!

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/wizardry/570554​7917/
Swoosh by Wizardry365, on Flickr

Stunning! Which filters did you use?

Thanks! SR 3stop gnd and 3 stop rev gnd

Carrabango wrote in post #12380349
Stunning! Which filters did you use?

^Nice work Chuckie. If I may suggest upping the foreground exposure. It looks a bit dark in the foreground.

chuckie365 wrote in post #12380298
Nice shot Gixxer!

http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com …05547917_365abc​20d8_o.jpg

Awesome! I'd love to have this in high res for a desktop background...

Here's one from San Francisco this past weekend!

Enjoy

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/waymondlee/5705​738290/

Thanks for the suggestion!

jdizzle wrote in post #12380461
^Nice work Chuckie. If I may suggest upping the foreground exposure. It looks a bit dark in the foreground.

jdizzle wrote in post #12380461
^Nice work Chuckie. If I may suggest upping the foreground exposure. It looks a bit dark in the foreground.

With all due respect... I completely disagree 100%. Shots like this with the foreground too bright look very unnatural and imbalanced.

I think it looks perfect. Don't change a thing!

.......Only one way to really find out which he likes better, and that's to give the re-edit a go and see what he thinks.

You know that's exactly what i was going for. Sometimes I tend to overdo my processing and you lose that natural feeling of how the shot was when i took it. Even though it may appeal to others...sometimes it's nice to to keep it natural. There was very little processing done on that shot...almost straight out of the camera.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #12380632
With all due respect... I completely disagree 100%. Shots like this with the foreground too bright look very unnatural and imbalanced.

I think it looks perfect. Don't change a thing!

Canon_Lover wrote in post #12380632
With all due respect... I completely disagree 100%. Shots like this with the foreground too bright look very unnatural and imbalanced.

I think it looks perfect. Don't change a thing!

I understand. The idea of using GNDs is to use the proper one to balance exposure. If he's stacking one on top and the other one down, it kind of defeats the purpose. The exposure should be a tad brighter to see detail and I don't see that here. Here's a sample using that same idea but, I didn't use any filters here. It's a combination of two exposures blended in post.

This is at sunset btw.

Here's an example of using a Lee 2 stop hard GND. It was an overcast morning but, the forground is bright enough to see detail. A few tweaks in post and it's done.

jdizzle wrote in post #12380687
I understand. The idea of using GNDs is to use the proper one to balance exposure. If he's stacking one on top and the other one down, it kind of defeats the purpose. The exposure should be a tad brighter to see detail and I don't see that here.

I would usually agree, but in his shot, the mood, clouds, and water flow are the key ingredients. Not the detail in the rocks. If it showed any more detail in the rocks, it would detract from everything that makes the photo look good, to me.

We all have different tastes. I personally think he did the right thing with that shot.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #12380842
I would usually agree, but in his shot, the mood, clouds, and water flow are the key ingredients. Not the detail in the rocks. If it showed any more detail in the rocks, it would detract from everything that makes the photo look good, to me.

We all have different tastes. I personally think he did the right thing with that shot.

Let's agree to disagree shall we? I still find it underexposed imo. My properly calibrated EIZO doesn't lie. I even went as far as checking the histogram and it's still toward underexposure. Just my 2 cents.

I agree its underexposed the point of using A GND is to even out the light /exposure in the frame... while I am not very good at it, that's what I usually aim to do