Horseshoe Bend - my latest

beachbum2277 wrote in post #8695777
Thanks for the compliments guys.

And honestly, I didn't want to do any blending. I'm a photographer, not a photoshopper. If that's what the sky looked like that night, I did the best I could with the weather and equipment I had. To me, and this is my opinion only, had I blended/cloned in a second image, I would look at my final photo as it not being the real thing. I'm more proud of the photo i TOOK, not CREATED.

.

Fair enough. This is definitely a photo to be proud of.

I can't see anything to do different; it's a beautiful shot!

beachbum2277 wrote in post #8695777
And honestly, I didn't want to do any blending. I'm a photographer, not a photoshopper. If that's what the sky looked like that night, I did the best I could with the weather and equipment I had. To me, and this is my opinion only, had I blended/cloned in a second image, I would look at my final photo as it not being the real thing. I'm more proud of the photo i TOOK, not CREATED.

.

I agree Beachbum. I'm not a photochopper myself. I firmly believe in getting it right the first time. Which is why I spent alot of my money on buying filters. I enjoy using my GNDs and no one else is going to tell me otherwise. You should be proud of what you captured here. Excellent!

MrGreen wrote in post #8695490
It takes you 30 minutes to blend in another exposure? I can do it in under 2 minutes, as I would imagine a lot of other people can as well.

FYI, I don't like to blend. If you read Beachbum's reply, he summed it up very well.

awesome

Georgeous shot !

Thanks again for the compliments...

.

curiousgeorge wrote in post #8695876
I think people are put off by it mainly because it's so time consuming.

I think people are put off because they have no idea how to use PhotoShop.
Learning PhotoShop is as important as learning how to use your camera.

Gaining more dynamic range with two shots is a good technique. Used improperly, it looks horrible.

Used properly (with dynamic lighting conditions), it ALWAYS looks better than the limit of a single shot and the limited dynamic range of the camera sensor.

I laugh at comments about "cheating" in PhotoShop. That's like saying a photographer is cheating when using a faster lens.
ONLY the final image counts, not what gear you used to produce it.

great shot !!!

dmccabe wrote in post #8698778
I think people are put off because they have no idea how to use PhotoShop.
Learning PhotoShop is as important as learning how to use your camera.

Gaining more dynamic range with two shots is a good technique. Used improperly, it looks horrible.

Used properly (with dynamic lighting conditions), it ALWAYS looks better than the limit of a single shot and the limited dynamic range of the camera sensor.

I laugh at comments about "cheating" in PhotoShop. That's like saying a photographer is cheating when using a faster lens.
ONLY the final image counts, not what gear you used to produce it.

Where was the word "cheating" used here? All I said is that I prefer to use GNDs over blending. I don't have a problem with people using blending techniques. I've played around with blending in photoshop and it's really not for me. One day I'll find a photo where I'll probably use blending but, my GNDs are working out for me. It doesn't take a PhD to learn how to use photoshop bud.

I agree using two images to capture dyanmic is a good technique but, I've seen some where you can really tell. A perfect example is in this thread.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=756027

It's a great photo no doubt but, you can tell it's a blend. I could do the same thing with a 2 stop GND and still get enough data if I exposed correctly. Your statment about using a faster lens is rediculous. Everyone loves a fast lens.

You don't need a PhD to blend images, but blending takes a certain amount of patience and care not required for other pp techniques. That's why they invented HDR tools.

In many cases blending (or HDR) is the only way to save a photo. So you risk discarding a potentially great photo if you rely on just a grad filter (which, by the way, in the exampe in this thread, will darken the dark part of the sky as well as the light part - blending overcomes this problem).

I agree with athe analogy about the fast lens - a straight-out-the-camera picture should never (except in rare circumstances) be considered a finished product.

jdizzle wrote in post #8699025
I could do the same thing with a 2 stop GND and still get enough data if I exposed correctly.

How would you use a grad filter across a jagged mountain peak without blackening the top of the mountain (or leaving light streaks across the sky)?

curiousgeorge wrote in post #8700244
You don't need a PhD to blend images, but blending takes a certain amount of patience and care not required for other pp techniques. That's why they invented HDR tools.

In many cases blending (or HDR) is the only way to save a photo. So you risk discarding a potentially great photo if you rely on just a grad filter (which, by the way, in the exampe in this thread, will darken the dark part of the sky as well as the light part - blending overcomes this problem).

I agree with athe analogy about the fast lens - a straight-out-the-camera picture should never (except in rare circumstances) be considered a finished product.

How would you use a grad filter across a jagged mountain peak without blackening the top of the mountain (or leaving light streaks across the sky)?

All points well taken George. I don't have anything against any of these techniques whether it be exposure blending, HDR, or using GND filters. All are valid when it comes down to using these techniques correctly. When I'm out in the field, I do bracket my shots with intent to possibly blend. But, if I can get the exposure in one shot, I don't see the need to blend at all. The end result is the vision of the photog when it comes to PP.

Now, to answer your question about using a grad on a jagged mountain peak, you would use a technique called "Feathering". Feathering is a technique used to reduce the grad line by moving the grad during the exposure. This applies to hard and soft GNDs. I've been using this technique for a while now and I've pretty much mastered it. You can do this hand held or use a filter holder which pretty much does the same thing. This will help balance the exposure and of course, not see the grad line. I posted this technique a few weeks back since some may not know of it. There's a link to youtube which shows you how.

Link:https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=745889 Most of you know him by the name of Tony Sweet. A well accomplished nature and landscape photographer.

You can see from these photos that I used this same technique and I think it turned pretty well. Can you see the grad line?

http://i9.photobucket.​com …BeachHouseSeren​dipity.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.​com …/DJJUST/Looking​Glass1.jpg

I didn't want to turn this post into a debate bcoz' that wasn't my intention. It's more of what we all prefer when it comes down to technique. I prefer my GNDs and I'll probably die using GNDs. Got me?

Hi Julian, that's interesting about the feathering, thanks for that. I think it will take quite a bit of practice to get it right though!

I love your second shot, but it looks like the grad could have been left pretty much in the same position? In the first shot the house has been darkened by the filter. That may not bother you, but I guess if you were trying to avoid it, it would be pretty difficult even if feathering.

That is one of the best photo's of Horseshoe Bend that I've ever seen. You picked a great time of day to be there and it paid off!

CameraBuff wrote in post #8703817
That is one of the best photo's of Horseshoe Bend that I've ever seen. You picked a great time of day to be there and it paid off!

Thanks! I was hoping to catch the sunset there however that huge rain cloud came in and blocked out the sun as it dropped. I tried to make the best of it!

.