ND filters, how, what, why?

V-Wiz wrote in post #10716923
So once you have those numbers down which shutter speed and Aperture do you use since you have two different field. What do you shoot at.

First you bring down the difference in exposure between the sky and the foreground by using a GND so that the remaining difference can be captured without blowing out your highlights. Then you expose like you normally would.

a single varible 77mm one so that I can drop the light from 2-8 stops. That lets me slow waterfalls for a nice smooth waterflow.

I don't want to purchase or carry a stack of dedicated ND...and I dont carry a GND. For GND...use the effects in LR or PS.

Remember our job is not to get it right in the camera. We had to do that with flim. But with digital, we are there to gather as much light (data) as possible without blowing out an important part of the scene. That is why you hear folks talk about shooting for the light or expose to the right (looking at the histogram). So when you think of using any filter...as yourself will the loss of data the filter causes be a good tradeoff for the effect it creates. With CPLs...oh yes. With an ND/VND to slow water or other moving objects...yes. GND...probably not as you can do that with postprocess EXACTLY where you want it and how much drop in light you want. Meanwhile you always have you nice raw file in the background so you can do a complete seperate set of filters on the file tomorow.

MCAsan wrote in post #10716962
Remember our job is not to get it right in the camera.

For most of us, it's not a job to begin with.

There's no right and wrong here. Some prefer to get as close to the end result as possible while in the field, others prefer to perform certain steps during post processing.

Those who try to get it right in the camera are not necessarily inept at PP, but may just prefer to see the end result on the camera's LCD as part of their visualization process. Or perhaps they prefer to cut back on their time behind the computer. Or they may even find it adds to their craft as a photographer to capture a scene as they've envisioned it, and keep PP for the final tweaks.

Both filters and Photoshops are tools that are available to us. Using either or both is a matter of personal preference.

MCAsan wrote in post #10716962
as yourself will the loss of data the filter causes be a good tradeoff for the effect it creates.

Not sure what loss of data you're referring to. In fact, one would use GND's to prevent loss of data, not to introduce it.

Don't open the pandora box, this is not about filters vs PS or is it?

Just shake hands and help the OP with his question.

Some of us use filters, some of us use PS and some of us use both.

In my case long-exposures are really difficult to produce without a GND (when needed) taking 2 shots when each shot takes several seconds creates problems because the movement of elements just don't match (clouds, water, etc).
In the same way a scene with trees, and elements in both the sky and ground are really hard to expose with filters and you are in better shape with 2 shots and PS at home.

Let's take the best from both worlds.