Split Neutral Density Filters

How many digital shooters have stopped using ND filters? How many still use them?

Marc Adamus in his recent post mentioned that what can be done with digital cameras and editors such as PS has not been generally discovered by most photographers. We are still discovering what can be done. He was talking about dynamic range and the possibility of seeing photographically the way a painter does -- w/o worries about extreme contrast in a scene, for example. Do you agree?

Any thoughts on this?

Frank

P.S. Here are Marc's comment that inspired my post:

"You know, Lon, I get the "painting" thing quite often. I've come to have my own opinions on what evokes this response: We're well into a new era of photography that has many advantages to our old films. The digital processes that I utilize to achieve my final results have greatly helped me to overcome such challenges as managing a broad dynamic range of exposure and maintaining natural color in all areas of the image. Back in my Velivia days I would think nothing of letting much of the image drop into true blacks or having a strong grad-line over a mountain peak, which I suppose the public came to accept as necessary. But these days, even though I don't spend huge amounts of time processing, I can achieve strikingly natural and accurate results, especially when it comes to dynamic range. The ability to maintain exposure in all areas probably defines my work as much as any other element. This is often compared by the public to the work of painters, having no issues like dynamic range to overcome - they can choose from any color palette and tonal scale they wish. Not everyone has yet to become aware of what is possible these days. That said, the vast majority of aspiring photographers, at least at some point, have a tendency to get carried away with post-exposure adjustments of all kinds resulting in a less than natural feel to their work."

I just received the almost the full range of Singh-Ray ND grads last week both to supplement & replace my previous set. I now own the following NDGs : 1 stop hard, 2 stops hard & soft, 3 stops hard & soft, 4 stops hard and the following reverse NDG : 2 stops, 3 stops & 4 stops. So I have in fact expanded my collection. Why? Firstly I prefer the get everything in one shot, I like the satisfaction of seeing the entire scene nailed on my LCD, then I know it is in the can. Secondly, I have better things to do than fiddle around more in Photoshop. Thirdly, as someone relatively new to photography I want to push the boundaries of what is possible in one take. And these new filters came into use immediately. The 1 stop grad on a cloudy day, the 4 stop reverse ND for a sunrise shot. The extra filters will also give me more flexibilty in stacking filters. So far I have not encountered any scene beyond the dynamic range offered by a filter or a combination of filters.

I do both, depending on the specifics of an individual image and my intentions for it. For challenging situations blending or painting wins hands down over what you can achieve in the field with filters. But then there are situations where the filters work easily and well. Why bother with blends and painting on those? As a rule of thumb I'll try the NDs on a scene, then shoot it for a blend as well before breaking down my equipment. Call it a "bracket" of the scene.

I don't mind doing the computer work when necessary, but I certainly don't want to spend another minute at the computer if I don't have to!

I also use Grad ND filters in the field. There are still times I blen on the computer. It depends. So, I wouldn't sell my filters.

I don't even know how to blend, so I use the grads. I'll bet if I did know how to blend, it would still take longer than slapping on a filter. What I want to know is when we'll be able to dial in the blending on-camera.

Like others here, I use both GND's, blending, and double or triple RAW processing, depending on the circumstance. I think each has it's positives and negatives.

Since I don't yet know how to do blending, I still use ND grads. And with my favorite kind of photography, throw in a wrinkle. I like to photo trains as they move through the landscapes. Essentially these are landscapes that have a choo-choo in them. The problem I think I would have with blending is the train is moving 40-50 mph. Obviously I'm not going to get multiple shots of the SAME scene since the train often intersects the skyline. Maybe I'm just making this harder than it needs to be. The ND Grads usually give me close enough results, but I'm starting to see I could further fine tune shooting several exposures and blending them. Just have to figure out how to do that, and then do it with a moving subject involved. Or, maybe I could talk real nice to the train crew and have them stop the train dead on the line right where I need it.


Kent in SD

Hey Kent & John - y'all might want to check out Darwin Wigget's article in Outdoor Photographer (July 06 I think) on double processing. It will astound you how easy it is, and can be extremely effective, especially in situations where GND's don't or can't work well.

I don't even own any GND filters or polarizers. I do it all in Photoshop or Photomatix Pro.

Frank I still take my GND with me in the field. Even still I don't use them as much as I used to. GND filters are still preferred for more extreme lighting situations. I find it much faster to create masks in PS for custom GND equivalent effects for all the other types of situations. For very complex subjects I'll use both techniques. GND filters and a circular polarizer will never go out of fashion for me.

Being able to blend exposures in post processing is what has enabled me to not buy filters. If I already owned them, I would definitely use them at least part of the time. Blending exposures is sometimes just as easy as putting on a filter, but other times it's a royal pain in the behind. Sometimes it just plain doesn't work, but the same can be said for GND's.

Hi Bill. I emailed Darwin and he says he didn't write for OP last year. Were you thinking of someone else?
Thanks,
Frank

Hi Frank - I plead guilty to old age and brain fade. Sorry for the misinformation. The article was actually written by Moose Peterson - July 06 issue of OP. Sorry for any inconvenience.