I am curious to hear what you use, prefer and why.
I know some professional digital shooters still like GNDs. I am currently using a digital blend technique, but wanted to hear from others what they have found.
While blends can be more precise, GNDs are quicker when scene details make their use possible. Blends are a last resort. For us it boils down to a decision about how to spend our time. Would we rather spend our time in front of the computer doing blends or in the field looking for great shots? Easy choice.
I find myself using the filters less and less as my blending skills improve. Still, for many scenes, the filter is easier and quicker. Getting a natural-looking blend is not always trivial. In other cases, filters are of no use (i.e. when the highlights are not neatly in one place with a relatively straight separation) and blending produces much nicer results without the tell-tale "burned shoulders".
The best reason to use digital blends in my opinion is that there isn't always a good place to put the grad line. Digitally, the line doesn't even have to be a line. In one of the sunset images I posted recently, the digital grad ran straight across, except for a large tree and all of the little bits of sky poking through it. It's impossible to do the same thing with GND filters.
Michael - Maybe I'm just missing something, but why does water motion affect whether you would use a filter or digital technique?
If at all possible, I'd rather get the image right in camera rather than in PS. A GND definitely fills a purpose and saves a lot in post-processing. But having said that, there are certainly a lot of conditions under which the filters just won't do. It is a great time to shoot was we can get the best of both worlds, doing what works best for our subjects and workflow.
I'll never leave the GND at home, but it nice to know that a "V" came be successfully printed as well.
i've only done a handful of blends on double raw exposure processing on GND shots that weren't quite right. time consuming. personally I could live w/ grad lines as cleaning up dust and keywording takes enough computer time as is.
one of the things I use as a technique for movement is to use *one* RAW file. Then push two conversions - one for the sky, one for the foreground. The latitude from RAW seems to allow for 1.5 stops. Combining this with shadow/highlight adjustments helps. Now where there are 3+ stops of light this definitely shows its limits. Another thing for moving water/trees would be to use the single exposure for the foreground, then the darker/lighter exposure for the sky.
But for these cases I can see the advantage to getting it right 'in camera' first if the landscape allows (eg - relatively straight lines).
I am so pleased with the digital blends I make now that I gave away all my Singh-Ray GND filters. The only 2 filters I use anymore, and I rarely use them, are 2 polarizing filters that fit my 17-40L and my 70-200L. I don't miss the GNDs at all.
If the scene permits I like to bracket my exposures - one for the highlights and one for the shadows. Combining them in PS and using layer masks really doesn't take me much longer than setting up the grads properly and the results are better. Don't get me wrong, I still carry the grads with me and use them occasionally - especially when shooting 4X5. Although I like the digital blend results, the satisfaction of getting it right in the camera is definitely more rewarding
One of the things I like about getting it right in camera is that the colors are more natural in their progression. It seems like when working with the sky, making major shifts is an invitation to cause posterization, so if I can keep that to a minimum, I'm usually happier with the results. Its also my experience that something requiring multiple exposures from RAW usually requires at least twice the time on the computer to complete the image. I like sitting in front of the computer and all, but if I can spend less time prepping an image, that usually makes me happy.
Like others have said, there is a time and place for both GND filters and digital blending and I have certainly done both.
Derek, I remeber that Irish lighthouse from DPR. This is a nice follow-on to my GND post. As has been stated above there seems to be a place for both digital blends and hard grad filters. Since I have not tried the blend technique yet (PSE5 has layers but not mask I think) nor used grad filters, here is a thought I have been mulling over. How difficult is it to soften or correct transitional lines if the GND is not accurately placed or where the scene does not have a clean horizon line ie mountains? How do you overcome this issue?
John
- I often extract and blend in a 1 stop lower EV raw file just for sky detail.
- As we move to 14 bit DSLR it looks like we will have more bit depth to manipulate shadows. This should somewhat reduce the need to use grads/blend in borderline situations.
-- a lot depends on shooting style and intent. I would like to make ten or 15 "wall hangers" a year. I spend (and enjoy spending) many hours getting these files in shape to print. It's actually easier for me to have multiple exposures to use rather than a single shot with a grad: The top of a pine tree is clipped by the grad and is two stops too dark. How to fix it and make it look natural? That's the stuff I hate. But if I were shooting high dynamic ranges every week I would be trying to reduce computer time, maybe with grads.
- I would say to people currently not using grads to not assume that more stuff (a set of grads) will make better photos. Learning to quickly make masks and selections in photoshop will definitely make better photos. Nature photographers who hate computer time generally are either not productive in photoshop, or are producing a great many images. That's fine. I've taken thousands of shots with film and grads and I hate grads. We all have our thing. (O.K., hate is too strong. But control with grads seems crude to me)
- In most locations, landscape photographers who work in good light will not be using grads (or blending) constantly. Few great shots are made with ten stops of dynamic range. Vacation/travel photography (e.g. it's noon and I'm in Sedona) will have a greater need to control dynamic range.
- Everyone has seen a vast number of digital blends. You may just not realize how common it is.
I'm speaking of digital capture. I use grads with 4x5.
Discussion
12 repliesI know some professional digital shooters still like GNDs. I am currently using a digital blend technique, but wanted to hear from others what they have found.
Thank you,
- Derek
Guy
Michael - Maybe I'm just missing something, but why does water motion affect whether you would use a filter or digital technique?
I'll never leave the GND at home, but it nice to know that a "V" came be successfully printed as well.
Some of the best digital blends I have seen of moving water are those done by Kevin Logan. Here is one example:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=15717593&q=work+in+progress&qf=s
one of the things I use as a technique for movement is to use *one* RAW file. Then push two conversions - one for the sky, one for the foreground. The latitude from RAW seems to allow for 1.5 stops. Combining this with shadow/highlight adjustments helps. Now where there are 3+ stops of light this definitely shows its limits. Another thing for moving water/trees would be to use the single exposure for the foreground, then the darker/lighter exposure for the sky.
But for these cases I can see the advantage to getting it right 'in camera' first if the landscape allows (eg - relatively straight lines).
- Derek
Like others have said, there is a time and place for both GND filters and digital blending and I have certainly done both.
John
- I often extract and blend in a 1 stop lower EV raw file just for sky detail.
- As we move to 14 bit DSLR it looks like we will have more bit depth to manipulate shadows. This should somewhat reduce the need to use grads/blend in borderline situations.
-- a lot depends on shooting style and intent. I would like to make ten or 15 "wall hangers" a year. I spend (and enjoy spending) many hours getting these files in shape to print. It's actually easier for me to have multiple exposures to use rather than a single shot with a grad: The top of a pine tree is clipped by the grad and is two stops too dark. How to fix it and make it look natural? That's the stuff I hate. But if I were shooting high dynamic ranges every week I would be trying to reduce computer time, maybe with grads.
- I would say to people currently not using grads to not assume that more stuff (a set of grads) will make better photos. Learning to quickly make masks and selections in photoshop will definitely make better photos. Nature photographers who hate computer time generally are either not productive in photoshop, or are producing a great many images. That's fine. I've taken thousands of shots with film and grads and I hate grads. We all have our thing. (O.K., hate is too strong. But control with grads seems crude to me)
- In most locations, landscape photographers who work in good light will not be using grads (or blending) constantly. Few great shots are made with ten stops of dynamic range. Vacation/travel photography (e.g. it's noon and I'm in Sedona) will have a greater need to control dynamic range.
- Everyone has seen a vast number of digital blends. You may just not realize how common it is.
I'm speaking of digital capture. I use grads with 4x5.