Still Use Graduated Neutral Density Filters???

I am curious to know how many people still use graduated neutral density filters instead of blending two exposures in PS and why.

I understand some people want to do as much in the camera as possible to minimize time in front of the computer. I also see the advantage of using GND filters for panoramic's. Any other reasons?

For me you've already covered the reasons why I use GND's. If I can get it right "in-camera" why not do so? It's then one less thing I have to do later in Photoshop. I also think there is something wholey satisfying with practicing good camera technique - pride of accomplishment I guess.

Although there are times when a GND just won't work. Like for an uneven demarkation line between the bright sky and darker foreground. Then it's all about what can I do in Photoshop to get what I want.

Right tool for the right job I say.

Long ago when Photoshop first appeared on the scene, it spawned a verb: to photoshop. Because things could be "fixed later" it was pretty easy to con yourself that you could photoshop your camera mistakes. While technically true, photoshopping comes at the prices you name: time and effort in front of the computer. I'd hate to think how many hours I've spent in front of a computer photoshopping problem images. But at least now I get to charge for my computer time. That is, unless I'm charging for too much of it. Customers are happiest if the photoshopping time is low compared to the shooting time.

For me, it only makes sense to invest the few seconds needed to mount and position split ND filters, rather than spending much more time blending images in the computer. No matter which blending technique you use, it is still more time consuming and difficult than using the filters.

It's a pretty simple choice for me. I know how to use GND's - I don't know how to blend in PSCS2... yet. After after I learn I will still probably do some of both. There are so many times when GND's just don't work well, especially here in the south where there are so many trees - so often there is no continuous horizon line, etc. It's always nice to have another arrow in the quiver.

I am basically lazy- I would much rather take 3 minutes and get it right in camera than spend lots of time later in PS trying to get it right there. A silly notion, perhaps...

Although as Rick pointed out, there are certainly times when split grads just don't work.

Doing it in Photoshop is a lot more work than just using a filter. I've done both many times. You can get much more extreme effects in photoshop, but all of the outlining, blending, matching up the movement of time differences, camera movement, and etc can make doing it later much more dificult.

Also there is a quality benefit using a grad in camera vs stitching highlight/shadow exposures.

Imagine a strongly backlit scene with a bright sky and shadowed foreground. The background is so bright that when you expose for the foreground there is a lot of scattered light polluting the scene reducing contrast and killing colours. A grad filter not only reduces the brightness of the scene, it tends to reduce the 'spill' of bright background flare in the photo. I have experimented extensively stitching PS exposures in strong backlight VS using grads. The grad shots are always better with contrast, and colour and control of flare than are the PS stitched images. Plus of course all the post-processing time saved.

Darwin
www.darwinwiggett.com

I use ND grad filters all of the time. To me it's somehow more satasfying using filters than doing it later in photoshop.

Darwin, thank you for the basic "how it works" on the filters. As a recent convert I sure appreciate the tips. I use ND grad filters in the field because I can fine tune the image the way I want to on a screen larger than the one I have at home!

Thank you all for your replies.

I understand the desire by many to do as much in camera as possible but I guess I'm not real concerned with that. I'm most interested in the quality advantages (or disanvantages)of each method. Darwin definitely hit on an important point.

At the risk of being the lone voice in favor of digital GNDs, I would like to offer my reasons behind my decision to sell my filter set on eBay. :)

First of all, my shooting style is fast and furious, with no time for fumbling with filters while the light is changing rapidly (I share a camera with my husband, so we are constantly jostling for equipment during the best light). Instead, I prefer to adjust brightness and contrast on my photograph using refined gradient masks on adjustment layers to produce the GND that is most appropriate for the scene. I find this gives me much finer control than any traditional GND could offer. Additionally, it gives me the ability to try out virtually unlimited GND gradations without damaging the original image, whereas once you take that picture with your GND in place, that's it, you better be darn sure you got it right.

Here's a quick overview of how I use digital GNDs: http://www.farrarfocus.com/ffdd/bc.htm

But really, the most important consideration about which technique to use really boils down to: What are you comfortable with? What works best for you? The nice thing is that we have the option to choose. Cheers!

I can find you another reason for using ND grads: Trying to photograph the action at time with high exposure latitude: like photographing crashing waves at sunset. If one would like to get that perfect wave into the photo, one can not combine exposures. Othervise your foreground and background would not match.

Marko

I still use ND Grads. Since I shoot primairly 4x5, taking multiple exposures for blending purposes is not an option: it is simply too expensive. I also prefer (from a philosophical standpoint) to capture the tonal scale and color on the film. Secondarily, I do my darndest to limit 'after-capture' adjustments in PS because I spend enough time at the computer.

Honestly, I feel that each photographer should use the tools they feel most comfortable with, to greatest extent possible, in order to achieve the look and feel they want from their work.

Best regards to all,

-PB

Similar to Marko's comments, any time there's a chance that some element in the scene could move between multiple exposures, a GND filter is a safer choice. A breeze can cause foreground flowers to move and make blending more difficult later on and possibly result in reduced sharpness.

I also shoot LF a lot and multiple exposures there is an expensive proposition.

Umm, I forgot to mention that I’m on that train too, Preston. Since this is a digital forum, don't you think it's dangerous to reveal that we are a of dinosaurus largeformaticus species? Someone might hunt us down as rare species .

Marko

"Someone might hunt us down as rare species . "

I just heard that the UN, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the European Union declared that dinosaurus largeformaticus is endangered, and therefore will be protected from predation by photographicus digitalis forever!

-PB

Cheers Preston,

It's nice to hear that you didn't lost your LF (read weird) humor !

Take care
Marko