Posted by Dottie Short on June 15, 2010 at 12:48 PM
I know questions can't be answered as either black or white, but most often the answer falls in the gray area. I am trying to decide if I should purchase HDR SW, graduated neutral density filters, or both for landscape photography. I also found that I can quite often achieve good results by editing in ACR. I downloaded a popular HDR SW from the web, and that too was easy to use with good results. The 4" x 6" NDF hand-held in the field seem as if they would be difficult to use. I seem to already have both hands busy, and it may be difficult to keep them clean.
Please share your opinion and experiences with these products.
There have been spirited discussions about this in the past, probably over at the Landscape forums. And as you guessed, folks seem to fall on either side.
I base my choice on an aversion to spending more time image processing than is "necessary." If I can do the job in original capture using a split or graduated ND filter, I'm not about to sentence myself to extra computer time with HDR. I certainly use HDR when forced, but that's rare. Time is money for me, and when I'm being paid to shoot, that's what I try to do. If a client insists on HDR and is willing to pay for the extra computer necessary, certainly I'll do it. But if the client is only paying for shooting, nah.
I had the same question about a year ago too. It seemed that in many cases the ND filters weren't adequate and also there were many situations where using just the HDR multiple exposures couldn't adequately cover the range of lighting. So I finally went both ways, and now carry the large GND and ND filters along with a Cokin Z-Pro holder. The latter allows me to use these large filters without trying to handhold them. I have experimented with Photomatix for HDR and will soon get PS5 as I've heard that its HDR capabilities are much better. I know that there are folks on here who say that HDR is all you need but I've run into too many situations where there was just too much light and I needed the ND filters to make it right. I also agree wiht Hank that if you can do it with the filters it can save a lot of post-processing computer time needed for the HDR work. Good luck--Larry
You have to take hard and soft costs into account, I believe.
Hard costs: Filters and holder(s) that will fit your lens(es). The cost of high quality, easy to use software
Soft costs: Computer time processing images. Time in the field. Learning new skills.
Hard costs...
ND grad filters of high quality, in differing strengths, will be costly. I use Singh-Ray in 2-stop and 3-stop soft, and 3-stop hard (all are optical quality acrylic). Mine are 100mm wide and cost about $100.00 each. The Cokin holder was less than $50.00. Other excellent ND Grad filters can be had from HiTech or Lee. I don't do HDR, so I can't say what excellent software would cost.
Soft costs...
With some practice, using ND Grads in the field is quick and easy. The hardest part is doing the mental gymnastics to decide which filter to use. If you use a holder, you can set the filter's position and, once done, both hands will be free.
You will have to compare processing time using HDR with what you need to do on an image using only ND Grads. Personally, I shoot in order to minimze post processing time. I should note that I use 4x5 film, so HDR or blending is not something I even consider.
If you have the means to run some tests and compare the two workflows, along with the hard costs comparison mentioned above, you'll be better able to make very informed decision.
One little tip about GND filters I picked up here at NPN years ago:
It can be hard, if not impossible to spot the transition in the filter while looking through your viewfinder. Carry a pad of the smallest size of sticky notes with you, and put one of those on the filter where the transition occurs. That makes it a snap to position, and it's easy to remove the note while leaving no marks on the filter. Priceless! Just so long as you remember to remove the note before shooting! Wonder why I pass on that last little bit of wisdom......
I come down on the side of doing it on the computer (of course, I actually like the computer work and I'm not constrained by trying to make a living at it). Not HDR, mind you, but replicating the results you can get with GND filters :
-- The transition can be any shape and vary in hardness
-- You could have more than one transition if need be
-- The actual amount of darkening is variable
-- Once you get used to doing it, it can go very quickly (a couple of minutes at most)
The biggest drawback by far is having to take multiple exposures, or multi-process RAW files. If you find you really hate that aspect, then maybe doing it with GNDs is the way to go. But that definitely has drawbacks too.
And all the talk of HDR is something completely different to me that's very far removed from GND filters. HDR is potentially a lot more complicated both in number of shots, processing time, skills needed, etc. CS and Photomatix HDR are just not the same animal as using GND filters, even if the very base concept is similar.
Posted by Richard Wong on June 15, 2010 at 5:34 PM
Philosophically, I'm a photographer, not a graphic artist, so my preference would be to get it all in one exposure. It is more emotionally-satisfying for me to get it close in-camera.
HDR works though if you don't go overboard with it.
Posted by John W. Wall on June 15, 2010 at 6:42 PM
I do both, sometimes on the same shot. I snap a few shots with the GND in different positions (higher or lower), and then I snap a few frames with different exposures for later blending. The hard part was finding the shot and setting up the tripod. Once it's set, using the filter and/or bracketing some frames in a landscape shot is usually trivial, so why not do both.
I'm not getting paid, so it's all fun for me. I use a blending program (a plug-in I run from Lightroom) called Enfuse which I donated $20 to download. Very simple to use. Very natural-looking results. In fact, if you like eye-popping HDR, you probably don't want Enfuse.
I only have two GND filters, a 2-stop and a 3-stop soft edge. You can sandwich them to make a 5-stop, but only if you hand-hold them. My Cokin filter holder fell apart and I never replaced it. If you're shooting from a tripod, you can hold the filter where you want it with one hand while holding the remote release with the other. Also, if you want to use the GND with, say a thin-mount polarizer, you won't be able to screw on a holder anyway.
Sounds like we're shooting from the same POV John. Finding the shot is the hard part.
Time and inspiration permitting, I'll shoot HDR exposures along with GND and everything else, but they're "insurance" more than anything else. Too often to count, GND results have been good enough for my needs. HDR insurance is cheap, though.
Dottie, I have not used HDR. However, I use grads all the time in the field. Like Preston I shoot 4x5, so more then one image at $5 a pop is where the rubber meets the road. As such, if I were using digital and had access to my grads, I might shoot for both processes. Shoot with the grads, and then follow up with shots to process in HDR. If the grads did the job in the original captures why bother with HDR. Unless you want to see how both would compare. The real upside to digital is the unending shots at no extra dollars.
I'm squarely on the side of blending multiple exposures (by hand, not HDR software).
Anything you put in front of your lens degrades image quality, no matter how minute.
And what happens if you don't have a nice level horizon (e.g. mountains, trees, etc.) to match the level line of the filter?
And if the filters get scratched?
Sorry, but grad filters are the old, imperfect method of controlling dynamic range. You have much more control over the outcome in the digital darkroom.
I use GND's frequently. I consider them indispensable. They are not perfect though - they have their shortcomings
I haven't been impressed with PhotoShop's (CS3) function. Perhaps later versions or other software give more satisfactory results.
Hand blending is a good technique when GNDs are not appropriate or if additional adjustments are needed.
A good photographer would use whichever techniques are available to him and none should be rejected out of hand. If I could choose only one, it would be GNDs.
Ansel Adams was a photographer that did the equivalent of HDR processing software on his images. From the point at which he previsualized his images, took careful spot readings of the range of brightness in his scene, to selecting the correct developing "soup" and time recipe, to meticulous darkroom work to extract unbelievable range of tones - he controlled the entire process to achieve those marvelous results. Not to mention taking 1000s of images.
HDR software, whether in Photoshop or as a third party standalone, is pretty close to that process. Manual HDR blending is even closer. Given the technological limitations of the gear, in certain scenes and for certain impact, it becomes necessary to use HDR, blending, masking and other techniques. Sometimes it just can't be captured as you see it in the viewfinder.
HDR and other Photoshop techniques frees the photographer from those technological constraints, to "focus" on getting that image. Knowing which ones, and when and how to apply them can only make one a better photographer. You don't necessarily have to become a graphic artist which is an entirely different thing altogether, to use Photoshop and other software to make your images what you want them to be.
I use a combination of filters and HDR, both in Photoshop and using Photomatix, and not necessarily all on the same image. I tend towards a more natural look to my images, but sometimes with the right image, I will go a little crazy, only because I can. I have not yet mastered the manual HDR blend approach well enough to make it useful for me.
Dottie - This is an interesting discussion and I'm glad you asked. Personally I own one ND grad (so far) and I handhold it, which is easy when you're using a tripod (which you have to do for multiple exposures too). I don't want to have to attach a holder.
But I am experimenting with combining multiple exposures and/or multiple processed files. My question is, can someone explain how PS HDR (I'm using CS5) is different from combining multiple exposures manually using layers? (Dottie, I hope I'm not hijacking the discussion!)
I've been to Richard Bernabe's clinics on landscape photography and HDR. He, and many others, have some fabulous tips on how to bracket your shots & process easily in PS for sunsets, and other tough lighting situations. The manual blending of two bracketed shots is very easy in Photoshop using basic masking techniques. In 5 minutes or less, I can take two bracketed sunrise shots (one for the foreground & one for the sky), and develop a great looking image that is natural to what I saw with the naked eye. The beauty of the HDR vs. GND filters is I rarely encounter a shot that has a straight line between the dark foreground and the light sky. Photomatics is great for HDR if absolutely NOTHING moves in the shot. That's rarely the case outdoors with tree leaves & such. Tony Sweet has a great video on using Photomatix from A-Z.
Another reason for using filters over HDR or image blending is that some contests, magazines, and shows are getting pretty tight about allowing blended or otherwise "altered" images (for example see Mike Moats macro contest rules in the NP Discussion section). Is this a trend that will persist, get worse, or go away? I don't know but the new software improvements like the clone tool in PS5 sure are making it hard to draw the line or even find it!
I fall squarely in the camp of John and Wick. I don't much like hdr software but manually blend images regularly. There are some that consider GNDs a more pure form of photography, are very quick and good at it and will always use them. The 'purity' argument is silly imo. I can simulate an GND by manually blending exposures in about 30 seconds - longer than it would take to bring out and put away a filter. Many will disagree, but imo, for the modern photographer, the grad is obsolete. The only reason to use a grad is if you are going to use the camera handheld and try to get the scene in one exposure - how often is the serious photographer going to take a landscape scene during good light like that?
Posted by Mark Stahlke on June 16, 2010 at 5:50 PM
I guess I'm not a modern photographer.
As a large format film shooter, I find GNDs indispensable. This has nothing to do with any foolish notions of purity. It's mainly due to the cost (both dollars and time) of shooting multiple exposures, scanning them, and then blending them.
HDR and blending are wonderful tools for digital shooters. They're much less useful for film shooters.
My question is, can someone explain how PS HDR (I'm using CS5) is different from combining multiple exposures manually using layers?
Michelle - As I stated before, HDR (when used to mean Photomatix, or CS5 or Enfuse, etc.) is a lot different process than manual blending. However, the basic goal is the same, and the end result can be very similar, which confuses things.
With HDR, you take several shots and merge them in software so that the luminance values of all of the pixels are maintained relative to each other. This includes the relationship from pixel to pixel as well as the total dynamic range of the scene. In order to do this, HDR uses 32-bit numbers (and floating point, rather than integer) to store all of that information - so the 32-bit HDR file contains a huge number of possible luminance values (respresents a larger dynamic range) and subtle differences from pixel to pixel.
This 32-bit information can't really be displayed, however - it's just a way of capturing all the possible information about the scene. The software then has to map that information back down into an 8 or 16 bit image in a format that can actually be displayed. This involves setting white and black points, and tone curves, that control how the mapping is done. This is also where the "fake" HDR look occurs as too many tones get evened out or squashed together.
So at the end, you may end up with something similar to what you get with manual blending -- but the process to get there ensures that if there's different gradations to be had, or different dynamic ranges to be shown, they're all possible in the 32-bit HDR file.
Finally, and maybe most important in a practical sense, HDR software works pixel by pixel, which you would probably never want to try to do within a manual blending of photos.
The only purity I know is a positive flow into our bank accounts. I use whatever photo technique gets the job done satisfactorily for our clients. As I said, if they're paying us for processing time, I'll HDR til I break their budget. But when doing "free" computer time is taking me away from paid time behind the viewfinder, we're not working in positive cash flow any more.
HDR is just a tool to be used when it makes sense and to be dumped when it doesn't. I base my cool index in accounts receivable, a paid-off commercial studio building and whale of a fun life. If GND contributes more than HDR to that, I'm happy to be obsolete.
Posted by Dottie Short on June 17, 2010 at 3:05 PM
Hey, Dottie.
We love cans of photo worms. It just means there's lots of pros and cons and no pat consensus. Sometimes you just have to give it your best shot based a varied and conflicting advice. Good luck!
Dottie- If you want to find which is comfortable, do what I did, I bought Photomatix Pro and I use PS4 and I also got various grad filters (combination of soft and hard and different stops).
Thing just didn't work for me! I was especially never comfortable with uneven horizons, and could not master the technique of correcting them later one (Especially with trees). I then played around with Photomatix and PS (thanks big time to Trey Ratcliff, one of the known HDR Gurus) and I found that to be more convenient. So I stuck with HDR, and sold off my filters.
Of course like Hank I am not constrained with billing a client. Photography is just a hobby to me (and my wife says quite a load expensive hobby at that )
Hey, Dottie.
We love cans of photo worms. It just means there's lots of pros and cons and no pat consensus. Sometimes you just have to give it your best shot based a varied and conflicting advice. Good luck!
I always knew you were a wise man Buck!
He's absolutely right, Dottie. Each of our needs and solutions will be individual, and one person's salvation will be another's millstone. The BEST solution is to try various approaches and settle on the one that best suits your needs and styles.
I'll add one insight garnered from my background: Keep an open mind. Situations, needs, techniques and gear change, as does your skill level and demands you put on yourself. What works today may not be the best answer tomorrow or in the next new situation.
I've learned to "bracket" my shooting methods right along with my exposures, as indicated "between the lines" of my previous posts. As time and opportunity permit, I shoot with and without GND's, with and without polarizers, multiple exposures for HDR apps, and very often with fill flash. My experience and resulting insights give me clues in the field which will give best results, but I can never be right 100% of the time. Having the "brackets" once you get home is priceless.
Getting all caught up in one method or another or getting whigged out about keeping up with latest fashion and technology is foolish when you have to produce, and no excuses. That's true whether you have a client waiting impatiently or you're an amateur trying to make the best use of travel dollars, shooting ops and time.
I think Buck hit the nail on the head. It boils down to individual preference and what works for you. I always found the GNDs frustrating for landscape photography. With digital, I have had really liked the ability to blend photos. I think HDR is something different from blending, but the HDR software does help sometimes in the blending process.
To show you just how individual it is, doing the same work or shooting the same locations on trips, my wife HATES using GND filters.
Her first step on casual landscape shoots is multiple exposures for blends/HDR, and she's likely never to pull a GND from her bag. On the job, if we get into a situation requiring adjustments and there's no time budgeted for post processing, she just tells me to shoot with the GND's.
I've used GND filters when I was shooting with a 4x5 field camera and film. Worked pretty good for me. But you always have to deal with the gradation line unless you are moving the filter, which I never really perfected. Tried the same when I transitioned to digital, but also tried HDR. I have found that shooting multiple exposures is easier and quicker for me than using the GND filters. Usually the situations where I would need either are fleeting moments and every second counts.
That said, HDR can be a challenge. I use Photomatix, and it tends to add unwanted fringe and noise which you have to deal with.
I am after a natural look, I loathe the "HDR" look. Therefore my approach has been to use Photomatix in conjunction with Photoshop to create the most realistic blends. I process the images first in Photomatix, and then blend the result in Photoshop with an original unprocessed image. This often eliminates the unwanted side effects and provides me with a very pleasing result that looks real and matches what I saw with my own eyes. This technique also is not very time consuming, so I have less time at the computer.
Thought you might want to know what John and Barbara Gerlach think:
"We have been trying a new technique with wonderful results and shot many HDR sets of images while we finished out instructional DVD in October on photographing the Eastern Sierra from Fossil Falls to Bodie-an area that we have been photographing for more than 20 years. You must look into HDR (High Dynamic Range) as it solves most contrast problems. While many of you have heard of and may use split neutral density filters to lower the contrast in a scene, HDR is much better and works far better on all of the scenes we tried it on. Indeed, split ND filters now seem primitive by comparison. Using HDR software (Photomatix Pro-www.HDRsoft.com) let’s you shoot an image that has extreme contrast, more than your digital sensor can handle anyway. Shoot a series of identical images that vary in exposure by at least one stop covering a range where there is excellent detail in the brightest highlights (unless it is the sun or a light source) and superb detail in the darkest shadows. Put all of the images in the series into the HDR software and it will combine the images into one so that excellent detail is found throughout the image. It eliminates overexposed highlights and you get detail in the darkest shadows (if you wish), without having a lot of noise problems in the shadows. It truly is revolutionary. We are no experts by any means at it yet, but the results are wonderful. If we can do it, anyone can!
John and Barbara Gerlach, Annual Letter, January, 2009. They have expressed identical views in their book, "Digital Landscape Photography".
Also see "Complete Guide to High Dynamic Range Digital Photography" by Ferrell McCollough with a long section comparing HDR and grad neutral filters. McCollough favors HDR because it is not scene dependent.
Discussion
27 repliesPlease share your opinion and experiences with these products.
Thanks in advance.
I base my choice on an aversion to spending more time image processing than is "necessary." If I can do the job in original capture using a split or graduated ND filter, I'm not about to sentence myself to extra computer time with HDR. I certainly use HDR when forced, but that's rare. Time is money for me, and when I'm being paid to shoot, that's what I try to do. If a client insists on HDR and is willing to pay for the extra computer necessary, certainly I'll do it. But if the client is only paying for shooting, nah.
You have to take hard and soft costs into account, I believe.
Hard costs: Filters and holder(s) that will fit your lens(es). The cost of high quality, easy to use software
Soft costs: Computer time processing images. Time in the field. Learning new skills.
Hard costs...
ND grad filters of high quality, in differing strengths, will be costly. I use Singh-Ray in 2-stop and 3-stop soft, and 3-stop hard (all are optical quality acrylic). Mine are 100mm wide and cost about $100.00 each. The Cokin holder was less than $50.00. Other excellent ND Grad filters can be had from HiTech or Lee. I don't do HDR, so I can't say what excellent software would cost.
Soft costs...
With some practice, using ND Grads in the field is quick and easy. The hardest part is doing the mental gymnastics to decide which filter to use. If you use a holder, you can set the filter's position and, once done, both hands will be free.
You will have to compare processing time using HDR with what you need to do on an image using only ND Grads. Personally, I shoot in order to minimze post processing time. I should note that I use 4x5 film, so HDR or blending is not something I even consider.
If you have the means to run some tests and compare the two workflows, along with the hard costs comparison mentioned above, you'll be better able to make very informed decision.
All the best,
--P
It can be hard, if not impossible to spot the transition in the filter while looking through your viewfinder. Carry a pad of the smallest size of sticky notes with you, and put one of those on the filter where the transition occurs. That makes it a snap to position, and it's easy to remove the note while leaving no marks on the filter. Priceless! Just so long as you remember to remove the note before shooting!
-- The transition can be any shape and vary in hardness
-- You could have more than one transition if need be
-- The actual amount of darkening is variable
-- Once you get used to doing it, it can go very quickly (a couple of minutes at most)
The biggest drawback by far is having to take multiple exposures, or multi-process RAW files. If you find you really hate that aspect, then maybe doing it with GNDs is the way to go. But that definitely has drawbacks too.
And all the talk of HDR is something completely different to me that's very far removed from GND filters. HDR is potentially a lot more complicated both in number of shots, processing time, skills needed, etc. CS and Photomatix HDR are just not the same animal as using GND filters, even if the very base concept is similar.
HDR works though if you don't go overboard with it.
I'm not getting paid, so it's all fun for me. I use a blending program (a plug-in I run from Lightroom) called Enfuse which I donated $20 to download. Very simple to use. Very natural-looking results. In fact, if you like eye-popping HDR, you probably don't want Enfuse.
I only have two GND filters, a 2-stop and a 3-stop soft edge. You can sandwich them to make a 5-stop, but only if you hand-hold them. My Cokin filter holder fell apart and I never replaced it. If you're shooting from a tripod, you can hold the filter where you want it with one hand while holding the remote release with the other. Also, if you want to use the GND with, say a thin-mount polarizer, you won't be able to screw on a holder anyway.
Time and inspiration permitting, I'll shoot HDR exposures along with GND and everything else, but they're "insurance" more than anything else. Too often to count, GND results have been good enough for my needs. HDR insurance is cheap, though.
Anything you put in front of your lens degrades image quality, no matter how minute.
And what happens if you don't have a nice level horizon (e.g. mountains, trees, etc.) to match the level line of the filter?
And if the filters get scratched?
Sorry, but grad filters are the old, imperfect method of controlling dynamic range. You have much more control over the outcome in the digital darkroom.
I haven't been impressed with PhotoShop's (CS3) function. Perhaps later versions or other software give more satisfactory results.
Hand blending is a good technique when GNDs are not appropriate or if additional adjustments are needed.
A good photographer would use whichever techniques are available to him and none should be rejected out of hand. If I could choose only one, it would be GNDs.
HDR software, whether in Photoshop or as a third party standalone, is pretty close to that process. Manual HDR blending is even closer. Given the technological limitations of the gear, in certain scenes and for certain impact, it becomes necessary to use HDR, blending, masking and other techniques. Sometimes it just can't be captured as you see it in the viewfinder.
HDR and other Photoshop techniques frees the photographer from those technological constraints, to "focus" on getting that image. Knowing which ones, and when and how to apply them can only make one a better photographer. You don't necessarily have to become a graphic artist which is an entirely different thing altogether, to use Photoshop and other software to make your images what you want them to be.
I use a combination of filters and HDR, both in Photoshop and using Photomatix, and not necessarily all on the same image. I tend towards a more natural look to my images, but sometimes with the right image, I will go a little crazy, only because I can. I have not yet mastered the manual HDR blend approach well enough to make it useful for me.
But I am experimenting with combining multiple exposures and/or multiple processed files. My question is, can someone explain how PS HDR (I'm using CS5) is different from combining multiple exposures manually using layers? (Dottie, I hope I'm not hijacking the discussion!)
~Michele
Larry
As a large format film shooter, I find GNDs indispensable. This has nothing to do with any foolish notions of purity. It's mainly due to the cost (both dollars and time) of shooting multiple exposures, scanning them, and then blending them.
HDR and blending are wonderful tools for digital shooters. They're much less useful for film shooters.
Michelle - As I stated before, HDR (when used to mean Photomatix, or CS5 or Enfuse, etc.) is a lot different process than manual blending. However, the basic goal is the same, and the end result can be very similar, which confuses things.
With HDR, you take several shots and merge them in software so that the luminance values of all of the pixels are maintained relative to each other. This includes the relationship from pixel to pixel as well as the total dynamic range of the scene. In order to do this, HDR uses 32-bit numbers (and floating point, rather than integer) to store all of that information - so the 32-bit HDR file contains a huge number of possible luminance values (respresents a larger dynamic range) and subtle differences from pixel to pixel.
This 32-bit information can't really be displayed, however - it's just a way of capturing all the possible information about the scene. The software then has to map that information back down into an 8 or 16 bit image in a format that can actually be displayed. This involves setting white and black points, and tone curves, that control how the mapping is done. This is also where the "fake" HDR look occurs as too many tones get evened out or squashed together.
So at the end, you may end up with something similar to what you get with manual blending -- but the process to get there ensures that if there's different gradations to be had, or different dynamic ranges to be shown, they're all possible in the 32-bit HDR file.
Finally, and maybe most important in a practical sense, HDR software works pixel by pixel, which you would probably never want to try to do within a manual blending of photos.
The only purity I know is a positive flow into our bank accounts. I use whatever photo technique gets the job done satisfactorily for our clients. As I said, if they're paying us for processing time, I'll HDR til I break their budget. But when doing "free" computer time is taking me away from paid time behind the viewfinder, we're not working in positive cash flow any more.
HDR is just a tool to be used when it makes sense and to be dumped when it doesn't. I base my cool index in accounts receivable, a paid-off commercial studio building and whale of a fun life. If GND contributes more than HDR to that, I'm happy to be obsolete.
We love cans of photo worms. It just means there's lots of pros and cons and no pat consensus. Sometimes you just have to give it your best shot based a varied and conflicting advice. Good luck!
Thing just didn't work for me! I was especially never comfortable with uneven horizons, and could not master the technique of correcting them later one (Especially with trees). I then played around with Photomatix and PS (thanks big time to Trey Ratcliff, one of the known HDR Gurus) and I found that to be more convenient. So I stuck with HDR, and sold off my filters.
Of course like Hank I am not constrained with billing a client. Photography is just a hobby to me (and my wife says quite a load expensive hobby at that
I always knew you were a wise man Buck!
He's absolutely right, Dottie. Each of our needs and solutions will be individual, and one person's salvation will be another's millstone. The BEST solution is to try various approaches and settle on the one that best suits your needs and styles.
I'll add one insight garnered from my background: Keep an open mind. Situations, needs, techniques and gear change, as does your skill level and demands you put on yourself. What works today may not be the best answer tomorrow or in the next new situation.
I've learned to "bracket" my shooting methods right along with my exposures, as indicated "between the lines" of my previous posts. As time and opportunity permit, I shoot with and without GND's, with and without polarizers, multiple exposures for HDR apps, and very often with fill flash. My experience and resulting insights give me clues in the field which will give best results, but I can never be right 100% of the time. Having the "brackets" once you get home is priceless.
Getting all caught up in one method or another or getting whigged out about keeping up with latest fashion and technology is foolish when you have to produce, and no excuses. That's true whether you have a client waiting impatiently or you're an amateur trying to make the best use of travel dollars, shooting ops and time.
Her first step on casual landscape shoots is multiple exposures for blends/HDR, and she's likely never to pull a GND from her bag. On the job, if we get into a situation requiring adjustments and there's no time budgeted for post processing, she just tells me to shoot with the GND's.
That said, HDR can be a challenge. I use Photomatix, and it tends to add unwanted fringe and noise which you have to deal with.
I am after a natural look, I loathe the "HDR" look. Therefore my approach has been to use Photomatix in conjunction with Photoshop to create the most realistic blends. I process the images first in Photomatix, and then blend the result in Photoshop with an original unprocessed image. This often eliminates the unwanted side effects and provides me with a very pleasing result that looks real and matches what I saw with my own eyes. This technique also is not very time consuming, so I have less time at the computer.
"We have been trying a new technique with wonderful results and shot many HDR sets of images while we finished out instructional DVD in October on photographing the Eastern Sierra from Fossil Falls to Bodie-an area that we have been photographing for more than 20 years. You must look into HDR (High Dynamic Range) as it solves most contrast problems. While many of you have heard of and may use split neutral density filters to lower the contrast in a scene, HDR is much better and works far better on all of the scenes we tried it on. Indeed, split ND filters now seem primitive by comparison. Using HDR software (Photomatix Pro-www.HDRsoft.com) let’s you shoot an image that has extreme contrast, more than your digital sensor can handle anyway. Shoot a series of identical images that vary in exposure by at least one stop covering a range where there is excellent detail in the brightest highlights (unless it is the sun or a light source) and superb detail in the darkest shadows. Put all of the images in the series into the HDR software and it will combine the images into one so that excellent detail is found throughout the image. It eliminates overexposed highlights and you get detail in the darkest shadows (if you wish), without having a lot of noise problems in the shadows. It truly is revolutionary. We are no experts by any means at it yet, but the results are wonderful. If we can do it, anyone can!
John and Barbara Gerlach, Annual Letter, January, 2009. They have expressed identical views in their book, "Digital Landscape Photography".
Also see "Complete Guide to High Dynamic Range Digital Photography" by Ferrell McCollough with a long section comparing HDR and grad neutral filters. McCollough favors HDR because it is not scene dependent.