The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

GND Filters. Why use 'em?

B

Bob Davis

Guest
Graduated Neutral Density filters. For many years my GND filters go everywhere my camera goes. Probably my most used filters. Of course, they attract dust like a magnet which is not much fun when you're trying to set up in a hurry.

For a while now, I've been using the GND filter in the Nik software suite. I like this a lot, with all the flexibility and everything.

Does this make glass filters obsolete?
 

SergeiR

New member
no it doesnt. Think how it works and answer becomes obvious.

It helps you to contain dynamic range, that overwise simply wont fit in single shot.
 
Last edited:

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Some folks like GNDs a lot but I find them problematic.
The issue for me is that the edge or the graduation often does not line up with my scene or conform to its shape. I rather shoot a couple of images with appropriate exposures and mask them together later in PS. I get a lot more control this way.
-bob
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
+1 to what Bob said. With digital and in MY view (I respect others may vary), I feel Split ND's are no longer needed. Regular ND's for things like moving water, yes; but the splits, no. Re processing, I've even had better luck processing two versions of the same raw file, one for sky and one for foreground, and then blend them after the fact than I ever got using an SND. In addition to making your blend line exactly follow your horizon line, you can tweak the color of each part to taste, in effect giving you a custom contour with custom color gradient SND all in one.

PS: SND's do work very well whenever your horizon is linear, like for a sea-scape shot. So if one does a lot of those, I would concede the SND use as effective there ;).
 

goesbang

Member
I shoot with Phase One's P65+. Even with it's massive 12+stop dynamic range, I find I often need a GND to pull a scene into usable range, especially when shooting outdoors. Remember that you cannot add detail that isn't there with burning, etc. You just end up adding tone.
I carry .3, .45, .6, .9 and 1.2 factor filters in both hard and soft transition configuration. I carried HiTec's for many years but use Lee 4x6" these days due to continuity of supply issues.
Whilst I carry a wide range, the filter that ends up in front of my lens 80% of the time is the .6 (2stop) soft grad.
If you'd like to see the results, have a look at the architectural and industrial sections of my website, www.bryansiebel.com
Software solutions cannot apply detail that is not there in the raw file. If you are shooting DSLR, not med-format, the GND's become even more invaluable due to the smaller dynamic range.
Bob's comment about them being problematic is a fair one. I choose to live with the problems as I feel the rewards outweigh the dramas. You have to weigh up the pros and cons for yourself factoring all manner of things including portability and bulk, cost in coin as well as time and the type of gear you work with as well as the type of subject matter you shoot.
Alas, there are no free lunches.
Cheers,
Siebel
 

SergeiR

New member
Well if horizon is all crowded with irregular shapes then yes - its makes more sense to just make two shots, exposing for sky and for ground and then glue them together in PS
 

Jeffg53

Member
I still use ND grads. A Lee 2 stop soft works extremely well for daytime shots where I need to balance sky and land. Placement is very forgiving even in uneven horizon shots. I really should start digital blending but I just can't get my head out of the 'get it right in camera' space.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I still use ND grads. A Lee 2 stop soft works extremely well for daytime shots where I need to balance sky and land. Placement is very forgiving even in uneven horizon shots. I really should start digital blending but I just can't get my head out of the 'get it right in camera' space.
But that is just not possible, close but no cigar.
-bob
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
What, in particular, isn't possible?
You can get them close,
you can get them perhaps pleasing,
but you can't get it "right" unless you are dealing with a totally straight edge and have a grad that it just right.
I can almost always spot them and it is at least for me as annoying as heck.
-bob
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
His point is the "line" of the SND can NOT follow the contour of a horizon unless it is a true line -- and your hill is definitely not offering a flat horizon and the "hill" gets darker (and the green hue of the grass changes too) as you go up it :).
 

Jeffg53

Member
Thanks Jack. This is a pointless discussion because, in this case the hill did actually get darker as it went up, and I was responding to an assertion that right is something that can be measured. I'm finished.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Yup, what Jack said.
Personally, I prefer something like this technique.
The sky exposure is about three stops under the valley.



-bob
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Thanks Jack. This is a pointless discussion because, in this case the hill did actually get darker as it went up, and I was responding to an assertion that right is something that can be measured. I'm finished.
It can be measured.
If indeed the hill did get darker then there was not much effect with that graduated ND.
So if it had no effect? then why use it?
-bob
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Thanks Jack. This is a pointless discussion because, in this case the hill did actually get darker as it went up, and I was responding to an assertion that right is something that can be measured. I'm finished.
No offense is intended here at all, we're all just trying to answer the OP's question and carry on a valuable discussion for all of us to learn from, no need to get upset.

Re it being an assertion that can be measured, wouldn't we need an example of your image above *without* the filter to prove that assertion? The fact is, we all KNOW FOR CERTAIN that a 2-stop feathered-edge SND positioned with the split at mid-frame is going to ultimately knock 2-stops of light off the top of the image relative to the bottom -- that's physics and cannot be debated. In a situation where light falls off naturally, that will show in a frame with NO filter, then adding the SND will alter it further -- by exactly X stops at the top relative to the base -- and we can measure that difference if we have an unfiltered frame as the reference. That's all we're saying.

I think the debate here is whether or not an SND is needed or pleasing, or if performing the effect digitally after the fact is better, or worse, or indifferent. And there, each of us gets to make our own call as to what we prefer and why -- where it ultimately boils down to an aesthetic/artistic choice :)

Cheers,
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Bob,

How do you blend in the underexposed sky without producing halos or artifacts? They are frequently visible (and distracting) in blended or HDR photos. Either the feathering has be done somewhere, or an uneven horizon has to be perfectly traced, and that usually looks artificial as well.

Of course, back in the old days, such dodging and burning halos were frequently obvious, but also sometimes worked within the picture. (I'm thinking of the Ansel Adams examples in his books).

Best,

Matt
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Bob,

How do you blend in the underexposed sky without producing halos or artifacts? They are frequently visible (and distracting) in blended or HDR photos. Either the feathering has be done somewhere, or an uneven horizon has to be perfectly traced, and that usually looks artificial as well.

Of course, back in the old days, such dodging and burning halos were frequently obvious, but also sometimes worked within the picture. (I'm thinking of the Ansel Adams examples in his books).

Best,

Matt
Yup, that is one reason why I hate "hdr" techniques if one is trying to make a natural image.
I used a mask and the old brush tool.

Full disclosure:
I am an old dye-transfer printer and used to masking in the old films days LOL
A little diffusion goes a long way.
-bob
 
Top