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?

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
And make no mistake: there is a "blend line" (or more accurately, a "blend zone") with either method! The difference is how well one can camouflage it...
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
I carry a 2 stop and a gentle grad, but don't get that much use out of them - for it to work for me I really do need a straight horizon. I agree that the effect looks like hell if the horizon isn't straight. But where it works it can be interesting - for example this image from the Salton Sea - which is how it came out of the camera with the grad matching the sky to the water:

 
I use mine a lot at the ocean where im trying to catch movement etc like my last shot i posted in the photo section.. and I dont want to blend exposures... I think they can be used with success a lot of the time, but yeah with mountains n stuff they arn't the best, I usually only use them If im getting slightly blown out highlights too otherwise I wont use them.
 
Last edited:

Jeffg53

Member
where it ultimately boils down to an aesthetic/artistic choice :)

Cheers,
Jack,

I'm far too old and thick skinned to take offense at stuff like this. I was simply taking issue with a statement which said that there was a right and a wrong in these matters. I agree with your quoted statement above fully.

I'll happily post the FFF if anyone is interested. The use of the 2 stop soft in shots like this is to contain the sky only. Any effect on the landscape is minimal. Two stop soft Lee filters are diabolically hard to even see when setting them up.
 

baxter

New member
Bob and Jack - please can you point me to a tutorial explaining blending? I've been shooting RAW files ready for using this technique for a while, especially with the 28mm Phase lens, but not stepped up to the plate and actually tried to perform the blend. So there are a number of potentially strong images residing on my hard drive in kit form....

I do carry and use Lee ND grads (hard and soft) as most of my images are Coastal. Whilst I've achieved a hardware solution to use larger ND grads with the 28mm it has issues over and above the limitations outlined in this thread!

Where things are fast moving such as waves, ND grads are v helpful. Wish I could find an equivalent when I want to focus stitch/blend! I'm having issues with halos using Helicon Pro... nearish rock against distant water and sky. Ideally sometimes its a focus AND exposure blend that is needed. Hence my request for a tutorial!
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
Yup, what Jack said.
Personally, I prefer something like this technique.
The sky exposure is about three stops under the valley.

The reflection in the water is too bright given the sky it reflects. You need to include the reflection in your mask. Also, the ground is too bright to have been illuminated by that sky - and it was, because if the light came from behind you you the shadows wouldn't be as deep.
 

fotografz

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



-bob
Not taking sides in this conversation, as there is no perfect solution to the problem being discussed ... only good/better/best "artists" in using the medium.

This example looks un-natural to me because the backlit tree line in the distance is to light, and slightly graded top to bottom. Over-all, it feels tonally to even ... or perhaps, to even in the wrong places. However, it is a pleasing scene.

If I were a landscape shooter, (which I am not), I doubt I'd use NDs because of the effect already discussed re: irregular horizons ... same for cityscapes. However, I think in the quest to make the perfect image, we can get carried away to the point that nature starts becoming unnatural feeling compared to the human experience.

What is interesting is a study of the great landscape painters ... which I think many landscape photographers would benefit from immensely. Oddly, as unreal as we know these art works are, they "feel" more real than many landscape photographs because on their treatment and rendering of light in a more natural way.

I'm not advocating photography mimicking painting ... just an observation regarding seeing and rendering natural light ... which one would think of paramount importance in nature photography.

The Hudson River School "American Eden" is one of my personal favorites in this regard ... LOVE this stuff and I'm not generally interested in landscapes regardless of media used.

http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/4aa/4aa360.htm

So, the question is ... do we want it to be technically correct, or do we want the viewer to feel the power and majesty of nature? This would suggest a different path to applied techniques available to us, with a reordering of priorities when it comes to observing and capturing light.

-Marc
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Just for fun, this is a description of how I got there.
Folks are free to say if they like the result or not for that matter, I really do not take offense hearing different aesthetic opinions..

I do paint, or rather used to paint, and one of the things we painters do is to distort reality any way we want to achieve the effect desired.
The Hudson River School, for example is known for its dramatic skies and light coming from invisible places.
It is a heavily romanticized vision of landscape.
here is a typical example painted by Thomas Cole
View attachment 38008
There was no attempt to mimic natural lighting, but instead to create emphasis and contrast where the painter desired. It is possible to manipulate photographs in this way, but usually folks scream when I do LOL

This is the un-masked shot exposed for the foreground
View attachment 38015
This is perhaps the most "natural" shot other than some D&B in the lower corners and on the green clumps of grasses in the river.
I thought the sky just too bright and that is one reason I took a second exposure of the sky.
Perhaps it balances better with the reflections in the water, which I did measure in my finished image to make sure that they were not as bright as the sky, but I agree might be taken down a bit per Jan's comment. In the Thomas Cole painting, the river is much brighter than it ought to be. I don't think that his goal was "natural".

Following is the original image with a soft graduated filter applied (brightness/contrast adjustment layer with a graduated mask)
View attachment 38009
This an attempt to simulate a Lee soft grad.
I don't particularly like the result since it darkens the higher cliffs with a loss of texture and visual contrast. The cliffs are just not that interesting any more. The bottom of the notch is still too bright to my taste. I suppose that if the filter were cut to the appropriate shape this might be avoided, but that is not really practical in the field. This was the cause of my original comment that with a grad filter it cannot be done "right" in the camera. I allow as it is possible for some scenes but nevertheless, one is faced with the fact that it is a straight line grad and not a Yosemite Valley View-shaped grad. It also does not proportionally reduce the brightness of the sky reflections which would require further D&B but that ends up looking pretty dull.

So I blended two images with a mask and got this
View attachment 38013
I liked it better based on the appearance of the cliffs, but still, maybe it is the painter in me LOL, I wanted a bit more "drama" in the sky, so I clipped on an adjustment layer to get to the final image.

View attachment 38014
So there you have it,
YMMV
-bob
 

etrump

Well-known member
Looks pretty good to me Bob. Looked about like this when I was standing in this spot. If you compare it to an unblended image or GND those trees would be darker than what your eyes would see. I think we get so used to looking at photographs with more limited DR we forget what it is like viewing naturally.

FWIW I quite using GND for the simple reason is I can't stand the dark treetops. Nice in theory but the transition area gives image that 1980-90's film look where you had no choice.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
The reflection in the water is too bright given the sky it reflects. You need to include the reflection in your mask. Also, the ground is too bright to have been illuminated by that sky - and it was, because if the light came from behind you you the shadows wouldn't be as deep.
I agree that the reflections could be brought down a bit, but I want them bright.
The brightest bright next to the darkest dark...
As for the rest of the light, well it was mostly overcast and that is pretty much how the foreground looked.
-bob
 
Last edited:
B

Bob Davis

Guest
To All,

Since I am the original poster, I'll step in here and thank everyone for a good and thoughtful discussion. Especially to the "other" Bob for showing some of his technique and thought process.

And then Marc sums things up nicely:

So, the question is ... do we want it to be technically correct, or do we want the viewer to feel the power and majesty of nature? This would suggest a different path to applied techniques available to us, with a reordering of priorities when it comes to observing and capturing light.

-Marc
This would lend itself nicely to a whole other thread. Personally, I don't really have an interest in showing exactly what the camera captured. I'm more interested in an image that results in an emotional reaction from the viewer.

Many participants on this board should have an honorary PHD in Image Forensics. I would flee the building in fright if any of you entered my gallery to examine my work. :) On the other hand, my customers don't seem to be photographers. They are just normal people who like / don't like what they see.

Again, thanks for the good discussion.

Bob
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Bob and Jack - please can you point me to a tutorial explaining blending? I've been shooting RAW files ready for using this technique for a while, especially with the 28mm Phase lens, but not stepped up to the plate and actually tried to perform the blend. So there are a number of potentially strong images residing on my hard drive in kit form....

I do carry and use Lee ND grads (hard and soft) as most of my images are Coastal. Whilst I've achieved a hardware solution to use larger ND grads with the 28mm it has issues over and above the limitations outlined in this thread!

Where things are fast moving such as waves, ND grads are v helpful. Wish I could find an equivalent when I want to focus stitch/blend! I'm having issues with halos using Helicon Pro... nearish rock against distant water and sky. Ideally sometimes its a focus AND exposure blend that is needed. Hence my request for a tutorial!
Where are you located?
Jack is in the San Francisco Bay area and I am near Boston.
I am sure that either of us can be persuaded to do a one on one.
-bob
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
For me I don't use anything but regular ND filters and the occasional polarizer. I use two different ways to get better skies like this either the use of masking with another darker sky image or processed darker. I also use Color editor a lot in C1 and that my friends is one helluva a awesome tool. Sometimes it is a combination but I will mask feather and replace with a better sky completely as well. I always tell folks if they see a great sky out shoot it for backgrounds just never know when you may need it somewhere else. When I worked in the aerospace business back in the day I used to just go out and shoot cloud formations and they would always wind up in brochures with jets flying in or out of them. The power of graphic designers at work. LOL
 

baxter

New member
Oh thank you very much for the kind offer Bob - Sadly I'm over in the UK. I was simply wondering if there is a decent run through on a website (or a good old-fashioned book!) that you, or someone else following this thread might know of.

I'm confident with computers, Photoshop inc pen paths etc, but wanted to learn and get up to speed in the most time-efficient manner. It's almost certainly apprehension at the prospect of not knowing what to do which is delaying me from biting the bullet.
 
Top