I want to get into landscape photography and I just spent $800 on lee products. Now I'm starting to feel a little bit of buyer's remorse. After all, I get the impression that with a little extra work I could probably do most things with HDR. I have done some reading about HDR, so I am aware of the pitfalls regarding ghosting, etc--but for the most part, it seems like a good technique.
Ok, I just wanted to get that out of the way. I was wondering about using GNDs for landscape. Let's say you have a straight line and a large tree. How can you prevent the tree from looking darker at the top? Would you do post-processing to deal with it?
From what I have seen of HDR processing on this board "a little extra work" isn't. There seems to be a real learning curve. To achieve tasteful, quality HDR images takes a lot of work, either up front in learning and practice of the technique, and/or proper care afterwards. There is no free lunch IMO. Out of all the HDR images posted here, my opinion is that maybe 25% look realistic. Not that realistic always is the final objective.
As Craig said, theres some learing curve in producing high end results using either method.
$800 seems like a very expensive day out at the shops, given that the filters I use only cost £12 each and a simple holder that costs a fiver.
However, i rarely use them and have gone head long in the exposure blending route, which takes time to master but can give some significant advantages as you note with your tree question.
This image below was a exposure blend, and i believe would of been very difficlut using filters. http://www.sussexlandscapephotography.co.uk/wpimages/wpaa687140_05.jpg
a tough choice, and a little tougher for you given the money you have already invested!
simon
I tried the gnd route and struggled with exactly the issue you questioned. Have since sold all my gnd stuff.
I have much better success blending exposures manually to get the light on 'that' tree, or uneven mountain ridge, etc. just right.
There are myriad blending techniques out there, including HDR, of which I am not a big fan. I get much more realistic feelings from manually blending using luminosity masks, or double processing raws, sometimes a simple layer mask, than HDR ever gets! (I think Craig's 25% is being generous.)
Barry
BTW, the blending process can be time consuming and as Simon mentioned entails quite a learning curve, but after you've done it a few times, it does become much easier, almost second nature.
You are getting some valuable advice from some highly respected participants on this particular forum. Guys who have posted many, many outstanding images.
I certainly would not disagree with anything they are saying, BUT - I don't think your investment in GNDs has been wasted.
I think the first step to becoming proficient at the post processing techniques recommended here is to first learn what is possible in camera using your GNDs.
Take a look at what Adam Barker achieves through proficient use of filters in high dynamic range situations.
I also think all would agree that although what matters most is the finished image, however attained, there is a certain satisfaction ( thrill even ) to nailing a tough scene in camera.
Before anybody else jumps in to remind me - I haven't succeeded in doing that very many times
My honest opinion...don't get too hung up on filters and HDR, unless you're constantly shooting into the light, you really don't need to use it that much. In fact, I never use it anymore when shooting into strong light as there are other techniques which are simpler and allow you greater control using RAW and Photoshop.
Thanks for the input everyone. I think I will eat ramen for some months and stick with the GNDs. If needed, I'll just sell them. I will certainly look around for more info on HDR and exposure blending, they seem extremely valuable techniques...
I really don't see the need for a single approach for dealing with the problem of lighting extremes. There are many ways to handle the situations as described above and all are valid techniques that will yield good results depending on the scene and light you are trying to capture. Manual blends is my own favorite for static scenes where there are no moving subjects. Toss in a waterfall or waves on a coastline and that blending task can get quite complex if it is doable at all. For any kind of subject with a flat horizon the GND solution can work wonders and this is likely the tool of choice for a coastal sunset/sunrise with a lot of dynamics in the waves.
HDR software has had an impact on almost all of our post processing tools at this point and we have some of the tone mapping tools for highlights and shadows while converting single RAW captures in Lightroom, DxO Optics Pro, and Capture One Pro to name a few. Combine this with double processing RAWs as Barry describes above and some manual blending and your palette gets extended even further. There is no reason why GND cannot be employed for the initial capture to feed into these tools and good manual blending techniques are the best way to fix the artifacts of GND on non linear subjects. HDR solutions like Photomatix (for the record I do own a copy) strike me as a quick fix solution for those who are not willing to learn how to do good post processing with very mediocre results. The blending work done by this program is almost always easy to spot given it's slavish adherence to including all of the pixels in all of the layers. That is something most of us rarely ever do in manual blends if your goal is sharp focus in your images.
I see all of these tools and post processing techniques as nice skills to have in hand when I approach any given scene and try to think about how I can deploy them before I actually take the shot. That way I can hopefully maximize my chances of turning a capture into a nice result.
There are many different types of scenes in landscape photography and it's best to be able to take advantage of all of them. Yes gnd's are great and it's good to know when to use them and when not use them. There are 2 different forms of HDR. Tone mapped or similar and HDR with layer masking. One of these forms offer may work better then the other at times.
It's all about OPTIONS!
I've got more to say but typing on an iPhone is like chisling into rock.
Great input. I asked someone on POTN a similar question. And one thing you can do with GNDs is feathering. If I understood him correctly, you handhold a soft edge GND and move it around to get rid of the transition line. I saw some of his work where the horizon isn't straight and there's this huge cathedral-structure jutting up on the right side. It looks perfectly good! Just thought, I'd add some new info I've been gathering...
I want to get into landscape photography and I just spent $800 on lee products. Now I'm starting to feel a little bit of buyer's remorse. After all, I get the impression that with a little extra work I could probably do most things with HDR. I have done some reading about HDR, so I am aware of the pitfalls regarding ghosting, etc--but for the most part, it seems like a good technique.
Ok, I just wanted to get that out of the way. I was wondering about using GNDs for landscape. Let's say you have a straight line and a large tree. How can you prevent the tree from looking darker at the top? Would you do post-processing to deal with it?
There is a third option, and it is the one that I generally favor for landscape work. Rather than going the HDR route, I prefer to manually blend two (or occasionally more) exposures in post.
GND filters were realistically the best and perhaps only option when working with film, and especially when shooting slides. Really wonderful work has been and still can be done with them. However, "the ante has been upped" since more precise and varied results have become possible with exposure blending. Certain classic photographs by well-known and respected photographers relied upon GNDs, and for the most part we weren't bothered by the linear divisions between areas of the frame at the time. But now that "better" results are possible, I find myself more aware of the GND artifacts in both these fine older photographs and in newer photos using the technique - and I would prefer to avoid this.
GNDs are great in some situations - especially those in which the frame can be divided along a line between bright and dark sections. The classic bright sky above dark horizon images come to mind. But using them in more complex situations is not so swell. Think of shooting out the end of a steep v-shaped canyon, a scene with a shadowed peak or perhaps a silhouetted tree projecting into bright sky, an image in which the bright/dark division falls along a curve, or one in which the bright and dark areas are distributed throughout the frame (as in sunlight filtering through a forest canopy). Here, either HDR or exposure blending provide much better options.
My approach is to use manual exposure blending, but I know of people who have mastered the subtle use of HDR (alone or combined with blending) to produce wonderful photographs.
Likewise, I strongly recommend either blending two exposures or even creating "fake"-exposures from a single RAW and blending the two. The following picture was achieved by the latter method and I think it looks fairly natural. No wonkiness commonly associated with HDR here.
Dan, I post a fair bit of exposure blending as well as HDR to the forum. Some are better than others. I also own a 3 stop reverse gnd, and a 2 and 3 stop soft gnd.
800 is a lot of money. I am assuming you have bought singhray stuff.
I will tell you that I rarely use my filters. I still do b/c I have them, and challenges are fun, and I specially use them If I am doing stitching, just b/c the number of exposure and work becomes so much. I would say that exposure blending still gives the most natural look, and it is very rare that I fell a gnd would have been better. Additionally, if you are shooting in to the sun, the filter can add flare and decrease contrast.
Here is an HDR shot I posted recently http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5023/5663479646_d12fa21527_b.jpg
Here is the same shot, exposure blend. http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5306/5676273621_2530aa63be_b.jpg
Not as dramatic. more realistic. I can blend the two though to get a happy medium. Here is one with pure exposure blending with moving parts in it (seagulls) which would have been very difficult with filters http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/5568804074_31f5ef0d42_b.jpg
and here is another one exposure blending, which is one of my favorite shots. http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5362356787_90d8c3e10d_b.jpg
the HDR version was messy, with dirty water, noisy, and over all not any good.
)
