very sweet shots. about exposure blending, how do you get the mask so precise, especially when you work with complicated objects like trees. do you use a tablet and paint it back or is there a better technique?
There is a good tutorial about using a sky mask using the blue channel somewhere. I actually primarily use the gradient tool for my masking and then clean it up using the brush tool.
hello, i bought the lee foundation filter, the soft and hard GND sets, adapter ring, and a 10 stop ND...but i think that maybe i will only keep the 10 stop nd and the 3-stop GNDs!
I think GNDs are a waste of money, weight, and time unless you are shooting large format. With digital landscape, manual blending of several exposures is generally more accurate, it a little time consuming. I assiduously avoid HDR or any other approach to processing that involves only sliders and buttons. Manual blends using variable blending modes, layer masks, and multiple RAW exposures is by far my preferred method.
In my experience, a RAW file gives me about 2 stops of latitude in highlights and shadows. Hence, you can often get all the information you need in a single exposure. This is also convenient under windy conditions where you have moving water or plantlife, since you don't have the tricky problem of resolving different positions of branches of waves from frame to frame.
However, for relatively static scenes, combining bracketed exposures gives you scope for doing even more.
When I shoot film, it's pretty hard to do HDR, so my filters get a lot of use.
When I shoot digital, I will actually use all three techniques discussed here - actually I'll sometimes shoot with a GND and then bracket a couple of shots to blend later, especially if it's a super high-contrast scene. Otherwise, especially for sunsets, a GND is enough, if I am on a tripod. Since you have the big-stopper, you can double up and experiment with longer exposures (tough to do on a computer) If I am handholding, it's exposure blends frequently and HDR occasionally.
I think there's a time and a place for all of these techniques - with no one right answer for every situation. The big downside of HDR/ExpBlds is that if you shoot a scene where you can't tell from what direction the light is coming, it can result in a composite image where the lack of an obvious light source can result in a flat image (why a lot of people say HDR done poorly looks "cartoonish" because all of the texture that is created from local contrast is gone). If you practice a bit, you can overcome that and produce some of the fine examples posted above in this thread. Learn your new gear and enjoy it.
All that said, my most used filters are NDs and my polarizer - the filters whose effects can be impossible to replicate in post.
Just to throw my 0.02 in there, but I don't think you should limit yourself to one tool in the tool box. I really like shooting with grads, and will do it most of the time. I do find, however, that I am doing a lot of layer masking to fine tune the exposure. This includes double processing RAW files, occasionally using exposure fusion on the photomatix hdr program to automate the process. For me, the closer I can get it right in the camera, means less time in front of the computer-which I think is a good thing!
As a guy who started out in film using just GNDs, polarizers and warming filters, to nowadays using GNDs, polarizers and manual blends using luminosity masks, I can say a few things that haven't been said.
First, GNDs have their own look that is hard to replicate, if you even would want to - even harder to describe what the look is, but you know it when you see it. In my opinion, GNDs get you into the ballpark right away and get you inspired about the image at the time of capture instead of hoping for some inspiration later when you're in front of the computer. This indeed helps me to take a better shot.
I wouldn't use them if there's too much thick vertical subject matter extending into the upper frame. However, some vertical is fine, as in the digital age you can brush in lighter tones using luminosity masks with very little problem, you just have to stay away from the edges, something I tried to do in my coloring books with crayons when I was five years old. That said, I was probably better at it then.
I don't find it troubling in most cases if the vertical material extending into the light areas is dark - guess what, that happens when I use my eyes, too. Doesn't look natural otherwise.
My experience using Photomatix and other automated HDR software is that in most cases it affects areas I don't want to mess with and doesn't offer enough control over what pixels are effected, even with anti-ghosting corrections. Manual blends using luminosity masks are the answer in most cases for me.
So, there you go. To me the GNDs are indispensible as part of my workflow and are invaluable to creation/inspiration in the field. Worth every penny.
antifire wrote:
very sweet shots. about exposure blending, how do you get the mask so precise, especially when you work with complicated objects like trees. do you use a tablet and paint it back or is there a better technique?
A lot of people assume that making the masks precise is the answer, when actually making them imprecise is often the key!
For example, if you need to lighten a dark are by using a mask to bring in a brighter version of it:
- you might add only a 50% (or other value) version of it.
- you might blend it entirely within the darker area. At the boundary there might be no blend, but the blend might feather into the dark area. (The way our visual system works, this seems natural.)
- the amount of blend might well vary within the blended area.
- other similar techniques.
With a tree the work can be painstaking, though not always. In some cases you can "paint in" the lighter portions on the larger trunk, branches, and leafy mass of the tree to get enough added detail, but without applying the effect evenly to every part of the tree. In general, this looks much more natural than just making the whole tree brighter.
For those who haven't figured this out yet, masks are incredibly powerful image adjustment tools. Combine them with image blending and curves adjustments and the sky is the limit.
Dan
(And, yes, I know that many of you posting in this thread already know these things. :-)
Definitely don't feel bad about getting the grads. While I primarily use layer masks and blend my shots, I still use grads when the situation calls for it. As others have said, in the old days we didn't have any other tool really. Now we have many tools in our tool belt, the key is to use the right one at the right time.
I just actually upgrades my old grads which were the "P" size to the 4x6" size with the Lee Holder. But all I got was a 3 stop Reverse grad and a 2 stop soft edge grad.
Now for instance, I will be swinging by and shooting the Grand Canyon in a few days, and a ND grad works perfectly there. So it has it's place. When shooting at the beach, I often try to position myself to get the wave splashs to splash up into the sky, well an nd grad there, would ruin the shot, the splashed water will change color as it passes through the grad area. So there having a good camera that has lot's of dynamic range like my old D700 had was perfect. You expose for the highlights, and then you double process the shot, where you overexpose it while processing to get more details out of the shadow areas, and then use a simple layer mask to blend them.
So while you may not have needed all the grads you got, having them will be great, and used in the right situations... they can't be beat!
)
