I want to ask you guys a question regarding landscape photos and I hope this is the correct forum to ask....
I want to buy a Graduated ND filter but it seems just as easy to take two exposures, one exposed for the ground, & one for the sky and blend them in photoshop using the gradient tool. How many of you use a filter for the landscape photos you take vs the digital blending? In your expert opinions, what would you suggest I do? Get some grads or blend digitally? What are your experiences and preferences?
Todd wrote:
I want to ask you guys a question regarding landscape photos and I hope this is the correct forum to ask....
I want to buy a Graduated ND filter but it seems just as easy to take two exposures, one exposed for the ground, & one for the sky and blend them in photoshop using the gradient tool. How many of you use a filter for the landscape photos you take vs the digital blending? In your expert opinions, what would you suggest I do? Get some grads or blend digitally? What are your experiences and preferences?
Some can be almost religious when it comes to their preferences - GND filter vs. no filter. But it doesn't have to be. Here's something I did a while back that has worked out pretty well for me. I bought a HiTech GND which are pretty good bang for the buck filters - not $100+ each like some. This allows me the opportunity to shoot scenes with it or without it. Having the option to blend or use the GND is nice. And over time I've discovered I can do most shots without the filter. But I still keep it in my bag just in case.
Learning to use photoshop more is really one of the most important things you can do to help your photograpy improve IMO. A significant part of 'making the image' involves fine tuned work in the digital darkroom now. Once you have that skill you can decide which you prefer. Though old this is a great tutorial regarding the Digital Blend by a great professional photographer and friend: http://www.jessespeer.com/making_the_image/2004_0712_chasm/
My initial attempt to blend exposures to get a good shot from this sunset was a total failure. Why? Because it was incredibly windy and you can't blend multiple exposures in the wind. I just revisited this shot and decided to go about things differently (aided by Lightroom 4's superior handling of highlights) and this was the result. I blended two exposures above the water line in photoshop to get some detail out of the Sun but otherwise it's one exposure. This is different that I originally inteded, but I like it, and it was not at all "just as easy" than if I had used grad ND filters on the lens.
It's more satisfying to me to get everything in one go. When things are moving around multiple exposure bracketing is not really going to work. I've been extremely happy with my purchase. To me it's far easier to stick the grad on the front of the lens than it is to try to gracefully combine exposures in Photoshop or add grads in Lightroom. The digital post grads don't quite have the same softness as ones in front of the lens in my opinion. Expensive, but totally worth it.
1. Shoot to avoid blinkies, and push shadows.
2. Use Grad ND's
3. Blend exposures
I sometimes hesitate with Grad ND's because they have given me problems before... namely placing the transition line in a bad place (not always obvious in viewfinder), or just outright keeping them clean. Those things are dust magnets.
I always use a filter over HDR if possible. Sometimes even with a filter I need multiple exposures.
If the scene you're shooting has moving items (trees, people, water fast clouds etc.) then filters will be your best option as you'll have a nightmare it post dealing with objects that have moved between exposures.
Mountain skylines usually work better with multiple exposures. When I see a photo with mountain peaks blackened by filters is a turn off.
Either way having filters in your arsenal as a landscape photographer is must IMHO.
krickett wrote:
Generally in order of preference for me is:
1. Shoot to avoid blinkies, and push shadows.
2. Use Grad ND's
3. Blend exposures
I sometimes hesitate with Grad ND's because they have given me problems before... namely placing the transition line in a bad place (not always obvious in viewfinder), or just outright keeping them clean. Those things are dust magnets.
This is a good point, especially #1. Many, many times I can get away with processing a single RAW image mulitple ways - one for the sky, one for the foreground and maybe one more for the mid-ground. The latitude is pretty darn good with the newer DSLRs. This is always my first choice. However when the dynamic range is just too extreme I'll shoot an extra one just for the sky for example.
krickett wrote:
Generally in order of preference for me is:
1. Shoot to avoid blinkies, and push shadows.
2. Use Grad ND's
3. Blend exposures
I sometimes hesitate with Grad ND's because they have given me problems before... namely placing the transition line in a bad place (not always obvious in viewfinder), or just outright keeping them clean. Those things are dust magnets.
+1
Grads like anything have their limits. For example when I am shooting breaking waves at the ocean that break and spray above the horizon line, I can't use an ND grad, or the spray will look bad and be a tell tale sign... so I still use ND grads, but they have their place.
Now Derek made a good point too, knowing how to blend, is so important.
And to add a #4 to Krickets list....
4. Shoot with a D800
And I say that, because the Dynamice Range on the D800's are so incredibly crazy that shots that I would have had to blend before, have all the detail I need in 1 shot... and while I can blend with my eyes closed (though some might say that it looked like I blended with my eyes closed... ) if we don't have to blend, well, that is just that much easier for us to get the shot we want then in the camera when we shoot...
Have you ever tried using a rotating split grad filter. This filter has 1/2 the filter as a grad filter while the bottom half is a uv filter. The rotation can set the filter split at any point on the subject.
Have you ever tried using a rotating split grad filter. This filter has 1/2 the filter as a grad filter while the bottom half is a uv filter. The rotation can set the filter split at any point on the subject.
wooferbird
Nope, please don't be offended by this, but no one with any sense is going to use a split ND filter ring. As Landscspe photographers we typically avoid having the horizon at the center of the frame. Nope, its ND grads that is the filter of choice if one is using filters.
JimFox wrote:
Nope, please don't be offended by this, but no one with any sense is going to use a split ND filter ring. As Landscspe photographers we typically avoid having the horizon at the center of the frame. Nope, its ND grads that is the filter of choice if one is using filters.
I use ND grads, one Singh Ray reverse and two Lee. I also have two holders and have made an adaptor for my 17TSE.
I have tried to use blends, but they often don't work because of subject motion. I also use multi conversions of a single image to get around that problem. I almost always prefer not using two images unless it was very still.
Filters start getting micro scratches as you remove them from the shipping packiages and it goes downhill from there. Have these guys never heard of glass? I wear light gloves to avoid getting finger prints on them. But they still are not clean. They make flare worse.
I swear I see image degradation at edges on my 17TSE when I use filters.
I try to take a few brackets without filters at any scene. If they are good enough to blend, they are usually the best. But some scenes just need the whole works. IE, I need to blend images that were already using ND grads.
CS6 has opened up the possibilities. I can get more shadow recovery than in the past and have been able to process a single shot where before I needed to blend.
Scott Kroeker wrote:
I always use a filter over HDR if possible.
To clarify, exposure blending is not necessarily HDR. What we normally think of as HDR accomplishes a very different thing - a sort of local contrast enhancement throughout the frame - while exposure blending is closer to using GND filters in concept and result. It also tends to be a lot more labor-intensive since the blending work is typically done manually by "painting" on layer masks.
A quick review. The basic idea of the exposure blending approach goes something like this...
Given a very wide dynamic range subject, the photographer decides to make two (or more) exposures of the scene, usually but not quite always from the tripod. Using a two-exposure model for my explanation, one exposure is optimized for shadow details (and probably results in blown out highlights) while the second is optimized for highlight details (and probably results in blocked shadows).
In post the two images are layered one on top of the other - for my example I'll assume that the highlight-optimized image (e.g. - the one with blocked shadows) is on top, though there are certainly situations in which they might be reversed. A layer mask is added to the upper layer. (You could use "hide all" or "show all" depending on your goal. I'll assume that your mask shows the upper layer and hides the lower one.) Using a soft-edged brush tool and a relatively low opacity, the photographer "paints" on the layer mask to reveal the better shadow detail areas of the lower image. (A simpler method that almost literally reproduces the effect of the GND is to select the darker area and simply create the mask for it all at once.)
While this method can do exactly what the GND method can do when used in its most basic way, it can also offer some very useful options that are either not available or only available with some very tricky techniques using the GND filters. Some of them include:
- The difference between the dark/light areas can be however many stops you want it to be rather than being limited to the difference between the clear and filtered areas of your GND. If you want a 5 stop difference or a half-stop difference, you simply expose "perfectly" for your bright/dark areas in that way.
- The exposure blending method allows boundaries between the light/dark areas that are not straight lines. A favorite example of mine involves shooting out of the entrance of a steep and narrow desert canyon into the open desert beyond. The v-shaped canyon walls were in deep shadow, but I wanted to retain some detail in this dark area. However, the correct exposure for these shadows resulted in a badly blown out desert in the distance. I was able to exposure blend in a v-shape, which would have been next to impossible with filters.
- The photographer can "spot blend" various areas of the scene. For example, it a photograph with mixed sun/shade areas (the infamous "pizza light") it is possible to bring a bit of detail back into shadows throughout the scene using exposure blending.
- In my view, exposure blending can do a more effective job than HDR (at least if the HDR isn't used with a great deal of care and subtlety) of creating a photograph that works the way we see. When our eyes move around a scene our pupils tend to adjust to the brightness of the area of the scene that we look at. This is one reason why you can "see" into the shadows on a very bright day, then lift your eyes to the bright clouds and not have them appear to be blown out. In essence, blending allows the photographer to simulate something analogous to this in the print.
There are some challenges to using blending. Obviously, you need to make more than one exposure. This (almost) necessitates the use of a tripod and it can take a bit of extra time - though once you learn the technique the process is very quick and a lot quicker, I think, than using the filters. There can be issues with elements of the scene that move, though in actual practice this turns out to be much, much less of an issue than you might imagine. And, just as with the filters, some skill is required in order to create blends that don't reveal the technique itself.
I'll close with a photograph created using the blending technique - and one that would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to produce using filters as the dynamic range of the scene was huge. The image is a blend of three photographs.
(By the way, I never use HDR. I've tried it a few times but not been happy with the result or felt that it was really necessary. However, some photographers that I respect a great deal tell me that they do use HDR in some very subtle and powerful ways. I still need to look into that more carefully.)
You'll get a better result using digital blending than a GND just because you get much more control with digital blending. Details and contrast are improved as well and you can deal with many situation. I personally don't care about subject motion because it's not a real problem in landscape photography IMO except for foliage maybe… And even with foliage you still have methods to get around this issue.
Though, there are some disadvantages with digital blending. It means you have to spend more time to process your images on a computer where some people will prefer to spend most of their time outside photographing nature.
By the way, I don't know how it is in the USA, but in France, a lot of photo competitions don't accept photos digitally blended.
I only use hand blend methods and so far, I've never felt the need to use GND filters. I think the only moment where a GND filter is absolutely necessary is for very long exposure with water in the foreground.
This said, I think it's more a matter of habit… Someone who is used to using GND filters will not necessary see why he should change his way of photographing and vice-versa as long as the method you use gives you all what you need.
gdanmitchell wrote:
To clarify, exposure blending is not necessarily HDR. What we normally think of as HDR accomplishes a very different thing - a sort of local contrast enhancement throughout the frame - while exposure blending is closer to using GND filters in concept and result. It also tends to be a lot more labor-intensive since the blending work is typically done manually by "painting" on layer masks.
See for me any time you take more then one photo to capture DR is HDR. The problems is that so many people have confused tone-mapping with HDR. IMHO they are 2 different things but so much misinformation and wrong terminology used on-line we have a backwards perception of the term HDR. HDR today is mostly associated with over tone-mapped and cooked to death images. The to me, they should be categorized as tome-mapped not necessarily HDR as you can tone map any image. But to try and get the masses to change their way of using this terminology is pretty much a lost cause at this stage. Which is sad because HDR has gotten such a bad rap because of grotesquely tone-mapped images.
Exposure blending will always give you at least as good of results, except when there are moving objects. a grad filter introduces another optical element. it can increase flare and cause ghosting if you are shooting in to the sun, esp if there are finger prints and scratches on it. It can also introduce color cast. with filter you can always decide after the fact where the transition point is and if you would like a hard or soft transition. so if you are shooting on a tripod, and dont have moving objects on the ZONE OF TRANSITION, blending is great.
That much said, I do use filters many times. I have a 2 stop soft gnd, and a 3 stop reverse GND. I use them when shooting panoramics to decrease the post processing, and also when I shoot hand held, or with people.
here is a long exposure panorama blend with the reverse gnd filter. see the flare from the sun? filters fault http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6191/6078524325_51360e7ebc_b.jpg
here is one shot with a hand held gnd. probably could have done blending also, but it was just easy enough, and I was on the go. not a true landscape of course. http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6061/6054414739_b5f31f02cf_z.jpg
and here is one with exposure blending. NOthing HDR about it. allowed me for a brighter looking light house, and selectively not only darkening the sky, but decreasing the reflection off of the water http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7218/7011797727_c75ec94d6a_b.jpg
Scott Kroeker wrote:
See for me any time you take more then one photo to capture DR is HDR. The problems is that so many people have confused tone-mapping with HDR. IMHO they are 2 different things but so much misinformation and wrong terminology used on-line we have a backwards perception of the term HDR. HDR today is mostly associated with over tone-mapped and cooked to death images. The to me, they should be categorized as tome-mapped not necessarily HDR as you can tone map any image. But to try and get the masses to change their way of using this terminology is pretty much a lost cause at this stage. Which is sad because HDR has gotten such a bad rap because of grotesquely tone-mapped images. ...Show more →
While terms are used somewhat differently depending on the writer, the majoity of the time when 'HDR' is referenced in the the title and special HDR software has been applied images tend to look unnatural. This of course varies by degree and skill level in usage of such HDR tools. But it still looks that way in the majority of cases. That's not to say all images using these HDR tools look bad. It just seems to turn out that way more times than not for a variety of reasons. This is of course speaking broadly. Just do a Google or Flickr search on HDR and this is becomes very obvious.
dereksurfs wrote:
While terms are used somewhat differently depending on the writer, the majoity of the time when 'HDR' is referenced in the the title and special HDR software has been applied images tend to look unnatural. This of course varies by degree and skill level in usage of such HDR tools. But it still looks that way in the majority of cases. That's not to say all images using these HDR tools look bad. It just seems to turn out that way more times than not for a variety of reasons. This is of course speaking broadly. Just do a Google or Flickr search on HDR and this is becomes very obvious.
Derek, I think your post is what I was trying to get across. The software that takes multiple exposures and merges them (photomatix etc) is called tone-mapping. You can also do this with a single image and the results are of the unnatural type you mentioned. But, taking 2 or more exposures for DR and then manually blending (painting) them together in photoshop is still HDR as you have captured higher dynamic range then you could in one image. So this is where the 2 terms get blurred and by default (HDR googles searches) you get this widely used misconception of the term HDR. Now, MOST of us here know this but the masses out there do not and so the tern gets a bad rap due to bad tone-mapping. I am pretty sure that most people on this forum that do exposure blending in photoshop would not want to be branded an HDR Photographer! But, yet, that is exactly what they are. Am I wrong?
