You're correct, there is only so much detail in a RAW file, much less then in a bracketed shot. A RAW file is good for about 1/2 stop either way from your original exposure (some claim 1 stop either way, but I don't find that to be true within my tolerance).
Believe it or not, a good soft graduated filter will leave almost no discernable trace at all (especially if you've chosen the strength wisely), even on the uneven horizon. Because the change is so gradual, the eyes have a difficult time noticing the change. The trick is, as I mentioned, to use a filter that's not too strong. However, if you do notice a bit of difference, you can always do a little dodging or burning or you could make multi exosure with the grad ND filter in place. I've had a lot of luck with grad ND filters. I'm sure you've seen that many of my shots have uneven horizons, but the use of grad ND filter is not discernable (not to my or most people's eyes, anyway)....Show more →
Thats the answer I was looking for Mahesh. I will go out and test this I already have the spot scouted out, now just waiting for the right light..
Thanks again for sharing your knowledge..
Phil, I'm using the P size for my 77mm lenses. No problems for both 1.6 and 1.3 crops.
Jeff - including a 17-40L on the 1DMkII?
I hope so, the 100mm holders are really $$$
Phil, I haven't used it enough on the 17-40 to really answer that. I just got the filters and holders right before my Palouse trip. I don't even think I pulled the 17-40 from the bag that trip.
I do know that you'll want the wide angle filter holder (or a regular filter holder with the extra filter tracks cut off) to deal with any vignetting. If I get some time tomorrow evening I'll try the standard filter holder out on the 17-40.
Forgive my stupidity here, but thanks for the thread.
If I want to use 2 Lee filters, a 2 stop soft & a 3 stop hard with a 17-40L, what holder is required? Are the Cokin holder/adapters preferable or do Lee supply one just as good better?
I am sorry, it's got me a touch confused and seeing as I do all my shopping on the web - I want to get it right.
thapamd wrote:
... there is only so much detail in a RAW file, much less then in a bracketed shot. A RAW file is good for about 1/2 stop either way from your original exposure (some claim 1 stop either way, but I don't find that to be true within my tolerance).
I definitely see a noise increase if I'm trying to add or subtract 1.5 stops from my RAWfile, but if there was only 0.5-stop of latitude I wouldn't bother to shoot RAW at all!
Still, if dynamic range of RAW is a sticking point, and we're talking about landscapes in this forum, one can shoot multiple exposures with WB & focus locked, then digitally blend them. Alignment of the multiple exposures is easy since any serious landscape photographer is shooting from a tripod mount with a remote shutter release.
I personally believe that this digital grad ND is far superior to any physical grad ND. To mimic the physical grad ND exactly, all I need to do is combine two exposures, say 3 stops apart, with a standard gradient on the layer mask of one of the images. And to control the result with more finesse I just need to brush white/black at low opacity onto the initial (standard-gradient) layer mask.
There's no question that a sloppy digital composite will look awful, but there's also no doubt that a well-executed composite will be as good or better than a physical grad ND.
Zapped wrote:
There's no question that a sloppy digital composite will look awful, but there's also no doubt that a well-executed composite will be as good or better than a physical grad ND.
Just curious how you get around the issue of moving objects (i.e., blowing leaves) by doing multiple exposures/composites? In my opinion, a grad ND is invaluable in these instances. Composites are good but they do have their place.
If it hasn't been mentioned here yet, if you shoot FF and are buying the Cokin-P filter holder, you will want the wide angle version to avoid vignetting at the wide end. The standard holder (that allows more than one filter) is within the FOV of my 17-40 at the shorter focal lengths, but the wide holder can not.
CarlG wrote:
Just curious how you get around the issue of moving objects (i.e., blowing leaves) by doing multiple exposures/composites? In my opinion, a grad ND is invaluable in these instances.
Let me refer to the reference, or brighter, exposure as the "foreground image", and the stopped-down, or darker, image, as the "sky image". In landscapes, I'm blending at the horizon line, whether it's nice & level or following an irregular contour due to trees or mountains rising above the horizon. Wind-induced movement of trees in the far distance, between my multiple exposures, isn't noticeable. If, however, the trees have a base near to me in the "foreground image", but do rise above the horizon line, I airbrush the layer-mask that I apply to the "sky image" to expose those foreground leaves rather than the leaves from the sky-image which have moved in the wind.
Certainly such manipulations are not an argument against digital blending --- if you've got trees rising above the split-line in a physical grad ND filter, the resultant image has a very unnatural darkening of the tree coincident with the straight horizon line.
Zapped wrote:
Let me refer to the reference, or brighter, exposure as the "foreground image", and the stopped-down, or darker, image, as the "sky image". In landscapes, I'm blending at the horizon line, whether it's nice & level or following an irregular contour due to trees or mountains rising above the horizon. Wind-induced movement of trees in the far distance, between my multiple exposures, isn't noticeable. If, however, the trees have a base near to me in the "foreground image", but do rise above the horizon line, I airbrush the layer-mask that I apply to the "sky image" to expose those foreground leaves rather than the leaves from the sky-image which have moved in the wind.
Certainly such manipulations are not an argument against digital blending --- if you've got trees rising above the split-line in a physical grad ND filter, the resultant image has a very unnatural darkening of the tree coincident with the straight horizon line....Show more →
Interesting concept - I may have to give it a try. Seems like it takes a little time but it sounds like it may be worth the effort.
I find that the digital route gives me all the flexability I need. The GND boundary is straight, and you need to get it correct "in the field". Bracketing gives you a slew of post processing options ranging from a simple layer gradient mask, to FM's DRI. The layer mask, as Zapped noted, gives you lots of flexibility to deal with motion. I'm carrying too much "stuff" in the field as it is.
I am thinking about a basic grad ND setup myself, though I really have no clue what system to start with. I've noticed that the Mark II makes a good landscape camera in that it really captures a pretty wide dynamic range in one exposure, and you can bracket shots so fast (8FPS) that a lot of wind-induced movement is hard to notice (or, the movement of the sea is hard to notice) But eventually I think I need to break down and get into a simple filter system.
Has anyone used the Cokin acrylic filters? Are they really that bad? I know a couple of experienced photogs who claim that the differences between the Cokin and the better Lee stuff is hard to discern provided you are using them properly.
I think that layer blending works well but requires quite a bit more post processing, it all just comes down to subject matter and workflow. I have had images come out amazing using PS blending, but then again I have had things where I wished I had shot with a GradND...
As for the latitude of RAW file (IMHO) if my exposure is good then I really never need to make adjustments past 0.5 of a stop. However I do find that I like to blend some images to bring out more dynamic range in the shadows or the highlights. Kind of like dodging and burning in the darkroom...
I just enjoy the whole process from start to finish!!
lordarka wrote:
I am thinking about a basic grad ND setup myself, though I really have no clue what system to start with. I've noticed that the Mark II makes a good landscape camera in that it really captures a pretty wide dynamic range in one exposure, and you can bracket shots so fast (8FPS) that a lot of wind-induced movement is hard to notice (or, the movement of the sea is hard to notice) But eventually I think I need to break down and get into a simple filter system.
Has anyone used the Cokin acrylic filters? Are they really that bad? I know a couple of experienced photogs who claim that the differences between the Cokin and the better Lee stuff is hard to discern provided you are using them properly.
Arka C. ...Show more →
I agree that works well, but if you are in low light and not shooting wide open then you are going to have some slow shutter speeds, so if you are shooting a landscape with say fast moving clouds then your bracketed shots with have that movement that we have been talking about. This seems like a situation where a GradND would be very nice to have in your bag… Just some thoughts
I have never used the Cokin filters but I have heard they can have some color cast.. Anyone else try these??
How much better do you find Freds DRI action than simply putting one layer on top of the other and using a gradient mask...or is it close to the same?
-Brian
Depends on the composition of the shot. If it's a blown sky, and the horizon is straight (relatively) then I'll just do the gradient mask. If the composition is more complex, eg a waterfall with the blown highlights in the centre of the shot, it's easier to use the DRI. I prefer the control that the mask gives me, but I'm not one to sit there and hand craft a detailed mask - so if it's complex I use the DRI. I should expirement with getting more control with DRI. In any event for the price, the DRI is a good tool to have.
Bill Lawrence wrote:
Digital blending does *not* work well (IME) if there is a lot of motion. Is that tree in the foreground blowing in the wind? Then you may wind up getting weird haloes from trying to blend something that wasn't in the same place on both exposures. For situations like this the split ND filters are definitely the way to go.
Hope that helps!
Bill
Bill and or anyone else that may know....,
I shoot Raw and am just learning to blend. With this method I can "develop" two exposures of the same capture and eliminate the issue of moving objects not being in the same position. Should I be able to get the same results as using a graduated ND Filter if I get good at it?
Absolutely, RA, but as earlier respondents pointed out, the problem with using one image is the limited dynamic range of the single RAWfile. Some folks are contending the best you can do is 1-stop (+0.5 & -0.5), but my experience is 2-stops works perfectly (+1 & -1), and 3 stops is doable when I'm shooting ISO100 (+1.5 & -1.5).
However, the single-RAWfile technique assumes you've exposed your single RAWfile exactly in the center of the required dynamic range. Since I don't claim to be that good, I usually bracket multiple exposures.
Regarding the difficulty of emulating the physical grad ND with a gradient layer mask - it's a piece of cake if you only want a straight-line blend like a physical filter gives you.
Zapped wrote:
Regarding the difficulty of emulating the physical grad ND with a gradient layer mask - it's a piece of cake if you only want a straight-line blend like a physical filter gives you.
Thanks Zapped,
The gradient layer mask is something I haven't really learned yet... I tried it once but it got ugly I will try again soon. I am still trying to learn the best ways to blend... Then I will move on...
RA
I will try again soon. I am still trying to learn the best ways to blend... Then I will move on...