View Full Version : ND Grad soft filters - How do you place them on a non straight horizon?
Just supposing I want to use the ND grad filter for a landscape, but the horiszon isn't straight, say there's a building running into the sky - If I want the building to be the focal point of the shot, how do I do this with the filter?
Sorry for the dumb questions - More to come!!! Should I buy a book?!!
DiddyDave
29-12-2008, 19:07
This is one of the main reasons I never use such filters
I'm sure filter-fans will be along to offer some attempt at a help
:D
DD
puddleduck
29-12-2008, 19:08
You can tilt them, here is an some examples where I've tited:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/2919528998_81b1bcd8ed_o.jpg
If you closely you can see the grad line on this...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/2925029984_f23003c50e_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3240/2924079671_f65eae140c_o.jpg
both titled anti-clockwise to darken the skies and mountains, leaving the trees on the left nice and bright on the first image.
TBH if you have a very promintent feature that protrudes past the horizon its probably not a thing you should use a filter for. But I tilt my Grads all the time.
HuntingMartians
29-12-2008, 20:58
That middle image is ace!
say there's a building running into the sky - If I want the building to be the focal point of the shot, how do I do this with the filter?
It usually doesn't notice too much. If it does, using a brighter f/number reduces the overall effect. If it's still a problem, tough :(
Richard.
DigitalRelish
29-12-2008, 21:23
How do you place them on a non straight horizon?
I would say, very carefully! What I sometimes do is give up on the filter and bracket multiple exposures for HDR.
e.g. this very non-straight horizon.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3217/2705994801_62f1fb94f1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/69511026@N00/2705994801/)
HuntingMartians
29-12-2008, 21:34
I don't believe that a multiple exposure to that extreme looks better than using a grad.
DigitalRelish
29-12-2008, 21:42
I appreciate it's not to everyone's taste, but it could be an option for some.
I use mine mainly for landscapes and as Puddleduck has explained I tilt the filter in allot of my shots.
Multiple exposure shots or adding a filter in PS is an option, although just not for me.
A soft edge Grad will minimise any potential overlap.
I appreciate it's not to everyone's taste, but it could be an option for some.
And it's a good option :) Takes some skill like most things, but can look superb.
Biggest problem is that many subjects move between exposures, and it's often best to use a tripod. Apart from that, HDR produces the best results by far.
Richard.
HDR produces the best results by far.
Richard.
I beg to differ, but that's not for this thread :)
I beg to differ, but that's not for this thread :)
Oh go on! The OP's question has been thoroughly answered ;)
What's not to like about HDR?
Richard.
HuntingMartians
29-12-2008, 23:40
Everything
Too many discussions on this subject already. Diplomacy calls here :) Scurries away to untangle his long hair!
There's a reason why the filter holder moves. It's for such thing like this! As previously stated, with different subjects, different angles of filter is needed, and the filter holder rotates on the lens :D
As for say, a building in the frame, i'd put a soft .6 grad, or even .3 grad, with the grad starting on the flat horizon, then then PP the image afterwords, to correct of needed.
DigitalRelish
29-12-2008, 23:56
:runaway:
Les McLean
29-12-2008, 23:56
As chewy mentioned, a soft grad will overcome any small incursions into the sky part.
I sometimes use stepped grads, i.e. one on top of another but higher up in the filter to get the right light balance.
If the building (you wanted to include) pushed well into the sky, I'd consider using a polariser rather than a grad, or work the shot around until the light is more balanced between sky and buildings.
DigitalRelish
29-12-2008, 23:57
Cut the filter to the shape of your sky! :lol:
Cut the filter to the shape of your sky! :lol:
Even better idea :)
Now how do you cut glass with a clean edge?
Everything
By that logic, Low DR must be better then :thinking: :lol:
puddleduck
30-12-2008, 07:37
HDR is just awful almost all of the time. The problem is it just looks cartoony and unnatural, and screams "Look at ME! Look.. HDR!"
Grads any day!
However here is an HDR or two did that worked quite well I think.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/522093017_cc7647f4fc_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/175/459798722_35cf742332_o.jpg
In a nutshell, if you want to be a photographer, do it in camera with Grads.
If you want to be a CGI cartoon artist, use HDR by all means ;)
People are too easily dismissive of HDR.
HDR is wonderful, when used correctly.
puddleduck
30-12-2008, 07:44
People are too easily dismissive of HDR.
HDR is wonderful, when used correctly.
HDR is a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist.
Folks whine on about megapixels and high ISO noise - a better solution would be for manufacturers to focus on dynamic range improvements IMHO, and focus less on the high megapixel / high ISO madness.
But thats probably something for another thread :)
Having a few issues attaching a grad to my 14-24. Think I'll have to use cartoons.
HDR is a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist.
Folks whine on about megapixels and high ISO noise - a better solution would be for manufacturers to focus on dynamic range improvements IMHO, and focus less on the high megapixel / high ISO madness.
But thats probably something for another thread :)
So it's okay to belittle the technique of HDR, but praise ND Filters, despite both being solutions to the same problem?
Seems a little pot kettle black to me.
So it's okay to belittle the technique of HDR, but praise ND Filters, despite both being solutions to the same problem?
Seems a little pot kettle black to me.
Don't forget that he's used HDR and liked the results ;) Where's the stirring the pot smiley?
puddleduck
30-12-2008, 07:48
So it's okay to belittle the technique of HDR, but praise ND Filters, despite both being solutions to the same problem?
Seems a little pot kettle black to me.
I've never needed to use either with my Fuji S5 Pro ;)
I've never needed to use either with my Fuji S5 Pro ;)
nvm. Not playing games.
Don't forget that he's used HDR and liked the results ;) Where's the stirring the pot smiley?
Yes. I'm all for amicable discussions, that weigh the pro's and con's of different techniques, but to push a holier-than-thou attitude is just yawn. Keep up the good cartoons, Pete.
puddleduck
30-12-2008, 07:51
nvm. Not playing games.
No, I genuinely would prefer a sensor with decent DR.
You can call me a whatever you asterisked out, but give me a sensor with native high dynamc, HDR and a Grad solution, and I'll take the native high DR solution anytime.
No, I genuinely would prefer a sensor with decent DR.
You can call me a whatever you asterisked out, but give me a sensor with native high dynamc, HDR and a Grad solution, and I'll take the native high DR solution anytime.
So would anyone. I do not see your point. Unfortunately some of us aren't on six figure incomes, and most of us don't have the disposable income to spend on a S5 or Hassy to get results that ND filters or HDR would achieve similarly. You seem to just be stirring the pot to either stroke your own ego, or argue with everyone because it's 9am on a freezing tuesday.
puddleduck
30-12-2008, 07:56
I do not see your point.
Yes, I can see that.
They are many solutions where neither Grads or HDR are suitable.
Its that simple.
So, just clarify your point for me? Because you have me completely lost.
Don't use HDR, because it's cartoony
Don't use ND filters, because a £14k camera will be better
puddleduck
30-12-2008, 07:59
So, just clarify your point for me? Because you have me completely lost.
Don't use HDR, because it's cartoony
Don't use ND filters, because a £14k camera will be better
I don't recall mentioning a £14k camera?
I can see I've lost you, so I would urge reading what I wrote, not what you wish I'd written.
I don't recall mentioning a £14k camera?
I can see I've lost you, so I would urge reading what I wrote, not what you wish I'd written.
I know what I read. An S5 Pro, in your experience (I have none, so can't comment) has better Dynamic Range than that of Canon or Nikon.
I mentioned the 14k Camera.
puddleduck
30-12-2008, 08:05
I know what I read. An S5 Pro, in your experience (I have none, so can't comment) has better Dynamic Range than that of Canon or Nikon.
I mentioned the 14k Camera.
The S5 Pro does indeed have better dynamic range - the sensor was designed for it. Apparently the new Sony A900 comes very close, and the D700 isn't too far behind.
Being able to do in one shot what will require a 3 shot bracketed burst for HDR from other cameras is very useful.
I've used all 3 solutions, and while for some reason you think I'm on a windup, I'd prefer a sensor solution that delivers more DR out-of-the-box.
The S5 Pro does indeed have better dynamic range - the sensor was designed for it. Apparently the new Sony A900 comes very close, and the D700 isn't too far behind.
Being able to do in one shot what will require a 3 shot bracketed burst for HDR from other cameras is very useful.
I've used all 3 solutions, and while for some reason you think I'm on a windup, I'd prefer a sensor solution that delivers more DR out-of-the-box.
That wasn't the argument. Everyone would like their camera to have more Dynamic Range. The fact remains, that's not always the case. And with people having invested thousands into their preferred manufacturer (Canon/Nikon/Whatever it may be) - a discussion of solutions to help counter the problem is perfectly fine.
But you chose to argue with that and dismiss both solutions as weak, because if you throw x amount of money in on a new camera and glass, you can get better results. So as I've said, what's your point?
a1ex2001
30-12-2008, 08:12
yeh, another thread ruined by the HDR debate!
Leaving all that asside, the OP's question is a tricky one and if it is just a single building sticking up well past the horizon then the filter solution will never really be able to cope. Personally in that situation I'd take a couple of exposures of the same shot and then use graduated blends and masks in post processing to get the balance bettween the different elements. I'd probabaly also try a HDR to see which reult I prefered.
I'd always like to get things right in camera but sadly sometimes it isn't an option and thats where post processing comes into it's own and HDR is just another tool in the locker.
puddleduck
30-12-2008, 08:18
because if you throw x amount of money in on a new camera and glass, you can get better results. So as I've said, what's your point?
I never said that, and again you are putting words into my moth.
Read this again please.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1151718&postcount=23
I've not said anyone should buy new glass, or buy a new camera.
Again, stop reading what you think I wrote.
I think that you are always going to need a solution to cope with different variations in brightness. I think the best one is to adjust the shot to suit the scene, and maybe back it up with some subtle filtration. HDR is a good tool but beyond a certain point it stops being photography and starts to become CGI with the final image no longer representing the true scene.
Back to the OP.......
Stacking soft grads the way Les described has always worked for me. Sometimes you have to accept that you can't get the perfect exposure though and then it's a matter of judgement as to exactly how you want to portray the subject.
HuntingMartians
30-12-2008, 19:52
What's not to like about HDR?
Richard.
Everything
By that logic, Low DR must be better then :thinking: :lol:
Then your logic is seriously flawed. As I never once mentioned anything worse or better. Dislike is it not synonymous with "worse".
I could dislike it and think it is a good or the worst solution for increasing dynamic range with current technologies. Then that would make your logic seriously flawed as previosuly said.
I dislike HDR as it gives a horrible representation of a scene. I think you might as well paint something on canvas if you do HDR. I much prefer ND filters to give a far better photograph.
HM, your confusing semantics are lost on me, but no matter ;)
I agree that if HDR is overdone it looks false. But the same can also be said of grads when they're over-used. But to dismiss HDR out of hand seems a bit narrow minded. Photographers have been trying to extend dynamic range by all sorts of techniques since the dawn of time, and I think this is unquestionably a good thing. By conceding that you like grads (I assume that's what you mean by ND) then you must also think HDR techniques are good, at least in principle - it's HDR technique under another guise. So I still don't understand why there is "everything" not to like about HDR.
And I hope I'm right in assuming you mean a grey grad when referring to ND filters. An ND filter (Neutral Density) has no effect on dynamic range at all.
Regards,
Richard.
HuntingMartians
30-12-2008, 21:07
And I hope I'm right in assuming you mean a grey grad when referring to ND filters. An ND filter (Neutral Density) has no effect on dynamic range at all.
Regards,
Richard.
A graduated Neutral Denisty filter is still a ND filter, And yes, ND filters are grey.
HuntingMartians
30-12-2008, 21:10
But like other people say the debate on computer assisted HDR can go on and on and has been done may times on these forums. Is there really a need to go down this route again?
How about bracketing the exposures and blending the sky in photoshop or something? Don't end up with the hdr look then.
...the debate on computer assisted HDR can go on and on and has been done may times on these forums. Is there really a need to go down this route again?
No. Sorry, I'm a newbee and I'm sure I've got nothing new to add on this one. But I do think it's important to use the least ambiguous terminology, whatever the debate ;)
Richard.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.