Are grad filters crucial?

T

Ted

Messages
576
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been reading several articles lately which have opposing views on the need for grad filters in landscape photography.

some say that shooting in RAW and blending exposures can replicate any grad filter in any situation
others say that the IQ obtained by using Filters can't be replicated in PP

My personal experience is that I have never used filters but quite often struggle to recover shadow detail in PP when shooting landscapes/seascapes in low light (with a bright sky).......noise always seems to be a problem in the shadows.

Maybe my problem is that I am using a D40 which only has 3 focus points, making it tricky to take one raw file exposed for the sky and another exposed for the foreground without moving the camera.......so I am doing my blending off one RAW file exposed for the sky.

I am tempted to go out and get a filter set in the hope that I will get better results than relying on PP but wanted to get your thoughts first.
 
i view them the same way as any other filter, HDR or photoshop technique, by that I mean they are just another tool in the kit bag. To honest the whole 'use of grads' is an individual thing these days, and I give it about 5 posts before it breaks into another filter v HDR row. The best thing I can sugest it to try to borrow a set and test to see if you like them, if you like them, then invest in a good quality set.
 
if you put more faith in getting it right in camera then filters are the way to go, sensors just cannot reproduce scenes faithfully if the difference in light between very light and dark is more than 10 stops., especially so in low light sunrise sunset photography when you might be shooting into the low sun

if you cannot afford grads or dont mind sitting at the computer then bracketing your shots for HDR is the way to go, or doing as you do and blend 2 exposures for sky and FG

one thing not really picked up on hdr v filter arguements is that HDR or digital filters cannot reproduce grads when they are used to slow the shutter speed to get long expsure effects.

HTH

dave
 
Last edited:
I only use grad filters and don't bother with hdr/exposure blending. I love being able to review a shot after I have taken it to see no blown highlights or dark areas. It can be an arse setting them up sometimes, especially if you need to get the shot fast but the rewards for me are worth the hassle.
 
devitt said:
I only use grad filters and don't bother with hdr/exposure blending. I love being able to review a shot after I have taken it to see no blown highlights or dark areas. It can be an arse setting them up sometimes, especially if you need to get the shot fast but the rewards for me are worth the hassle.
Click to expand...

totally agree
 
graduated filters are simply a means to an end. whether you achieve that end with a simple screw-on filter, or by tedious post-processing, is up to you. that said, i do use HDR PP to balance exposures when the extremes are simply too great, but in some cases i can achieve much of the same result by using a grad ND filter.
 
I don't own any, hence I don't use any. BUT...these were done using the exposure blend feature in photomatix from 3 initial exposures. This is a new process to be, but I find it produces more natural results than HDR.

However... it's a means to an end, and I think I would like ND grads at some stage.
 
Last edited:
68lbs said:
I don't own any, hence I don't use any. BUT...these were done using the exposure blend feature in photomatix from 3 initial exposures. This is a new process to be, but I find it produces more natural results than HDR.

However... it's a means to an end, and I think I would like ND grads at some stage.
Click to expand...

Soz m8 - but those are HDR images if that's what you've done

HDR as such is a blending process - often done to extreme for a surreal effect, but more often done subtly to simply extend the dynamic range

I can't stand filters and never used them even in film days. Too much faff, too slow, always in the wrong place, darkening mountain tops or trees, pah :thumbsdown:

Subtle blending techniques are better and more flexible IMO than any field based filter use could be (y)

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Soz m8 - but those are HDR images if that's what you've done
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll reword... the exposure blending command in photomatix gives more realistic results than the generate HDR image command.

And all, of course, IMO. :p
 
68lbs that link of the 2 sunrises are done to a great effect with the exposure blending(y)
 
Many thanks Devitt. I have to confess exposure blending could become my new 'pp toy' if I'm not careful as the results do please me too :)
 
68lbs said:
Ok, I'll reword... the exposure blending command in photomatix gives more realistic results than the generate HDR image command.

And all, of course, IMO. :p
Click to expand...

having used both the "exposure blending" and "generate HDR" features of Photomatix, i have to say that either one will produce quite realistic and natural-looking results. the key is not overdoing it, and it takes some practice to adjust the controls for optimal output. i've seen a great many HDR shots that look like screenshots from a badly done video game, but i've also seen some that look perfectly natural. either method will get you a good image if used with some restraint. frankly, i suspect those two sunrise photos could have been achieved without PP using a grad ND filter, but that's just my opinion... ;)
 
Last edited:
squirl033 said:
i suspect those two sunrise photos could have been achieved without PP using a grad ND filter, but that's just my opinion... ;)
Click to expand...

I agree with this too, but I suppose thats what the OP is wanting to find out and good info and examples here. I didn't even realise that Photomatix did exposure blending without the "generate HDR".
 
devitt said:
I agree with this too, but I suppose thats what the OP is wanting to find out and good info and examples here. I didn't even realise that Photomatix did exposure blending without the "generate HDR".
Click to expand...

Sunrise/setting shots are the only ones were filters work well as there's a single line join - for mountainous regions they simply don't work as well as blending does

And whatever you call it 68lbs - blending of different exposures to create one is extending the dynamic range in the final result - and what's exactly what HDR is!

I've only played with Photomatix and find it slower and less obvious to use than Photo-Dynamic HDR, where you can of course generate the wacky 'HDR' look as well as 'exposure blending' to a more subtle effect

:)

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Sunrise/setting shots are the only ones were filters work well as there's a single line join - for mountainous regions they simply don't work as well as blending does
Click to expand...

I'd say that I use mine and get a pretty good effect from it with mountains. You can always just lighten up the mountain section in PP.

Example used with ND grad 0.6:

DSC_3855.jpg
 
Nice - but that roofline PP work wouldn't be needed if you blended!

This is one that can run & run, some like to try to get it all in-camera, some prefer to master it later

Both take time, neither takes more than the other but the filter route obviously has increased costs as is ultimately less flexible

Each to their own then eh

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Nice - but that roofline PP work wouldn't be needed if you blended!

This is one that can run & run, some like to try to get it all in-camera, some prefer to master it later

Both take time, neither takes more than the other but the filter route obviously has increased costs as is ultimately less flexible

Each to their own then eh

DD
Click to expand...

Very true. I use this method as with Aperture 2 software, exposure blending isn't an option. It all adds to pretty much the same result so its all good:clap:
 
lol, well it took a few more posts than I thought but as usual the predictable debate crops up and goes round in circles. I think DD sums it up best .... "Each to their own then eh"
 
Hawker said:
...I give it about 5 posts before it breaks into another filter v HDR row.
Click to expand...

:D I'm literally just writing the section on filters for my HDR book. IMHO filters are just as valid today as they used to be. HDR won't give you a longer exposure. HDR isn't a magic fix for everything.
 
petemc said:
:D I'm literally just writing the section on filters for my HDR book. IMHO filters are just as valid today as they used to be. HDR won't give you a longer exposure. HDR isn't a magic fix for everything.
Click to expand...

Not sure anyone said it was :thinking:

And longer exposure??? That'd be a ND filter rather than an ND Grad surely?

Or perhaps we just need to wait for the next book!

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
And whatever you call it 68lbs - blending of different exposures to create one is extending the dynamic range in the final result - and what's exactly what HDR is!
Click to expand...

To quote Lex Luthor, WROOOOOONG :p HDR, if you want to get technical and argue semantics, is technically about generating a 32bit high dynamic range image. That differs to exposure blending as exposure blending is simply merging a few photos together to produce another 8bit jpg. HDR is one thing, and what you see is a tone mapped image produced after the HDR phase. So yes what he did was different. Two separate features in Photomatix.
 
petemc said:
:D I'm literally just writing the section on filters for my HDR book. IMHO filters are just as valid today as they used to be. HDR won't give you a longer exposure. HDR isn't a magic fix for everything.
Click to expand...

You're writing a book?! :eek: Kept that quiet

;):D
 
DiddyDave said:
Not sure anyone said it was :thinking:

And longer exposure??? That'd be a ND filter rather than an ND Grad surely?

Or perhaps we just need to wait for the next book!

DD
Click to expand...

So what if they didn't. I wanted to make it clear as I know people think HDR can fix all and to say argue filters vs HDR implies you don't fully understand what they do. You know that an ND grad *IS* an ND filter, just a graduated one right? Its sorta in the name. They're both ND filters. As I own an ND grad I'm well aware of what it does and I have used it to create longer exposures. Oh and the next book is out next year which has this in. Maybe you should wait for the next book if you don't know that an ND grad is an ND filter :p
 
/me faints

Edit: ignore me, i am too slow at typing. i momentarily passed out because i got something right a few posts back.
 
Last edited:
petemc said:
Maybe you should wait for the next book if you don't know that an ND grad is an ND filter :p
Click to expand...

Let me guess one's a Graduated one covering part of the filter, the other I was referring to isn't a Graduated one but covers the whole of the filter rather than a part of it

Far too technical for me m8

:razz:

:LOL:

DD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top