- Messages
- 1,369
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm wondering whether graduated filters would be a useful addition to my photographic tool kit. I'll explain where I'm at in my understanding of the issues.
The problem which graduated filters are designed to solve is the often very large difference in exposure required to register good sky detail and good ground detail in landscape photography. Where the horizon is reasonably level one solution is to darken the sky with a graduated filter. Back in the days of film another possibility was to dodge using fingers or cutouts during the enlargement process. That took advantage of the greater dynamic range of film compared to paper print. Where the difference in dynamic range of sky and ground exceeded that of film then either you had to do two different exposures and blend them or use a graduated filter when taking the shot. Blending exposures by aligning negatives was a tricky process requiring skill and dedication.
Modern digital camera sensors have wider dynamic range than film so the dynamic range of the landscape exceeding that of the sensor happens less often than with film. So using graduated filters or exposure blending will be needed less often than with film. But it still happens. And exposure blending is much easier than with film. You can tell the camera to shoot a sequence of different exposures. The digital post processing equivalent to dodging at print enlargement stage is not only much easier to do manually in a good modern image processor, but much of it can be automated with such software procedures as HDR.
I would have expected that these advantages of modern digital sensors and image editors would have replaced the use of graduated filters, relegating that rather clumsy technology to the dwindling band of film enthusiasts. But not so. There are plenty of digital landscape photographers still using graduated filters. Why?
I've looked for discussions of this. I see some asserting that there's no need for graduated filters today, it can all be done in software. I see others who simply don't like using software when it's possible to get the shot "right in the camera". Some have moral objection to the overuse of image editors.
I have no moral objection to the use of image editors, tone mapping, HDR, etc.. I prefer to avoid filters simply because they add another pair of air-glass junctions to the light path, flare, etc., but I'm quite happy to use one when it does something impossible or rather difficult to do any other way.
Are there any good reasons for me to use a graduated filter?
The problem which graduated filters are designed to solve is the often very large difference in exposure required to register good sky detail and good ground detail in landscape photography. Where the horizon is reasonably level one solution is to darken the sky with a graduated filter. Back in the days of film another possibility was to dodge using fingers or cutouts during the enlargement process. That took advantage of the greater dynamic range of film compared to paper print. Where the difference in dynamic range of sky and ground exceeded that of film then either you had to do two different exposures and blend them or use a graduated filter when taking the shot. Blending exposures by aligning negatives was a tricky process requiring skill and dedication.
Modern digital camera sensors have wider dynamic range than film so the dynamic range of the landscape exceeding that of the sensor happens less often than with film. So using graduated filters or exposure blending will be needed less often than with film. But it still happens. And exposure blending is much easier than with film. You can tell the camera to shoot a sequence of different exposures. The digital post processing equivalent to dodging at print enlargement stage is not only much easier to do manually in a good modern image processor, but much of it can be automated with such software procedures as HDR.
I would have expected that these advantages of modern digital sensors and image editors would have replaced the use of graduated filters, relegating that rather clumsy technology to the dwindling band of film enthusiasts. But not so. There are plenty of digital landscape photographers still using graduated filters. Why?
I've looked for discussions of this. I see some asserting that there's no need for graduated filters today, it can all be done in software. I see others who simply don't like using software when it's possible to get the shot "right in the camera". Some have moral objection to the overuse of image editors.
I have no moral objection to the use of image editors, tone mapping, HDR, etc.. I prefer to avoid filters simply because they add another pair of air-glass junctions to the light path, flare, etc., but I'm quite happy to use one when it does something impossible or rather difficult to do any other way.
Are there any good reasons for me to use a graduated filter?
only using phone connection...
