ND Gaduated filters in the digital age.

P

Paul-H

Messages
977
Edit My Images
No
Hi all

Just wondering

I don't as a general rule own or use many filters, mainly just a Polarizer and ND filters, but I am now starting to get into landscapes and have been reading up on the subject,d but most of my books are quite old so written before Digital took hold, in these books they recomend getting and using ND Graduated filters, to allow for the darkening of the sky in landscape photographs.

Are they still of use in the digital world or can a combination of modern cameras shooting in RAW and graduated exposure options in Lightroom etc do just a good a job.

Thanks for any input or advice on this.

Paul
 
How much do you think can recover from shadows and highlights in a single RAW file. About a stop or two each way if you are very lucky... How much do you need to recover to get what you want. This should rather unambiguously tell if you need something beyond RAW file manipulation software.
 
I use ND Grads with bright sky or if I'm wanting a slightly longer exposure for a bit of foreground movement (water etc) when the sky would have no chance.

Multiple exposures / bracketing is an option but I find it less of a faff just to use the grads.
 
Last edited:
Paul-H said:
Are they still of use in the digital world or can a combination of modern cameras shooting in RAW and graduated exposure options in Lightroom etc do just a good a job.
Click to expand...

To my mind, ND graduated filters are more important in a digital world. Although they have advantages in other areas, digital sensors still haven't quite matched negative film for latitude or dynamic range.
 
It's always a case of knowing why you need something and the limitations associated. If you have a nice straight interface between land and sky then grads are fine, but if there's stuff sticking up then they're far from ideal. As Phil said, multiple exposures and combining images in some way is a better, more controlled approach, but whacking a grad in may give acceptable results with less PP, even if you have to fix under-exposed portions caused by the grad.
 
Although I still have a set of grad filters I enjoy using the extra latitude in RAW files and DR of modern sensors if I can. The newest generation of Sony sensors is just amazing at base ISO. The difference in DR roughly matches what you can get from a grad filter (2-3 stops).

With grad filters I often struggle to align them properly, set the right strength. It is easy to overfilter, They don't always work for the scene, add reflections as you can not use hood, etc.

For more complex scenes I think it is better to use bracketing and merge frames in HDR Photoshop. It looks great (when not overdone)
 
I bought a set of grads and then barely ever used them as modern sensors have more that enough headroom for most situations and digital grads are far more versatile.

If I were really concerned I would bracket but as I tend not to use a tripod I don't do this often.
 
I'm still at the testing stage. I use grads but then I also bracket without a filter (one exposed for the highlights, the other for the shadows - I also shoot one "in the middle") to give me the option to merge them later and/or put a grad overlay on in post. I have to say that so far no one method is consistently better than the other on all occasions...
 
Digital merging is possible in a lot of landscape applications, but I find it's much less of a faff just to shoot with a grad on rather than set the tripod up, and kinder on disk space!
 
daugirdas said:
How much do you think can recover from shadows and highlights in a single RAW file. About a stop or two each way if you are very lucky... How much do you need to recover to get what you want. This should rather unambiguously tell if you need something beyond RAW file manipulation software.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's because my A77's Sony sensor has a pretty good dynamic range at low ISOs, or maybe I'm less fussy in my landscape processing, which anyway are mostly cityscapes, but I find that I can easily get more than a stop, more like 2 or 3, from a single RAW file, using Sony's own rather good Dynamic Range Optimiser, much better than anything else I've tried for pulling in extra dynamic range from either end. It's an impressive advance over what I used to be able to get from earlier cameras.

I do sometimes encounter situations where I realise I'll need a lot more dynamic range than I can get from a single RAW file, such as wanting to be able to see some of the filthily dark detail of the underside of a large deeply shadowed bridge arch, while also seeing through the arch to a brightly sunlit view beyond. In that case I have found I get such surprisingly good results from the in-camera HDR, which works handheld, that I've never bothered exploring DIY HDR in post processing from bracketed shots.

So if you're no more fussy than I am, you may find that some of today's better sensors and better software will remove the need for graduated filters. It may be too soon in sensor and software development to make general pronouncements about all digital cameras.
 
I love using grads, and I make a point of using them and getting people involved on my workshops. I rarely take a photo without grads, unless i'm using a telephoto or my 50mm prime. There's no right and wrong way really as bracketed shots look great too as long as they are blended cleanly. Just depends on what you like really :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top