Reverse Grad Advice!

captures.in.time

captures.in.time

Messages
1,764
Edit My Images
Yes
A simple question... If i was going to buy a reverse grad filter for sunsets and sunrise work... Do you think i am best to get a 0.9 (3 stop) or a 1.2 (4 stop) filter?

My gut tells me the 1.2 would be the right choice for intense sunsets where i struggle not too loose the detail completely with underexposure. But then maybe 4 stops is too much!

At £125 a filter for the LEE ones id rather just pick one.... I dont need 2 reverse grads!
 
If you already have a 1,2 and 3 stop ND Grad you can make a 3,4 or 5 stop reverse grad. You only use 2 together and you can alter the size of the reverse bit to suit to some extent.

Pete
 
My advice is not to buy a reverse grad, or anything heavier than 0.6 in general, or it will be far too much.

In the modern age it is easier to bracket and blend the images any way you like. By saying that I don't imply HDR by the way.
 
ecoleman said:
That method looks overly complicated and a nightmare to remember when you’re out in the field. Plus you need a three filters to make one.

Lee do make reverse grad filters now and I’m also thinking of getting one.

So back to the OPs question. 3 stop or 4 stop?
Click to expand...

Yes I read that method and whilst it makes sense... you are right seems overly complex. When I'm out enjoying a lovely specticle of the sun setting and i've found a nice composition... a bit of me wants to keep it simple... drop in one filter and then just wait till I think the light is perfect and ... SNAP!

I defo think im decided to get one! Just a matter of cost... as I look at the Lee system more im really tempted to replace my cheap holder with their set up and have the CPL on the front! Again down to ease. At the moment my set up is a bit conveluted and bits and pieces of various systems.

Maybe the 3 stop will be fine?!?
 
LongLensPhotography said:
My advice is not to buy a reverse grad, or anything heavier than 0.6 in general, or it will be far too much.

In the modern age it is easier to bracket and blend the images any way you like. By saying that I don't imply HDR by the way.
Click to expand...

You are maybe right less is more... however I think generally the stop diff is at least 3 stops.

I appreciate what your saying about the modern age... it's just not me... I prefer to endevour to get it right in camera!
 
ecoleman said:
That method looks overly complicated and a nightmare to remember when you’re out in the field. Plus you need a three filters to make one.

Lee do make reverse grad filters now and I’m also thinking of getting one.

So back to the OPs question. 3 stop or 4 stop?
Click to expand...
Not sure you have followed it correctly Elliot, you only need two filters - i.e. two nd grads. You simply place one of them upside down overlapping the gradation as much or as little as you want. tbh the method is easy to use when out shooting.

OP If you decide to get one then a 3 stop would be what I would start with of the two ... remember you can stack filters if needed.
 
PaulButler said:
Not sure you have followed it correctly Elliot, you only need two filters - i.e. two nd grads. You simply place one of them upside down overlapping the gradation as much or as little as you want. tbh the method is easy to use when out shooting.

OP If you decide to get one then a 3 stop would be what I would start with of the two ... remember you can stack filters if needed.
Click to expand...

Maybe I misread it but it still requires two slots in the holder which doesn't help of you have a ND filter too.
Just ordered a 3 stop reverse Lee filter. I feel like I've just been mugged :(

I've just worked out that my filter pouch and contents alone is worth £1200 o_O Think I need to relook at my insurance.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
Maybe I misread it but it still requires two slots in the holder which doesn't help of you have a ND filter too.
Just ordered a 3 stop reverse Lee filter. I feel like I've just been mugged :(

I've just worked out that my filter pouch and contents alone is worth £1200 o_O Think I need to relook at my insurance.
Click to expand...


£1200 would buy a good computer to blend shots in post processing.;)
 
ecoleman said:
Maybe I misread it but it still requires two slots in the holder which doesn't help of you have a ND filter too.
Just ordered a 3 stop reverse Lee filter. I feel like I've just been mugged :(

I've just worked out that my filter pouch and contents alone is worth £1200 o_O Think I need to relook at my insurance.
Click to expand...
Yep, you will need 2 slots. I'm about the same too as far as replacement cost of filters - frightening really.
 
Well a reverse grad is a new one on me, never heard of it before. You learn something every day.
 
PaulButler said:
Not sure you have followed it correctly Elliot, you only need two filters - i.e. two nd grads. You simply place one of them upside down overlapping the gradation as much or as little as you want. tbh the method is easy to use when out shooting.

OP If you decide to get one then a 3 stop would be what I would start with of the two ... remember you can stack filters if needed.
Click to expand...

Hi Paul, I understand this to be the method, and one I've never used (firmly in the bracket and blend camp) so it may seem a daft question.

Is there a risk of the abrupt change where the dark end of the grad stops if you overlap too much? Or does it just not show through in practice?
 
ecoleman said:
I have two top spec iMacs. I’m not interested in fixing everything in post.
Photography is an art. Anybody can polish turds in photoshop.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily a fair comment Elliot. All that's being discussed is the option to tame the highlights of a scene using a workaround of grads, or controlling that dynamic range when merging exposures.

Like I've said before, neither camp is correct. It just comes down to what element you enjoy doing more that gets you the results you are after.
 
Craig_85 said:
Not necessarily a fair comment Elliot. All that's being discussed is the option to tame the highlights of a scene using a workaround of grads, or controlling that dynamic range when merging exposures.

Like I've said before, neither camp is correct. It just comes down to what element you enjoy doing more that gets you the results you are after.
Click to expand...

I'm not against using post processing to tame highlights. Even though I use grads I still, on occasion, bracket and use luminosity masks to get that little bit more out of an image.

However to suggest I should have ditched my filters for a PC is just wrong IMHO. Maybe I should just ditch my DSLR and collection of fine lenses for a fancy smartphone while I'm at it.

Bracketing doesn't work in every situation either as I'm sure you're aware when trying to blend images with moving tree branches, clouds, water etc.
 
Time for some examples I think. As so often happens on here a lot of people chip-in with opposing ideas and both points of view could be correct in different circumstances. Clearly there are situations where you cannot bracket/blend (boats bobbing around on a lake for example) and there are situations where you cannot use grads (pointy mountains).
 
sirch said:
Time for some examples I think. As so often happens on here a lot of people chip-in with opposing ideas and both points of view could be correct in different circumstances. Clearly there are situations where you cannot bracket/blend (boats bobbing around on a lake for example) and there are situations where you cannot use grads (pointy mountains).
Click to expand...

The pointy-bits is really why I've never been attracted to grads as, for me, they cause as many problems as they solve; aside from also slowing you down and their quite considerable cost

I tend to not include the sun in my shots, whether that's as its behind a cloud, tree etc. and usually the DR is within what my camera can record; so I am trying to get as much of it 'right' in camera than in post, but a little post tweaking is close-to inevitable in high contrast scenes

If I shot a lot at the coast then I'd defo have some in my bag, so I'm not against them as such

Dave
 
ecoleman said:
I have two top spec iMacs. I’m not interested in fixing everything in post.
Photography is an art. Anybody can polish turds in photoshop.
Click to expand...
It’s not fixing in post. Blending is a perfectly good technique that can often improve upon use of grads as one you dont get a quality reduction from using any filter (however minor) and two it does away with a line or area of the image which you didn’t want the grad to appear in.

Let us not forgot that your camera is first and foremost a computer with screen, cpu, gpu, ram, hdd, software etc. Let’s not get snobby about which computer we use to take our images ;)
 
Brazo said:
It’s not fixing in post. Blending is a perfectly good technique that can often improve upon use of grads as one you dont get a quality reduction from using any filter (however minor) and two it does away with a line or area of the image which you didn’t want the grad to appear in.

Let us not forgot that your camera is first and foremost a computer with screen, cpu, gpu, ram, hdd, software etc. Let’s not get snobby about which computer we use to take our images ;)
Click to expand...

please see post #19

My camera is a tool to capture the raw data only. I do not let the camera do any processing. If I can capture more data by using a filter then that's my preferred method. Yes I still blend exposures if necessary but I'd rather blend two exposures a stop apart then have to deal with 4 exposures. (I do not have the luxury of a new camera with super dynamic range)

I never said that bracketing and blending isn't a good technique I was commenting on the silly idea that I should have bought a computer instead of filters.

and two it does away with a line or area of the image which you didn’t want the grad to appear in.
Click to expand...

never had a visible line in my images when using a grad. If you get visible lines, You're doing it wrong.
Also any area that may be darkened slightly were it's not needed can be easily fixed in Lightroom using the new luminosity masking or in photoshop using the same methods.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
please see post #19

Also any area that may be darkened slightly were it's not needed can be easily fixed in Lightroom using the new luminosity masking or in photoshop using the same methods.

Photography is an art. Anybody can polish turds in photoshop.
Click to expand...

Looking back at your earlier "statement", does that not constitute POLISHING A TURD?
 
Last edited:
Whatever floats your boat.

The point is, I try to capture the most data I can in a single shot. I sit in front of a computer all day at work so when I’m out taking photographs the las5 thing on my mind is how I can take a load of sub par images and then spend hours in front of my computer trying to get something out of them.

I’m not against post processing. If that’s what you enjoy, knock yourself out.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
Whatever floats your boat.

The point is, I try to capture the most data I can in a single shot. I sit in front of a computer all day at work so when I’m out taking photographs the las5 thing on my mind is how I can take a load of sub par images and then spend hours in front of my computer trying to get something out of them.

I’m not against post processing. If that’s what you enjoy, knock yourself out.
Click to expand...
Of course you can’t make a silk purse form a sows ear. No ones saying that. But please dont kid yourself that digital photography starts and stops ‘in camera’. Your day job has no relevance at all to digital photography.

Digital photography starts with a huge amount of processing in camera which is technically a computer anyway and is then secondary processed on your laptop or sub par mac computer. Whatever way your looking at it you are using a computer. If you want to do it ‘properly’ go (back) to film and the dark(ages).
 
Last edited:
I've never felt the need for a reverse grad and do quite a few sunrise/sunset shots. A Lee 0.9 hard grad has always been my weapon of choice to hold back a bright sky, so I'd say go 0.9
 
Last edited:
Moving back to the OPs post.

I still use the old Lee Filters method as outlined above in #2 using two of their filters with one reversed. I mainly use the .9 and the .3 so I guess the overlap must be 1.2. So I'd go with the 1.2 choice if I were to buy a dedicated reverse grad. For me, using the Lee two filter method, by increasing or decreasing the overlap of the filters I can vary the width of the darkened band to suit how wide the area of the sunset is.

The shot below, using Lee Filters two filter method, had quite a wide band of bright red and one of the newer reverse grad filters may not have covered the whole area.

Red Sky At Night by Mike Swain, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
I have two top spec iMacs. I’m not interested in fixing everything in post.
Photography is an art. Anybody can polish turds in photoshop.
Click to expand...

I would strongly disagree with that statement and that point of view.

Anybody can make turd in photoshop but very few can really make art with it. It is a valuable skill to use digital processing to your advantage and certainly a vital part of the process for many us in photography to a lesser or greater extent. Your suggestion is total bs.

I could just as well say anybody could stick plastic turd in front of a lens and press a button. Surely this doesn't sound as art :p
 
There is something else you need to consider for strong ND grads.

You will likely get away with one for something like this
The Pap of Glencoe view by Daugirdas Tomas Racys, on Flickr

And even then the mountains at the horizon would be darkened too much by the fall off of the filter.

Now lets move on to something like the post above mine which has a little bit of a curvature in the horizon and the foreground has quite a dark exposure. It can easily get more and more complex with mountains and big prominent buildings. Then what?!
I have used regular awful plastic ND grads here back in the day and I had to spend ages in LR and PS to bring back the brightness to the top of the hill and the rock above the horizon line.

Durdle Dusk by Daugirdas Tomas Racys, on Flickr

Then it gets far worse than this.

Masca view, Tenerife, Spain by Daugirdas Tomas Racys, on Flickr

Are you seriously going to stick a three stop filter over part of those hills? That's when you have to stop and consider if the filters are the best way to go or only in some cases where the horizon tends to be flat like seascapes.
 
3 stop reverse if you have to have one - 4 stop (1.2) seems excessive. I tend to shoot away from the sun so a simple soft edged filter is fine. You shouldn't see filter lines in images (if you do you should bracket or position the filter in a different way). Never use hard edged filters against subjects like mountains or buildings.

I like soft filters as you cannot tell when one has been used. Other than the tenerife shot I reckon with good post production and a soft edged you'd manage to get the shot in one exposure in a decent body
 
Craig_85 said:
Hi Paul, I understand this to be the method, and one I've never used (firmly in the bracket and blend camp) so it may seem a daft question.

Is there a risk of the abrupt change where the dark end of the grad stops if you overlap too much? Or does it just not show through in practice?
Click to expand...
It depends I think on how hard the grad edges are, I've only ever tried it with a Lee hard edged grad and the only times I've done it was for a bit of experimentation. If you don't try how would you ever know? (though it appears plenty on here have decided they do know - even though they've never tried ;) ).

The sky tended to need a bit of careful attention around the transition with the hard edged (perhaps that was because I knew where it was ...). From my use of them I'm not entirely convinced I need one (a reverse grad that is) as for me, if you are photographing a sunset you would expect the horizon to be the brightest part of the scene. About the only use would be to allow a little more detail in the sky perhaps ... I'll see if I have an example somewhere (they were really only test images). I certainly wouldn't use the very hard edged grads for this on a full frame camera, the transition would be far too obvious imo (don't know as not tried)

Alan Clogwyn said:
So, back to the OP, which value of reverse Grad?
Click to expand...
I did suggest a 3 stop earlier ... even then given that the horizon should be bright I'm not convinced and if (and I do say IF) I were to get one having thought about it I'd probably get a 2 stop one.
 
FiestaRed said:
Moving back to the OPs post.

I still use the old Lee Filters method as outlined above in #2 using two of their filters with one reversed. I mainly use the .9 and the .3 so I guess the overlap must be 1.2. So I'd go with the 1.2 choice if I were to buy a dedicated reverse grad. For me, using the Lee two filter method, by increasing or decreasing the overlap of the filters I can vary the width of the darkened band to suit how wide the area of the sunset is.

The shot below, using Lee Filters two filter method, had quite a wide band of bright red and one of the newer reverse grad filters may not have covered the whole area.

Red Sky At Night by Mike Swain, on Flickr
Click to expand...
That equates to a 0.9 not a 1.2 as you are already under exposing the foreground by 0.3
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top