# Landscape Filters



## StudentOfLight (May 5, 2014)

I'd like to start building on my landscape toolbox and gradient filters are something I am sorely lacking. I'm aware of the LEE filter system and Fotodiox Wonderpana Freearc but there aren't suppliers in my region, so I would probably have to import myself. Anyway, I can't really get any hands on experience with either system so I am looking for comparisons between the two systems (or are there any others I should be looking at). 

Are there any unique selling points or design flaws with either filter holder system. What about the range and quality of the filters themselves.

Advanced filters are quite an expensive niche product and I don't want to jump into a particular system without knowing what's out there. Any experience and advice appreciated.


----------



## Tanispyre (May 5, 2014)

Have you considered the COKIN filters? I have been using the Cokin P series since my Kodachrome days, and have never had any issues with them. I love the flexibility of the filter holders being able to move my graduated ND filters to position the gradation where I want it to get the effect I want. The P series will fit lenses up to 82mm filter diameter, however on extreme wide angle lenses you may need to check to see if the mount is obstructing the view. Cokin does make other mounts for such lenses, Z-pro or something like that.

They are also quite affordable. You can usually get set up with everything you need for around $100. In fact, Amazon is having a sale right now on a good starter kit for $50. 
http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Square-Filter-Compatible-Cokin/dp/B00796I546/ref=sr_1_1?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1399299739&sr=1-1&keywords=cokin


----------



## Lightmaster (May 5, 2014)

bought an hitech kit.
have nothing to complain.

LEE is notorious sold out here in germany.
i heard the LEE ND-GRAD filters are polished on the thighs of virgins .... and there is a shortage of virgins. 

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/02/18/best-graduated-neutral-density-filters-6-models-tested-and-rated/2/

had cokin P system before but it was to small for some lenses i bought.

for some time there was a shortage of cokin filters here too.
cokin was in financial troubles and was bought by kenko/tokina.
so i guess situation should be better now.


----------



## Policar (May 5, 2014)

Don't bother. GNDs are tacky and you'll outgrow them fast. Same with polarizers.

Find good light, capture it.


----------



## mackguyver (May 5, 2014)

Policar said:


> Don't bother. GNDs are tacky and you'll outgrow them fast. Same with polarizers.
> 
> Find good light, capture it.


I agree somewhat on GNDs and rarely use them, but polarizers??? You can't replicate polarizers or ND filters in post.


----------



## Lightmaster (May 5, 2014)

Policar said:


> Don't bother. GNDs are tacky and you'll outgrow them fast. Same with polarizers.



i wonder how you do that.. bothering with comping two images in PS?
or waiting for a canon with the DR of 20 stops?

and polarizer?
how do you remove, for example, reflections in postproduction?
niks polarization or kolors neutralhazer plugins are crap compared with the real deal. 

i guess some of todays best landscape photographers would be interested to know your secrets.


----------



## tolusina (May 5, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > Don't bother. GNDs are tacky and you'll outgrow them fast. Same with polarizers.
> ...


 


Lightmaster said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > Don't bother. GNDs are tacky and you'll outgrow them fast. Same with polarizers.
> ...


 
Do this in post : ...........


----------



## Halfrack (May 5, 2014)

Do a 4x4 or 100mm system - Hitech/Lee/Cokin - they all work the same, but there are more costs than just the holder - the attachment rings you need for each filter size are the real cost. There is no replacement for a straight up ND filter - especially for that soft water look. Grad Filters are a preference thing, soft, hard or reverse all give different effects, but are great when you want to balance out a scene. Personally I've got the Cokin P system for some lenses and the Hitech 100mm system for the bigger glass. 

Foto Marketing seems to be the only dealer in South Africa, and they may not be around anymore.


----------



## Policar (May 5, 2014)

Nice "landscapes."

I use polarizers all the time. Never for landscapes.


----------



## thedman (May 5, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > Don't bother. GNDs are tacky and you'll outgrow them fast. Same with polarizers.
> ...



I agree that the polarizer is indispensable, but I can comp two images in post quicker than I can get out a grad ND and attach it.


----------



## thedman (May 5, 2014)

Policar said:


> Nice "landscapes."
> 
> I use polarizers all the time. Never for landscapes.



Takes the glare off water and foliage just like it does windows.


----------



## Lightmaster (May 5, 2014)

thedman said:


> but I can comp two images in post quicker than I can get out a grad ND and attach it.



i am a photoshop user since v1 and i doubt that. ;D

don´t get me wrong i do it myself with images from my "always with me cameras".... but good landscape images take some time and planing anyway.

when im out for landscapes i have my gear ready and using a ND-GRAD filter takes seconds.


----------



## thedman (May 5, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> i am a photoshop user since v1 and i doubt that. ;D
> 
> don´t get me wrong i do it myself with images from my "always with me cameras".... but good landscape images take some time and planing anyway.
> 
> when im out for landscapes i have my gear ready and using a ND-GRAD filter takes seconds.



Drawing a gradient on a layer mask takes less than a second.


----------



## mackguyver (May 5, 2014)

There is no way to produce the same results as a polarizer in PS, and no way to produce the same results as an ND filter. A grad ND can be done quite easily in PS and works in nearly every situation except for those when you want to have the same exposure time or want to combine it with an ND or CPL filter. Here's a decent tutorial on how to do it in PS:
Digital Graduated Neutral Density Filter in Photoshop

I do this (with some additional masking and such as needed) and have all but quit using my ND grads.


----------



## btaoka (May 5, 2014)

Here's a great link of reproducing the effect of ND Grads without needing an entire system (but you do need one ND filter). Before getting into landscapes, I wasn't (and am still not) able to spend a lot of $$$ on an entire ND grad set. I bought a $70 HOYA 6 stop circular ND filter and have used the magic cloth technique several times with pleasing results. The magic cloth technique isn't for everyone, but produces great results when done right. 

http://icelandaurora.com/blog/2010/07/20/tonys-magic-cloth-technique/


----------



## PicaPica (May 5, 2014)

thedman said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > i am a photoshop user since v1 and i doubt that. ;D
> ...



S___ i accidently removed my posting. 

so again:

i guess you know that it is not always that simple.
just pulling a simple gradient will not help you in many cases.

long exposures for example.
where you need a ND and a ND grad for the sky.
it´s sure not faster to do two long exposures and combine them in photoshop. 

then there are moving leaves and other objects that can ruin your simple "gradient" compositing. 
and voila... you will need longer for editing in photoshop then pushing a nd-grad.

of course when you have two images like those in the examples from the tutorial mackguyver posted, it works pretty well. no question. but those examples are tailor made.

and last but not least... most serious landscape photo competitions will disqualify you for doing such editings. for a good reason.
some people even like to put in a completely different sky.

that is fine for a photoshop competition but (imo) nature or landscapes should be natural not fictional.

i know... i know. you will say it´s doing the the same, just digitally.
exchanging a sky with a completely different sky or with a proper exposed sky are two different things. 
but you have to draw a line.... or people will abuse it.


----------



## thedman (May 5, 2014)

PicaPica said:


> long exposures for example.
> where you need a ND and a ND grad for the sky.
> it´s sure not faster to do two long exposures and combine them in photoshop.



I don't see why not. And it's way cheaper!



PicaPica said:


> then there are moving leaves and other objects that can ruin your simple "gradient" compositing. and voila... you need longer editing in photoshop then pushing a nd-grad.



This is about the only example where it may take longer. Still, I'll do the little extra mask modifying and save the hundreds.




PicaPica said:


> of course when you have two images like those in the examples from the tutorial mackguyver posted, it works pretty well. no question. but those examples are tailor made.



Those examples are 99% of why people buy grad NDs.



PicaPica said:


> and last but not least... most serious landscape photo competitions will disqualify you for doing such editings. for a good reason.



What reason? It's the exact same thing as using a grad ND.




PicaPica said:


> that is fine for a photoshop competition but (imo) nature or landscapes should be natural not fictional.



Are grad NDs fictional?


----------



## PicaPica (May 5, 2014)

thedman said:


> PicaPica said:
> 
> 
> > long exposures for example.
> ...



simple math... 

two images. 8 minutes and maybe 6 minutes exposure = 14 minutes.
using a nd grad filter to do it right in camera = 8 minutes.




> What reason? It's the exact same thing as using a grad ND.



i adressed that above. i knew that this question would arise so i edited my post.




> And it's way cheaper
> ....
> and save the hundreds.



well you spoke about "speed"... now you added money to the argumentation.
i only answered to your "speed" claim.


----------



## thedman (May 5, 2014)

PicaPica said:


> two 8 minutes exposure = 16 minutes.
> using a nd grad filter to do it right in camera = 8 minutes.



2 1-minute exposures = 2 minutes
1 1-minute exposure + digging around your bag for your 3 stop hard, wiping it off with your microfiber cloth, searching for your screw-on filter ring, screwing it on, sliding in your filter and figuring out where you should align it because your horizon isn't horizontal and the thing is darkening too much foreground = 5 minutes.





PicaPica said:


> i adressed that above. i knew that this question would arise so i edited my post.



What you did was set up a straw-man argument. Replacing the sky is something completely different. So is cranking the saturation to 100, but neither one is what we're talking about here. Nat Geo is fine with doing it digitally.



PicaPica said:


> well you spoke about "speed"... now you added money to the argumentation.
> i only anwered to your "speed" claim.



I haven't even begun yet to mention the infinite adaptability, and just briefly mentioned that horizons are never straight anyway so grad NDs are a poor, clunky tool for this task...


----------



## PicaPica (May 5, 2014)

thedman said:


> PicaPica said:
> 
> 
> > two 8 minutes exposure = 16 minutes.
> ...



well when you are unorganized then that can be the case. ;D

i edited my example because it was not 100% correct.
you would not do two 8 minute exposure.

still.. faster it would not always be my padawan.




> I haven't even begun yet to mention the infinite adaptability, and just briefly mentioned that horizons are never straight anyway



never?  
some are pretty straight to the eye.



> so grad NDs are a poor, clunky tool for this task...



well i guess we have to disagree on this topic then.
and looking at so many well payed landscape photographer doing it the old way.... i really don´t care. 

there are times when i use this PS technique myself.
simple seascapes with a straight horizon.... yep. no need to pull out the nd grad.

but saying that it is faster... is not always true.


it´s basically the same discussion as with tripods (as in making the same wrong assumptions).
some people (like the dreaded ken r. (*) ) will tell you, today, with IS and the good high iso image quality, you won´t need a tripod.

and that´s correct for some cases... but their error is that they forget the cases where a tripod is necessary. you can´t make a "per see" statement.

(*)


ken r. said:


> Many people still cling to the mystique of the tripod, even though tripods went out with film cameras.
> Hang onto your tripod if you're shooting a real camera like a Hasselblad, Gandolfi, Linhof, Silvestri, Horseman, Tachihara, Gilde, Seitz, Sinar or even a Wisner, Wista or Mamiya, but toss it if you're shooting a popular digital SLR.
> 
> Tripods are no longer required, and actually often degrade sharpness, because shutter speeds have climbed and IS and VR lenses reduced the need for slower speeds.



so throw away your gitzos... handholding a 800mm is possible and will give you some nice biceps. ;D


----------



## Policar (May 5, 2014)

thedman said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > Nice "landscapes."
> ...



Just wait for the right light.


----------



## PicaPica (May 5, 2014)

Policar said:


> thedman said:
> 
> 
> > Policar said:
> ...




or try another angle maybe? ;D
well i won´t explain why that is obvious bollocks... but it is.


----------



## Lightmaster (May 5, 2014)

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3166800625/behind-the-shot-shredded

it´s not so out of date as some may think.




> Just wait for the right light.



:


----------



## thedman (May 5, 2014)

Policar said:


> thedman said:
> 
> 
> > Policar said:
> ...



There is no 'right light' that doesn't produce glare on water and foliage.


----------



## thedman (May 5, 2014)

PicaPica said:


> there are times when i use this PS technique myself.
> simple seascapes with a straight horizon.... yep. no need to pull out the nd grad.



Ironically, that's the only time when your horizon _is_ as straight as your grad-ND edge.


----------



## Lightmaster (May 5, 2014)

thedman said:


> PicaPica said:
> 
> 
> > there are times when i use this PS technique myself.
> ...



there are cases when you notice a soft edge ND grad, no question.

anyway in some situations you need a grad filter because doing it in photoshop is not faster and tedious work.

i do not need my tripod all the time. 
i still have one, because sometimes i need one. 
same as with "landscape filters" or a polarizer.
yes you can do a lot without them in PS.
doesn´t help you for the occasions when PS will not help you.

i love PS but for landscape work i prefer doing it with a ND/grad filter.
most of the time i use a polarizer anway. 
and im not going to shoot fast. 
i setup my tripod and camera, search for a good location and work the scene.
out in the field im not in a hurry. 

ps:
i know a lot of photographer who only use lightroom or similiar apps. 
for them it´s not possible to combine images in such a way.
not everyone wants to spend much time in the "digital darkroom".

so in my opinion the comments from policar are just spam and don´t add much to the discussion.


----------



## Quasimodo (May 5, 2014)

btaoka said:


> Here's a great link of reproducing the effect of ND Grads without needing an entire system (but you do need one ND filter). Before getting into landscapes, I wasn't (and am still not) able to spend a lot of $$$ on an entire ND grad set. I bought a $70 HOYA 6 stop circular ND filter and have used the magic cloth technique several times with pleasing results. The magic cloth technique isn't for everyone, but produces great results when done right.
> 
> http://icelandaurora.com/blog/2010/07/20/tonys-magic-cloth-technique/



Thank you btaoka for this brilliant link. It nurses the fun side of photography. I have recently invested heavily in the Lee system, but this technique looks like a lot of additional fun


----------



## Keem (May 5, 2014)

I can recommend Cokin P system as a starting point.
You can even find some Chinese filter adapters as well. It is not the best system, but it is reasonably priced, and the available filters are not that expensive.

You can also use the Singh-Ray filters, which seem to be better than Cokin filters (see below).
Be aware that some Cokin NDs can cause some color shifts (and the shift can go even worse if you stack filters)

In addition the standard Cokin-P system (having 3 slots for filters) can cause significant vignetting when used with lenses wider that 24mm. The system also has a holder for a single filter which can used with lenses as wide as 20mm. If you are planning to use the filters with even wider lenses than you should consider Cokin-Z or similar systems (that have filters as wide as as 100mm)

I think you should first think about the widest lenses that you will use with filters and make your choice accordingly. But be warned that the prices can go sky high with systems having wider filters! 

You can start experimentation by a circular polarizer and a ND filter.

The graduated NDs can be useful but your composition should have straight horizon (no mountains/trees etc.) in order to have a natural look. You can correct the issue in post-processing; actually as many members discussed you can replicate the effect of a graduated ND filter by taking two photos (and using masks in PS)

Just be aware that a filter holder and a set of filters can take significant space in your camera bag.


----------



## thedman (May 6, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> anyway in some situations you need a grad filter because doing it in photoshop is not faster and tedious work.



It's only tedious work if you're making it way better than a grad ND could do. If you're just replicating a grad ND, it's a matter of seconds.


----------



## Destin (May 6, 2014)

Policar said:


> Find good light, capture it.



Agree



Policar said:


> Don't bother. GNDs are tacky and you'll outgrow them fast. Same with polarizers.



Strongly disagree. I use a GND for EVERY shot and a polariser 70% of time.


----------



## jrista (May 6, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> LEE is notorious sold out here in germany.
> i heard the LEE ND-GRAD filters are polished on the thighs of virgins .... and there is a shortage of virgins.



LOL! Well, I guess that's why I have such a hard time finding LEE Grads for sale.  

I bought into the Lee Filter System a while ago, maybe almost five years ago now. While I will say that it was difficult to buy in, as Lee is perpetually behind on producing enough supply for their demand, their filters are definitely worth it. I've tried other filters, and while quality seems to be improving these days, five years ago it wasn't uncommon to see a marked reduction in IQ when using off-brand filters vs. Lee's filters. They really are a step above the rest in most cases. 

I still find that there are filter shortages, Lee filters almost always seem to be sold out, however I now have most of the filters I need, so it's pretty rare that I need another (one case recently would be my broken polarizer...I haven't replaced it yet, it's been out of stock on the relatively rare occasions I look for it.)


----------



## Hillsilly (May 6, 2014)

thedman said:


> PicaPica said:
> 
> 
> > and last but not least... most serious landscape photo competitions will disqualify you for doing such editings. for a good reason.
> ...



Just google "Lindisfarne Boats". A great photo, but outside the rules and ultimately disqualified.

Every competition is free to have its own rules, but many landscape competitions apply FIAP "nature" type rules, in which "No elements may be moved, cloned, added, deleted, rearranged or combined. No manipulation or modification is permitted except resizing, cropping, selective lightening or darkening and restoration of the original color of the scene." Under these rules, using a neutral grad (or applying a similar effect in PhotoShop) is fine. Replacing whole skies isn't.

But there are many other competition categories where anything goes and extreme photo manipulation is often expected. 

Back to the OP, my everyday kit consists of: -

Hoya NDx400 (a 9 stop filter and a viable alternative to the Lee filter for those who prefer screw in lenses)
3 stop ND
Polarizer
R72 Infra Red

When shooting B&W film, I also include Red and Orange. When shooting colour, I'll typically throw an 81B on.


----------



## winglet (May 6, 2014)

I've been patiently building my Lee filter collection over the past few years and now have pretty much everything I want, 1 & 2 stop ND's (can stack for 3 stops), circular polarizer and Bigstopper. The latter is sort of like hunting down the Yeti, Lee's productions issues are well-known. But part of the reason is they are all completely hand-made, and I don't think Lee anticipated multi-stop filters becoming trendy over the last years, like off-camera flash. Another issue is finding all the bits and pieces, holders, adapter rings etc. I think I've sourced parts from about six different suppliers to get what I wanted.

I don't have any grad ND though. Not when the same effect can be achieved in post so easily, with far more control. As pointed out, very few landscapes perfectly delineate between ground and sky, in a straight line. But a polarizer and the ND's, are for effects that can't be replicated in PS. Sometimes I just want to lose a couple stops so I can still use flash in daylight with a large aperture. Pretty hard to do that after the image has been taken. And I think the window reflection pics posted earlier speak for themselves about polarization...


----------



## mackguyver (May 6, 2014)

winglet said:


> ...Bigstopper. The latter is sort of like hunting down the Yeti,..


LOL, so true! Congrats on getting a decent set of Lee filters and the abominable filter


----------



## thedman (May 6, 2014)

Hillsilly said:


> thedman said:
> 
> 
> > PicaPica said:
> ...



That doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about here. You do realize I'm referring to two exposures at the same time, combined with a gradient mask, right?


----------



## Tanispyre (May 8, 2014)

thedman said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Policar said:
> ...



I have no problems compositing images, however, probably as a throwback of my old slide film days, I get a lot more satisfaction out of capturing an image perfectly in one shot in camera, than building an image in photoshop. For me it is not as satisfying doing it after the fact. Still, I always BLH 
so I usually have the images to photoshop afterward if I need it.


----------



## mackguyver (May 8, 2014)

Tanispyre said:


> I have no problems compositing images, however, probably as a throwback of my old slide film days, I get a lot more satisfaction out of capturing an image perfectly in one shot in camera, than building an image in photoshop. For me it is not as satisfying doing it after the fact. Still, I always BLH
> so I usually have the images to photoshop afterward if I need it.


I bracket as well and find that in most cases (95%+), I'm able to pull everything I want out of a single RAW file, mainly because I try to shoot in the best light whenever possible. Sometime ago, I remember Adobe saying that they recommended working with a single capture vs. HDR and as someone who isn't a huge fan of the HDR look, I try to stick with one RAW file as much as possible. For my commercial work, mostly buildings, I often have to mask & blend multiple exposures, especially for interiors, but alas, this is a discussion of landscape filters


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 12, 2014)

Firstly cards on the table Im connected to Lee Filters. The shortages were very real even 12 months ago but that is not the case now. Every single Lee Filter is tested and has strict quality control that is why Lee products are generally more expensive than the competition. 
As for you can do everything in Photoshop etc. if that was the case then why do professional landscape photographers such as Joe Cornish, Jeremy Walker, Mark Denton, David Ward, Charlie Waite, David Noton, John Gravett, Tom Mackie, David Clapp (he has made videos for Canon on the 6d) etc. carry them in their kit bags adding weight & bulk?. I would suggest looking at Xposure the free new download magazine on the Lee Filters web-site this highlights professional photographers using filters in many situations and why. 

Lee use both glass and the highest quality optical resin the type used in the most expensive prescription glasses with a clarity that matches optical glass. The process is tightly controlled AND relies on the skill of the operative to ensure the best hard or soft edge graduations which are individually checked to a spectrometer to produce neutral grey. Its a facinating process and one the staff take very seriously demand grew but we didnt want to compromise quality so it took time for production to catch-up.


----------



## tolusina (May 12, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> ....... I would suggest looking at Xposure the free new download magazine on the Lee Filters web-site this highlights professional photographers using filters in many situations and why.....


Wasn't real easy to find. For anyone else interested, here's a linky thingy to Xposure.


----------



## jrista (May 12, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> As for you can do everything in Photoshop etc. if that was the case then why do professional landscape photographers such as Joe Cornish, Jeremy Walker, Mark Denton, David Ward, Charlie Waite, David Noton, John Gravett, Tom Mackie, David Clapp (he has made videos for Canon on the 6d) etc. carry them in their kit bags adding weight & bulk?. I would suggest looking at Xposure the free new download magazine on the Lee Filters web-site this highlights professional photographers using filters in many situations and why.



The reason you cannot simulate what a solid ND does in post is because it allows you to expose over a duration of time within which motion is occurring. You can take a photo of water, but if you take it with a high shutter speed, your not going to be able to replicate the effect that flowing water produces over a longer duration with an ND filter. Same goes for clouds, or anything else with motion. ND filters reduce the rate of light entering the lens, and therefor allow longer exposure times. There is no way to simulate a longer exposure time in post. 

The reason you cannot simulate what a GND filter does in post is because it reduces the dynamic range OF THE SCENE. If you are actually clipping your highlights without a GND, then those pixels are pure white. There is no recovery, and there is no simulating a GND filter...all you could do is make those pixels gray, you could not actually recover the detail that was lost by not using a GND filter. With GND filters, you pull down highlights in ANALOG space, before the light ever even reaches the sensor, thereby reducing the dynamic range of the world around you AS it enters the lens.

These are real-world physical effects. They cannot be simulated. Hence the reason photographers who know what they are doing invest the money on a good multi-filter holder (like the Lee Filter system) and a bunch of good 4x6" filters. Because they are quite literally ESSENTIAL to achieve the effects they support.


----------



## ScubaX (May 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > As for you can do everything in Photoshop etc. if that was the case then why do professional landscape photographers such as Joe Cornish, Jeremy Walker, Mark Denton, David Ward, Charlie Waite, David Noton, John Gravett, Tom Mackie, David Clapp (he has made videos for Canon on the 6d) etc. carry them in their kit bags adding weight & bulk?. I would suggest looking at Xposure the free new download magazine on the Lee Filters web-site this highlights professional photographers using filters in many situations and why.
> ...



I agree with most of what you said, but I think there are situations where GND can be simulated in post. Just like using a filter, it takes some forethought by taking multiple exposures of that scene and then in post compositing and masking. As long as it doesn't include motion such as clouds or water it will be a pretty good substitution for a GND filter.

I have a pretty complete set of Lee filters and bought them because I want longer exposures, particularly of water scenes. And even for landscapes that don't include motion, I would prefer to get it right in the camera.

Then of course there is HDR and long exposures combining both filters and masking in post. I haven't tried this yet, but I've been giving it some thought and want to find the right situation to give it a try.


----------



## jrista (May 12, 2014)

ScubaX said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



The whole entire point of GND filters is to AVOID having to take multiple shots, which is where you get into HDR. HDR is really a misnomer...doesn't matter if you do an HDR blend and convert down to 16-bit, use Enfuse, or manually tonemapp, all three approaches achieve the same thing, and all three require more than one shot. HDR is certainly a viable option, however HDR is different than using a GND and it's not the same as single-shot photography. The purpose of a GND is to balance contrast and reduce dynamic range so you can take one single shot of your scene and not have to worry about clipped highlights.


----------



## ScubaX (May 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> ScubaX said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I agree 100%, but that doesn't mean there are not photographers that would prefer using multiple exposures to obtain the same effect as GND in some instances. They save on the cost and don't have to carry the equipment. My preference is to use the filter and skip the post process of doing the same thing. But since I also prefer shooting movement, that is only done with a filter or in very low light.


----------

