# Graduated Neutral Density



## Eagle Eye (Jul 8, 2011)

So I made a claim in a recent post that Lightroom 3's capabilities essentially negate the need for carrying a graduated neutral density filter. Perhaps a premature assertion. I'd be curious to hear from the forum on the matter and I'd rather avoid the 'purist' argument (though I do respect it). I'm interested more in whether landscape photographers and the like have found the graduated neutral density feature on Lightroom as technically effective as I have.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 8, 2011)

I do not find the feature in lightroom to get anywhere near what a proper grad will do. The problem with grads is you need 2-3 of them at least, for various situations. I also use a reverse grad from time to time.

I think grads do a better and more natural job, however the cost benefit ratio may be off for some.

I use Singh-Ray grads by the way.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 8, 2011)

I was asking myself that question earlier in my head after reading a different thread on Cokins and holders.

one thing that i thought of is that if your sky is really bright, and your subject is really dark, you can either:
- expose the sky to just below full-blowout, and boost the brightness of the dark bits in Post Processing (less detail though).
- expose the dark bits nicely, but once the sky's blown out to full white, no PP can get any detail back.
- bracket exposures and combine them in PP (never done it, but i presume it'll take a bit of time)
- grad-nd will expose the dark bits nicely, stop the sky from blowing out, but my guess is that it works best only on straight-line horizons? what if you've got a mountain peak or two?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> I think grads do a better and more natural job, however the cost benefit ratio may be off for some.



I agree. The post-processing route involves more sacrifices (loss of detail in the shadows and/or highlights and extra shadow noise for a single-shot process, or ghosting if anything moves, e.g. from wind or waves, with bracketing/HDR).



dr croubie said:


> - grad-nd will expose the dark bits nicely, stop the sky from blowing out, but my guess is that it works best only on straight-line horizons? what if you've got a mountain peak or two?



That's one reason Craig mentions needing several ND grads - for a straight horizon you want a hard egde, for an uneven horizon you want a soft edge, and then you need different densities depending on the situation.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Jul 8, 2011)

I definitely understand what you're saying with loss of detail. I'm wondering if I just haven't used the L3 feature enough, since I've never lost enough detail to really notice, but then again, we're essentially talking about one to three stops of light. I don't have my filters anymore to do a side by side comparison. Would someone mind posting a pair of images, one with the grad nd and one with post-processing?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2011)

Eagle Eye said:


> Would someone mind posting a pair of images, one with the grad nd and one with post-processing?



Fortuitously, this very topic came up in a recent dPS article: Comparing Gradient Neutral Density Filters To Lightroom Gradient Tool. The author's conclusion was that, "...using tools in the computer after the fact is not a replacement for making sure data is captured correctly to begin with."


----------



## motorhead (Jul 8, 2011)

I have nothing against post processing and admit I enjoy it. But I struggle to make sky/clouds to seamlessly "fit" if I try and merge two exposures of the same scene.

Our brains are much cleverer than we think! Without knowing exactly why, subconciously we can tell when its not right.

I have the same problem when viewing many HDR's, they look false and are rejected out of hand mentally, even though otherwise they might be very good compositions.

I use a series of three soft edge Cokin grey grads, but I think if or when I replace them I will go for the harder edged versions.


----------



## kawasakiguy37 (Jul 19, 2011)

The only way to get something close to the quality of using a graduated ND would be to bracket the shots and combine in PP later. Blur the edge and all that jazz. Otherwise you will be losing a lot of light data one way or the other (or you wouldnt be needing to use gradation in the first place). Lightrooms is not even a close replacement if you arent bracketing (unless the scene is very even - in which case graduation is pointless anyways).


----------



## pinnaclephotography (Jul 19, 2011)

I think a combination of physical neutral density filters and their digital equivalents can make a suitable middle ground in terms of expense and encumbrance in the field.

If one operates with a simple set of 3 filters (probably a 2-stop varient of soft edge ND, hard edge ND, and a reverse GND), one can avoid the hassle of having to stack too many filters simultaneously and dealing with any probable color cast issues. My method is to use enough physical filters to avoid clipping the channels and get the exposure in each zone of the shot reasonably close to what I want the final result to be and then a bit of post processing filters to handle the finishing adjustments.

The two shots below were completed with the hybrid method I described. Oh, and both are single exposures.



Crashing Cape Kiwanda [explore 9/22/10] by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
I used a 2-stop GND to control the wave exposure and avoid clipping the highlights and used filters in post process to adjust the sky. I would have prefered a second physical filter for the sky, but I didn't have one with at the time.




The Mountain by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
I used a 2-stop GND to control sunset highlights and digital filters in post process to adjust the sky and mountain exposure.

Matt Peterson
http://www.pinnaclephotography.net/


----------



## Chewy734 (Jul 19, 2011)

beautiful shots Matt!


----------



## pinnaclephotography (Jul 19, 2011)

Chewy734 said:


> beautiful shots Matt!



Thanks!


----------



## ronderick (Jul 19, 2011)

A bit off the topic here, but in case anyone's interested...

Kenko-Tokina bought Cokin Filters: 
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/kenko-tokina-acquires-cokin-filters-16915


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2011)

ronderick said:


> A bit off the topic here, but in case anyone's interested...
> 
> Kenko-Tokina bought Cokin Filters:
> http://www.ephotozine.com/article/kenko-tokina-acquires-cokin-filters-16915



They bought them, but apparently they still haven't paid the bill for Cokin's website hosting....


----------



## ronderick (Jul 20, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> ronderick said:
> 
> 
> > A bit off the topic here, but in case anyone's interested...
> ...



mmm... my gut feeling tells me that Cokin product will soon become a part of the Kenko-tokina website.

PS: Hopefully the acquiring of Cokin will make their products more accessible to local consumers.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jul 31, 2011)

Concur with Matt and Neuroanatomist. You use filters when DR is too great. Post processing cannot bring back detail which the sensor has not captured. However, there are times where I don't get the filters quite correct in the field, and I definitely tweak in LR. Finally, there are times where filters won't work and you have to blend or HDR.


----------



## Sunnystate (Jul 31, 2011)

Wonder if anybody has any experience/info about cinematographic holders/mat boxes like Chrosziel or Genus.
And what are the limits when it comes to wide angle lenses, any chances to use witch super wide lenses?
Thanks.


----------



## docchevalier (Aug 16, 2011)

Few comments,

Matt, beautiful work, congratulations!

Canon Rumors - would you be so kind as to offer some more thoughts on the Singh-Ray variable ND filter you use? I see that they have a regular and a thin version, more suitable for wide angle lenses (where I expect I would be using ND mostly). I am presently using individual Tiffen ND filters of the non-grad type and am loathe to fill the bag with a bunch of fllters (again).

As for graduated ND filters, what do people like? I know of Cokin of course but the challenge is actually getting them in local stores. Living in Canada there are fewer retailers and internet ordering across the border adds a lot of pain if you have to return anything. In the very distant past when I shot film, I found the optical quality of the Cokin line not up to par and don't care to go there again, unless they have improved substantially in 25 years. (One would hope, but I don't know)

Are there variable ND filters other than Singh-Ray that people like?

Thanks in advance.

Doc


----------

