Are ND Graduated Filters becoming obsolete?

[69Bonni]

A short while ago i read an item about this very topic, which led to a lot of soul searching and questioning myself whether in my view it is the case.
This was all instigated by my desire to replace some damaged Lee grads (Soft 0.6, 0.9). When this desire arose it was countered by an equal desire to purchase a new lens. Now as SWMBO can only put up with a certain amount of equipment acquisition without there being a detrimental effect on my health i had to make a decision. So i felt that i must try and justify to myself going one way or the other.
After some research and finding this article, i started to analyse my methodology on a typical Landscape shoot (for me anyhow). Looking at how many times i had used a graduated filter, as opposed to another method, and how successful the results were. I also considered the advantages and disadvantages of the various methods i.e. Digital Blending in post, versus Digital application of Graduated filter, in post verses Physical ND Grad.

Some questions arising from this were:-

With the later generations of DSLR with their excellent dynamic range do I need a physical ND Grad today?
Is the weight of additional kit a factor?
Considering the precarious positions we encounter is it just another item to impede us considering how fragile they are?
Am i just using a Physical Grad because of they way i was taught or because i have spent a lot of cash on a filter system?
What can i do with a Physical Grad i cant do digitally and vica versa?
Is this just something we use because "We have always done it this way"?
How often do i use my Grads now?
Has using a Grad ever negatively impacted a shot?

I'll leave you to contemplate your answers....

I know you may think that these questions seem bias against the physical grad but they are not intentionally. I suppose one of the big questions is are we being hoodwinked by manufacturers, photographers that have a vested interest and magazines or are we hoodwinking ourselves? Is it because someone has told us to be a Landscape photographer you MUST have a set of grads at £xxx?
It may have been that with earlier cameras we did indeed need a graduated filter. I did used to subscribe to the theory get it right in the camera but i think there is less of case for this now.

Something that did stick in my mind was this, if we do shoot with a physical grad, we have placed another piece of glass/resin in front of the lens, and if we did get it wrong its not something that can be reversed as you can with a digitally imposed grad.

I am, of course making an assumption that we are all RAW shooters and that we process our images on a computer, so is this dilemma going to be passed this down to the next generation of Landscape Photographers i wonder?

I will rightly or wrongly post the link here to the topic in hope that i'm not doing anything wrong by the forum and that it will not be removed by the Mods http://mattk.com/why-graduated-neutral-density-filters-are-dead-to-me/

I would be really interested in your comments folks

So did i buy the Lens or the Grads?

 

[Wayne Els]

Sounds like clickbait unless that's not your site.

Personally I prefer to use a 2 stop nd grad and then maybe apply another one in LR. I'm not a fan of spending ages in post and I don't like having to take the time with HDR/blending. Another reason is that a lot of my shots are done hand held on dog walks which makes the multiple exposure route more difficult.

 

[69Bonni]

Sounds like clickbait unless that's not your site.

Personally I prefer to use a 2 stop nd grad and then maybe apply another one in LR. I'm not a fan of spending ages in post and I don't like having to take the time with HDR/blending. Another reason is that a lot of my shots are done hand held on dog walks which makes the multiple exposure route more difficult.

No it's certainly not!
I have no intention of passing traffic to this site lets get that clear. I would have posted the body of the text into the post had i thought it legitimate.
I have mixed feeling on a lot of American sites anyhow but i generally make up my own mind.

I see your point Wayne, is that not double handling the file if your applying a grad in LR anyhow? "I'm not a fan of spending ages in post"?? This is another point too, i'd rather be out shooting than sat in front of a PC for sure, However just how easy is it to apply that grad in LR.

 

[PaulButler]

Wow, talk about loaded/biased questions

I did used to subscribe to the theory get it right in the camera but i think there is less of case for this now.

I sometimes get fed up hearing this (well a bit) ... and no I'm not deliberately being controversial.

It was no doubt important when we shot film, and in particular if it was slide film. Again presuming we are talking about shooting raw. However shooting digitally we should think "digitally". What we are doing is capturing data, so we need to optimise that data capture which may in some circumstances mean NOT getting it "right" in camera - at least in how the image looks on the camera or in raw jpeg. Think here of UNI WB etc and everything will look green!

The above of course pre-supposes we are happy to sit at a pc and do the processing after the event.

The same applies to blending etc - and it is a technique I sometimes use (but then I sometimes use a grad as well ...). My job involves sitting at a pc so anything I can do to reduce that in my leisure time is welcomed and if that means using grads then I will, and do.

I'm pretty sure you bought the lens btw.

 

[Wayne Els]

No it's certainly not!


I see your point Wayne, is that not double handling the file if your applying a grad in LR anyhow? "I'm not a fan of spending ages in post"?? This is another point too, i'd rather be out shooting than sat in front of a PC for sure, However just how easy is it to apply that grad in LR.

Applying a grad in LR takes seconds, blending multiple images well takes a whole lot longer.

Yesterday on Dartmoor, a bright day with low sun there was a huge difference between sky and ground looking south. To try and pull the shadows and lower the sky would not work purely in post with one shot. Even with an ND the processing was a bit of a challenge but it does become manageable.

Edited to add a link to a couple of shots from yesterday. Both used a 2 stop ND and also had another added in LR.

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/nice-day-on-dartmoor.637606/

 

[69Bonni]

Wow, talk about loaded/biased questions


I sometimes get fed up hearing this (well a bit) ... and no I'm not deliberately being controversial.

It was no doubt important when we shot film, and in particular if it was slide film. Again presuming we are talking about shooting raw. However shooting digitally we should think "digitally". What we are doing is capturing data, so we need to optimise that data capture which may in some circumstances mean NOT getting it "right" in camera - at least in how the image looks on the camera or in raw jpeg. Think here of UNI WB etc and everything will look green!

The above of course pre-supposes we are happy to sit at a pc and do the processing after the event.

The same applies to blending etc - and it is a technique I sometimes use (but then I sometimes use a grad as well ...). My job involves sitting at a pc so anything I can do to reduce that in my leisure time is welcomed and if that means using grads then I will, and do.

I'm pretty sure you bought the lens btw.

Hi Paul
Thank you very much for commenting.
Yes sorry about that yes it's a hang over from film I spose, I used grads then too as I never had the luxury of a dark room and the kit to develop. (Well I dabbled a bit with B&W under the stairs, hardly a dark room).
I'm really just being the Devils advocate as I do use Grads and Digital processing.
I just get fed up with lugging it all around I guess and grads do have there limitations. Bloody expensive to replace and easy to damage are but a few, and I'm very careful with my kit. I also seem to use them less and less.
I too sit at a PC all day and do not relish the idea of processing a load of images, so I absolutely agree on that, but if we're drawing a comparison to film an old friend used to spend ages in his darkroom developing and enlarging his work. Where as I think digital processing can be quite quick by comparison, unless you get bogged down in pixel crunching.

I guess I'm probably trying to justify to myself should I bother to replace those filters!
I do appreciate your comments Paul and thanks for taking the time to comment

 

[69Bonni]

[GALLERY=][/GALLERY]

Applying a grad in LR takes seconds, blending multiple images well takes a whole lot longer.

Yesterday on Dartmoor, a bright day with low sun there was a huge difference between sky and ground looking south. To try and pull the shadows and lower the sky would not work purely in post with one shot. Even with an ND the processing was a bit of a challenge but it does become manageable.

Edited to add a link to a couple of shots from yesterday. Both used a 2 stop ND and also had another added in LR.

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/nice-day-on-dartmoor.637606/

Hi Wayne
Thank you very much for taking the time to comment.
I can see where you are coming from, and that is certainly one solution to the problem. Don't get me wrong I still use Grads, I just am using them a lot less and they have there limitations. I find myself quite often using them as an ND filter rather than a grad.
Although I don't much like sitting processing all evening, I found I can merge two images in PS quick enough. (I'm not being a smart Arse just done a lot of it and the more you do the quicker you get).
TBH if you are shooting a scene with a level horizon grads are great, if your shooting something that protrudes up out of the horizon, then we're back to more time on the computer dodging and burning to bring up the exposure lowered by the grad.
I guess it's horses for courses.
I think I'm just trying to justify if replacing the grads is warranted.
Thanks to taking the time Wayne

 

[Craig_85]

I don't mind posting my thoughts on grads vs blending later when I'm at a keyboard.

But if you are interested in a couple of secondhand lee 100mm ones I would happily sell you mine cheap.

Although that should tell you my opinion of them!

 

[69Bonni]

Oh dear, that answers that then

 

[dcash29]

If ND filters are dead for reducing sky/land exposures, so are camera apps. You just replace the sky, simple.
But that doesn't pad out your website or perhaps get you a freebie from Sony.

 

[justinminns]

There's more than one way to deal with dynamic range issues whichever one you chose is personal preference... sometimes I bracket shots but most of the time I use filters. Filters do more than just deal with DR issues though which is why I use them.

 

[ecoleman]

I use filters all the time. I certainly wouldn't believe everything the likes of Kelby, Kloskowski and company tell you.
They'll say whatever pays them the most.

 

[69Bonni]

There's more than one way to deal with dynamic range issues whichever one you chose is personal preference... sometimes I bracket shots but most of the time I use filters. Filters do more than just deal with DR issues though which is why I use them.

Hi Justin
Thanks for the comment, just being devil's advocate I guess, and i do still use them, I suppose using Dynamic Range as an example was something i picked as something most could relate too. For me its just another tool in our armory to get a lovely image.
Appreciate you stopping by and commenting.
I have often been on your site by the way, i love your work, very nice

 

[69Bonni]

I use filters all the time. I certainly wouldn't believe everything the likes of Kelby, Kloskowski and company tell you.
They'll say whatever pays them the most.

Absolutely Elliott i couldn't agree more i gave up, not the reading, but the believing what people said a long time ago. as I mentioned in the OP, a lot of people have a vested interest in saying (or teaching) what they do some in the pockets of manufacturers too.
We all have to remember they have to make there living by writing these reviews, column's and books etc.

I think it gets to a point when you're big enough (and in my case ugly enough) to make up you're own mind. However it can completely misguide those new to photography one way or the other.
I'm not sure there is actually a right way and a wrong way, probably the own individuals preferred method, which can depend on the circumstances.
I have a heap of filters in my bag not all used a lot bet sometimes required.

Thanks for popping by and taking the time to comment

 

[ecoleman]

As the saying goes, there are two ways to skin a cat.

Personally I prefer to get as much as I can done right in the camera instead of spending hours blending multiple exposures. After all it is photography that is my hobby, not digital editing.
That's not to say I don't still edit my photos and even though I have used a filter I may still tweak things a bit more, but with filters I'm closer to the end point before editing begins.

 

[69Bonni]

Hi Yes, I agree....
Its become a very different game hasn't it, since the advent of digital. A good friend a professional who taught me (sadly passed away now) was a great photographer, at the advent of digital he hung up his camera as he could not get on with computers. He stayed active for a few years on film but he had had enough i think. It was quite shocking to witness his whole career (that was) vanish so to speak. He was not worried about it one jot because he had retired. He had a vision for Photography i could only dream of and he could "See" Photos and Compositions i would never see in a lifetime.

I think you can get sucked into processing cant you, and end up doing more and more to an image, i suppose just because you can. I try and keep my processing down to a minimum, but i did learn the "Hard Way" (as my father would have said).
It took me sometime to see the light!

I will use a combination of all of the above filters and processing whatever's needed, but i don't want to be sat in front of a computer for hours either. Having said that i do envy some peoples skills for processing and even through i have used Photoshop for a very long time i think you can always pick out those images and when you look at the photographer you find they are also a graphic designer so not only do they have the eye for composition they can wield Photoshop like Excalibur!

I think as long as we enjoy what were doing that's what counts.

I see a lot of people here and elsewhere being told they HAVE to have graduated filters to become a landscape photographer which was partly the reason for the post, whilst it might be desirable you don't HAVE to have them. When your starting out there are other things that are surely more of a priority.

 

[PaulButler]

I see a lot of people here and elsewhere being told they HAVE to have graduated filters to become a landscape photographer which was partly the reason for the post, whilst it might be desirable you don't HAVE to have them. When your starting out there are other things that are surely more of a priority.

I agree with you, but so many (me included at some time) get obsessed over gear. It takes a while to realise that the gear can help, but it won't make the image - only you (we/me/us) can do that. Some never seem to get it though.

 

[69Bonni]

I agree with you, but so many (me included at some time) get obsessed over gear. It takes a while to realise that the gear can help, but it won't make the image - only you (we/me/us) can do that. Some never seem to get it though.

Its the old adage "All the gear no idea" springs to mind eh!
I think i would have traded all my gear for the ability and vision that Peter (the pro that i knew) had with a camera.
Whats the other one.... Its the person that takes the picture not the camera... How true that is.

I must say i enjoy this and other sites, as well as looking through photographers web sites, a great source of inspiration some of them ..... and when you talk to some of them they even appear mortal!
The good thing is they inspire me to be better, and you never stop learning no matter how good (or bad) you are. i enjoy the learning!

 

[69Bonni]

I agree with you, but so many (me included at some time) get obsessed over gear. It takes a while to realise that the gear can help, but it won't make the image - only you (we/me/us) can do that. Some never seem to get it though.

Actually i have just remembered something that proved the case about equipment. I went out with the guy i mentioned once and as we discussed things i stupidly said his pictures were better than mine because he had a better camera (Oh the stupidity of youth. As i remember it, his camera was a well worn Contax). He immediately said OK we will swap cameras for the afternoon. At the time my camera was a Pentax ME. I imagine you can guess the rest!

 

[PaulButler]

Actually i have just remembered something that proved the case about equipment. I went out with the guy i mentioned once and as we discussed things i stupidly said his pictures were better than mine because he had a better camera (Oh the stupidity of youth. As i remember it, his camera was a well worn Contax). He immediately said OK we will swap cameras for the afternoon. At the time my camera was a Pentax ME. I imagine you can guess the rest!

hehe, yep I can guess but I bet you never said it again We are spoiled now with the gear that is available, which I'm defo not complaining over

 

[Craig_85]

It is an interesting subject that like always provokes a discussion. That in itself should answer your question Steve...

For the vast majority of us whose results are not making us money or even gaining us recognition photography is a hobby. If you enjoy using grads keep using them. If you enjoy editing on a computer do that. That I think will remain the crux of the matter for a long time too.

For me personally I've got to say this argument about spending hours in front of a computer partly doesn't hold true and if I do it does not bother me. If all you want is a simple grad blend you take your 2 converted RAW files into PS stack one on top of the other add a layer mask grab the gradient tool and add your graduated filter effect. It takes no longer than getting a filter out of its case, attaching the holder and sliding it into place. The beauty is, that you have infinite control on the position of the grad, the hard/soft transition and the strength of it by doing it in post production.

This may not affect many people but when I used grads I used to make mistakes. I would use too strong a grad than what I needed, I would badly place the transition and it was one more thing to have to think about when the light was changing rapidly and I want to concentrate on shooting. I know it is not difficult but composing, focussing and exposing is enough for me. Also having to mess around with filters, assess my use of them and adjust whilst the light is changing and I'm probably cold is one thing I'd rather not be doing because at the point of being out in the field my time is valuable.

When I get home in the evenings and coronation street is on and the missus is on her iPad I have all the time in the world so I would personally much rather deal with the dynamic range then with a nice cup of coffee and the option to undo/adjust it to my hearts content. I then have the time to do actual luminosity mask blending and arguably deal with the situation better than the grad could have done.

This is not the right approach for everyone, in fact the majority seem to think you need to be using grads and 15 stop filters to be part of the semi professional club and look at you like you don't know what you are doing when you set up without filters but like I said to begin with, just do what you enjoy. If you are like me the results aren't worth worrying about one way or the other, in fact dynamic range is probably one of the least important things in a good photo. We strive to master it and I'm pleased we are thinking about what we are doing but the best photos are about, light, atmosphere and story telling. Who cares if this is done with a dark piece of plastic or a computer?

 

[Steve Smith]

The only problem I can see with doing it in post production is that If you are toning down a bright sky, with the rest of the image correctly exposed, parts of the sky might be blown out. No amount of post production work will bring that detail back.

And if you are exposing correctly for the sky, the rest of the scene will be under exposed, Recovering that could introduce some noise.


Steve

 

[69Bonni]

It is an interesting subject that like always provokes a discussion. That in itself should answer your question Steve...

For the vast majority of us whose results are not making us money or even gaining us recognition photography is a hobby. If you enjoy using grads keep using them. If you enjoy editing on a computer do that. That I think will remain the crux of the matter for a long time too.

For me personally I've got to say this argument about spending hours in front of a computer partly doesn't hold true and if I do it does not bother me. If all you want is a simple grad blend you take your 2 converted RAW files into PS stack one on top of the other add a layer mask grab the gradient tool and add your graduated filter effect. It takes no longer than getting a filter out of its case, attaching the holder and sliding it into place. The beauty is, that you have infinite control on the position of the grad, the hard/soft transition and the strength of it by doing it in post production.

This may not affect many people but when I used grads I used to make mistakes. I would use too strong a grad than what I needed, I would badly place the transition and it was one more thing to have to think about when the light was changing rapidly and I want to concentrate on shooting. I know it is not difficult but composing, focussing and exposing is enough for me. Also having to mess around with filters, assess my use of them and adjust whilst the light is changing and I'm probably cold is one thing I'd rather not be doing because at the point of being out in the field my time is valuable.

When I get home in the evenings and coronation street is on and the missus is on her iPad I have all the time in the world so I would personally much rather deal with the dynamic range then with a nice cup of coffee and the option to undo/adjust it to my hearts content. I then have the time to do actual luminosity mask blending and arguably deal with the situation better than the grad could have done.

This is not the right approach for everyone, in fact the majority seem to think you need to be using grads and 15 stop filters to be part of the semi professional club and look at you like you don't know what you are doing when you set up without filters but like I said to begin with, just do what you enjoy. If you are like me the results aren't worth worrying about one way or the other, in fact dynamic range is probably one of the least important things in a good photo. We strive to master it and I'm pleased we are thinking about what we are doing but the best photos are about, light, atmosphere and story telling. Who cares if this is done with a dark piece of plastic or a computer?

Wow, I couldn't have put it more succinctly myself Craig.
I think this whole thread was born from two aspects, one, do I want to replace my grads and two, I was getting a bit fed up of seeing those newer to the art of photography pretty much being told you HAVE to have grads. That's where it all started.

For someone new to the game there are far more important things to possess than grads especially if your on a budget IMHO. If you happen to be on a budget you might convince yourself that buying let's say, grads of an unknown quality from an online source is a great solution. Then the budding photographer has presented themselves with two possible issues. One the evil colour cast that may have been induced by the cheap grad and two the possibility (WARNING I'm gonna use the phrase again sort of) "getting it WRONG in camera" as you have mentioned above. Once you've got it wrong in camera that's it in the same way that if you have miss focussed.
Sitting it front of the PC is a personal think I guess I find I get sucked into it and end up looking at many more photos than I intended.

So the post has grown and we have a nice range of comments to which I am thankful to all those who took time out to comment. Sincerely I do appreciate ever comment I appreciate in the rat race in which we all live today taking time out to post a comment is more time you could have had doing something else so I really do appreciate it.

This post is here in the hope that those new to photography that are being told they have to have grads will read it. At least then be able to make up their own minds and be aware or the pros and cons of the different methods of achieving the same or similar end result.

 

[69Bonni]

The only problem I can see with doing it in post production is that If you are toning down a bright sky, with the rest of the image correctly exposed, parts of the sky might be blown out. No amount of post production work will bring that detail back.

And if you are exposing correctly for the sky, the rest of the scene will be under exposed, Recovering that could introduce some noise.


Steve

Hi Steve thank you for the comment.
Indeed thats correct. I guess in that situation, rather than applying a graduated filter in post, you would be taking, two exposures, for the sky and the land and combining them in post (as I do often when I've ether forgotten or lost/damaged my filters).
But I think we have to also consider in this case that someone new to photography may not possess the software or know how to do this.

Really appreciate you stopping by Steve!

 

[ian-83]

I have found this thread interesting. I currently only have some cheap Kood filters, been looking at something suitable for my lens and all the recommendations are I need to go for a 100mm system to avoid any vignetting. Can't really justify spending around £300-400 on a filter holder, polarizer,lens adapter and a couple of filters.

I have had a look about for guides on how to exposure blend and overall all it doesn't look like too hard a process. Just have to remember to take each photo twice, exposing once for the sky and once for the land.

I think the only filters I might buy are a circular polarizer and maybe something like a 3/4 stop ND screw on filter for my lens.

 

[User.82148]

I have just bought a set of ND filters, adapter and holder as I do a lot of landscape photography and want to see for myself if they have benefits over what can be achieved in post processing.

Apart from the blending of two images mentioned above, there appear to be several methods of balancing the exposure in LR or PS including replacing the sky with sky from a different image.

Do you have a favourite method and is it easy?

 

[69Bonni]

I have found this thread interesting. I currently only have some cheap Kood filters, been looking at something suitable for my lens and all the recommendations are I need to go for a 100mm system to avoid any vignetting. Can't really justify spending around £300-400 on a filter holder, polarizer,lens adapter and a couple of filters.

I have had a look about for guides on how to exposure blend and overall all it doesn't look like too hard a process. Just have to remember to take each photo twice, exposing once for the sky and once for the land.

I think the only filters I might buy are a circular polarizer and maybe something like a 3/4 stop ND screw on filter for my lens.

Hi Ian thanks for stopping by.
I guess the good thing is you have already used some filters albeit some cheaper ones, however sometimes the cost can be irrelevant it's how they perform with your lens. If they work well that's great don't just buy expensive ones for the hell of it. The fact that you have already used grads and made your own mind that you want to use them because it suits you is good.
I have the Lee filters which are costly. There are other manufacturers of course like NISI, ProGrey, and Hitech filters. I have borrowed and used Nisi and Progrey and I would say they are around the same sort of quality as Lee, perhaps better, these other two, I was quite impressed with, I don't have any experience with Hitech I'm afraid. On the downside with the exception of Hitech there all a similar price to the Lee system.

I would recommend perhaps getting a CPL filter first. Do as much research as you can and get the best you can afford, it's perhaps one of the few filters you can't really replicate in post. If your sold on getting grads then perhaps consider doing a bit at a time. Look here in the classifieds, eBay etc, there are bargains to be had.
There are also some ND filters that don't throw much of a cast for very reasonable costs, I have a Camidox that seems to be fairly neutral and was quite cheap really.

Exposure blending is quite easy, practise on a few and you will soon have it weighed off, it's a good technique to learn and blending not just for exposure you will find has many uses. You can semi automate shooting with the camera by just bracketing an exposure, most cameras have a bracketing option where you can dial in the number of exposures and the amount of + or - exposure you want. Then just blend in post.

I hope you found some of the comments useful in this thread Ian, thanks for commenting.[/QUOTE]

 

[69Bonni]

I have just bought a set of ND filters, adapter and holder as I do a lot of landscape photography and want to see for myself if they have benefits over what can be achieved in post processing.

Apart from the blending of two images mentioned above, there appear to be several methods of balancing the exposure in LR or PS including replacing the sky with sky from a different image.

Do you have a favourite method and is it easy?

Hi Archie,
I think it is good to have them in your armoury because you never know when you might need them it's also important to know how to handle the situation when you have forgotten them, or they just blew off the top of the cliff.
It's also important to know you can screw up an image if you don't use them correctly.

Blending in Photoshop is a great technique to learn not just for blending exposures but to assist in other areas too.
I will load the images into photoshop one on top of the other in the layers palette, open a layer mask on the top image. Select the layer mask so it's active.
Then I'll pick the gradient tool and select with a black to white linear gradient. Then with the gradient tool press shift and draw a gradient from about the top third draw down the image which will pull out the gradient over the image. You may have to play around to get it right. You can move the grad position on the image by un linking the layer mask then dragging the grad around on the image.
Alternatively use the same process but instead of a grad use a large soft white brush to brush over the image to reveal the layer below selectively. Obviously you can tweak the opacity etc to taste. Both are easy to get used to. I would imagine there are a lot of videos demonstrating this on YouTube I'm sure.
In Lightroom I simply pull down a grad from top over the image to where I need it. Then adjust the exposure in the grad toolbar and recover any shadows where objects in the photograph might be protruding up into the sky. Now this is great because recovering the shadows in the grad toolbar doesn't alter the grad over the sky just the darker objects the grad is covering( now you can't do that with a physical grad! ).

As for replacing the sky in a photograph from another image, that's totally against my morals as a photographer. I would classify that as an image or art not a photograph. My view is that I am trying to replicate to the best of my ability what I see in front of me. I would never ever replace a sky.

All the best Archie, thanks for the comments

 

[User.82148]

Good answer. Thanks!

 

[Wayne Els]

It is an interesting subject that like always provokes a discussion. That in itself should answer your question Steve...


For me personally I've got to say this argument about spending hours in front of a computer partly doesn't hold true and if I do it does not bother me. If all you want is a simple grad blend you take your 2 converted RAW files into PS stack one on top of the other add a layer mask grab the gradient tool and add your graduated filter effect. It takes no longer than getting a filter out of its case, attaching the holder and sliding it into place.

I stand by my comment. Bearing in mind if I'm out the finer holder will be on the camera anyway. Even if it wasn't, you still can't do all of that that quickly. The main point is that it does't bother you not that it's quick.

 

[69Bonni]

Good answer. Thanks!

There are lots of Videos on You Tube Archie, but there are a few duff ones. I recommend just grabbing a couple of test shots and playing with the different methods and see what suits you and how you work.
Of course blending has many uses, and can be easily mastered.
Another example is perhaps if you have taken several exposures at various shutter speeds and you have a nice long exposure of some clouds streaming across the landscape, but in the shot you also have a tree and due to the LE all the leaves are blurred by the movement. You can then blend a shot with a faster shutter speed with the long exposure shot and restore all the detail in the leaves. just one of many uses.
Generally i will carry out all my processing in LR then take them over to PS if i need to.

 

[JonBowles]

I have a set of grad filters but since getting the Sky HDR app on my two Sony cameras I use the app instead; saying that, I dont use it that much. It blends two images in camera and can be used in RAW. It is far easier than carrying filters around and means you can use a lens hood. It works as well as grad filters with the added advantage of being variable from soft to hard grad and the ability to change WB, exposure, ISO or f stop. Can't see me using analogue filters ever again

The only disadvantage is needing a tripod to use it, but I tend to use it on shots I would need a tripod anyway.

 

[Scirocco_09]

I reckon if you want to produce images straight out of camera or with minimal editing then grads are the way to go, but if you shoot raw and don't mind a bit of work then you don't need them with most modern DSLRs. I don't use them anymore and in many cases you can expose for highlights and pull up the shadows with little issue. Grads can slow you down (which can be a good thing at times) which can make you miss a shot if the light or conditions are changing quick. It's a personal choice though

 

[Stuart Mc]

Must admit I'm coming round to this idea of not using grads. I took a shot recently from the side of a mountain in testing, quickly changing conditions where the light was coming and going, and I just found it much easier out in the field to just fire off 3 brackets on continuous high mode and blend them later than spending time faffing with changing filters etc and possibly missing the good light.

I can see why the PP element of blends etc puts people off as I don't think anyone wants to be at a desk longer than they have to, however for me personally the blend of exposures is usually fairly quick and painless and actually on my recent one probably gave me a better result.

 

[Craig_85]

Here is a real simple tutorial of how to replace a sky. Hopefully it will show people who want to use this method an easy way of blending. Whilst also illustrate to others just how quickly luminosity masking can be achieved, and in doing so overcome the straight line weakness of graduated filters.

Step 1; Open the 2 RAW conversions as TIFFS in PS with the darker (sky) layer on top, and turn it's visibility off.
Screen Shot 2016-10-22 at 21.31.45 copy by Craig Hollis, on Flickr

Step 2. Go into the Channels palette, in this case I selected the blue channel because it had the greatest contrast between sky and land already, create a new channel from it then open curves and move the black and white points in to reveal the sky and hide the land.
Screen Shot 2016-10-22 at 21.32.16 copy by Craig Hollis, on Flickr

Step 3; Select the sky, expand the selection and feather it, invert it and fill the ground whilst keeping in tact the anti aliased edged created by PS, then select the sky again.
Screen Shot 2016-10-22 at 21.32.45 copy by Craig Hollis, on Flickr

Step 4; Back into layers, create a new group add the selection to it as a layer mask and drag the sky layer into the group.
Screen Shot 2016-10-22 at 21.33.05 copy by Craig Hollis, on Flickr

Step 5; Add a layer mask to the ground, in this case then add a gradient mask from side to side so I don't over darken the sky which is not blown.
Screen Shot 2016-10-22 at 21.33.23 copy by Craig Hollis, on Flickr

So it took between 21.31.45 until 21.33.23 according to the screen grabs. So less than 2 minutes! Arguably the time I have saved not having to be at work earning the money to pay for grad filters can be put towards my evenings on the computer doing something I enjoy and getting the best possible output from my shots (short of getting someone else to take them and process them!).

I appreciate a grad is faster. However, one that sufficiently darkens the bright bit of the sky dulls down the darker bit of sky more than it should be. It also darkens down the top of the hillside that is above the brightest part of the horizon which again is wrong. And for me worse than that is if you use the wrong one it physically can not be undone from a single shot.

Digital gives you the tools, and with cheap memory to have a safety net in my opinion by shooting brackets. I would recommend this even for people who do use grads.

The other advantage of what I have done above is the photo is ready for selective editing. If that sky is over darkened I can fade the opacity of the layer. If the ground now looks to bright I can add a levels adjustment layer and darken it. From here I am ready to crack on and selectively sharpen the ground and noise reduce the sky if I so wish etc.

Please note it is a pretty rubbish picture, just the first one I grabbed for a simple demo. It is also very exposed to the right now and needs black point and mid point setting but that is applicable to any shot, just has more of an effect on an ETTR shot.

Any questions please ask.

 

[Craig_85]

I stand by my comment. Bearing in mind if I'm out the finer holder will be on the camera anyway. Even if it wasn't, you still can't do all of that that quickly. The main point is that it does't bother you not that it's quick.

I hope the above shows how quick I can do a luminosity mask. I promise I am not exaggerating when I say I can stack 2 files add a layer mask and a gradient filter on a computer quicker than I can fumble around with a grad in the field with cold hands. Other people will invariably be quicker at assessing a scene and grading it than using a computer, I completely get that.

Like I said earlier do what you enjoy. I'm not going to say using grads is wrong at all, so many professionals use them who actually lack the editing skills to do the above. But they take 1000x better pictures than me so it clearly does not matter. I'm limited how much I can actually get out and take photos so my editing time is in the middle of a summer day or on a winters evening when the option is not there to be out exposing anyway, but it does mean I get to immerse myself in the hobby more. I think different techniques, be they in camera methods or processing ones are like gloves, you have to try them on to find one that fits. Which is why I am happy to share things like the above and help any member who asks for it. @jetpack messaged me a while ago and I showed him how to use a mask to sort out a darkened part of a picture caused by a grad...

 

[Nick Owen]

I hope the above shows how quick I can do a luminosity mask. I promise I am not exaggerating when I say I can stack 2 files add a layer mask and a gradient filter on a computer quicker than I can fumble around with a grad in the field with cold hands. Other people will invariably be quicker at assessing a scene and grading it than using a computer, I completely get that.

Like I said earlier do what you enjoy. I'm not going to say using grads is wrong at all, so many professionals use them who actually lack the editing skills to do the above. But they take 1000x better pictures than me so it clearly does not matter. I'm limited how much I can actually get out and take photos so my editing time is in the middle of a summer day or on a winters evening when the option is not there to be out exposing anyway, but it does mean I get to immerse myself in the hobby more. I think different techniques, be they in camera methods or processing ones are like gloves, you have to try them on to find one that fits. Which is why I am happy to share things like the above and help any member who asks for it. @jetpack messaged me a while ago and I showed him how to use a mask to sort out a darkened part of a picture caused by a grad...

Physical grads often give a very poor visuals by too obviously darkening hillside edges inadvertently. Craig's way is the way to go. I really do not understand togs who say they don't like spending time in PS. It's an inescapable part of faux toggery. Just as darkroom work once was. If you love photography, you should love polishing photo turds until they gleam. (probably still smelly and rather dull, but you get my drift) It's part of the craft.

 

[69Bonni]

Grads can slow you down and when the lights changing fast, typically at Sunrise/Sunset you can easily miss a shot trying to change grads!
Thanks everyone for commenting

I have a set of grad filters but since getting the Sky HDR app on my two Sony cameras I use the app instead; saying that, I dont use it that much. It blends two images in camera and can be used in RAW. It is far easier than carrying filters around and means you can use a lens hood. It works as well as grad filters with the added advantage of being variable from soft to hard grad and the ability to change WB, exposure, ISO or f stop. Can't see me using analogue filters ever again

The only disadvantage is needing a tripod to use it, but I tend to use it on shots I would need a tripod anyway.

I had read about this I guess it's another possibility that manufacturers will build into there equipment, I can see some users being put off by the title HDR though, this Sony should reconsider the title. I'm sure most of us here drag tripods with us all the time anyhow Jon.
Thanks for stopping by.

I reckon if you want to produce images straight out of camera or with minimal editing then grads are the way to go, but if you shoot raw and don't mind a bit of work then you don't need them with most modern DSLRs. I don't use them anymore and in many cases you can expose for highlights and pull up the shadows with little issue. Grads can slow you down (which can be a good thing at times) which can make you miss a shot if the light or conditions are changing quick. It's a personal choice though

Yes that's true and the better dslrs become the less likely we will need grads assuming we all shoot RAW. We all have to process our shots anyhow! So computers have basically taken the place of dark rooms. Let me say processing a black and white film, under the stairs (that was the only space my father would let me have) with chemicals, enlargers etc etc was considerably slower than PS.
Thanks for commenting!

Must admit I'm coming round to this idea of not using grads. I took a shot recently from the side of a mountain in testing, quickly changing conditions where the light was coming and going, and I just found it much easier out in the field to just fire off 3 brackets on continuous high mode and blend them later than spending time faffing with changing filters etc and possibly missing the good light.

I can see why the PP element of blends etc puts people off as I don't think anyone wants to be at a desk longer than they have to, however for me personally the blend of exposures is usually fairly quick and painless and actually on my recent one probably gave me a better result.

I can see that shot straight away Stuart! (the style shot) I recall the beams of light across the valley, the light must have been changing so rapidly. The clouds won't wait for you to change a grad and line it up.
I think people have to accept PP as a part of life as a photographer now, and honing your skills in PP is just as important as knowing your camera.
Thanks for stopping by mate.

I hope the above shows how quick I can do a luminosity mask. I promise I am not exaggerating when I say I can stack 2 files add a layer mask and a gradient filter on a computer quicker than I can fumble around with a grad in the field with cold hands. Other people will invariably be quicker at assessing a scene and grading it than using a computer, I completely get that.

Like I said earlier do what you enjoy. I'm not going to say using grads is wrong at all, so many professionals use them who actually lack the editing skills to do the above. But they take 1000x better pictures than me so it clearly does not matter. I'm limited how much I can actually get out and take photos so my editing time is in the middle of a summer day or on a winters evening when the option is not there to be out exposing anyway, but it does mean I get to immerse myself in the hobby more. I think different techniques, be they in camera methods or processing ones are like gloves, you have to try them on to find one that fits. Which is why I am happy to share things like the above and help any member who asks for it. @jetpack messaged me a while ago and I showed him how to use a mask to sort out a darkened part of a picture caused by a grad...

Thank for throwing up the tutorial Craig I was horrified when I read replace the sky! I have some vision of you grafting some oversaturated Caribbean sunset into a mountain scene.
There are of course many ways to correct sky's, some quick and easy some more complex. To new photographers don't let post processing daunt you. I say this because of someone I know that is still shooting JPEG only because the thought of PP terrifys them.

"On a winters evening when the option is not there to be out exposing anyway" oh I expose myself all the time Craig

Regarding PP it's hardly arduous is it? Take a typical shoot (well one when you actually get the camera out) how many exposures do take? Out of say for example 50-100 exposures how many are keepers? Then out of the keepers how many are good, then how many are exceptional? So the net result is, you may be working on a few good photos and with any luck, what we mere mortals consider an exceptional photo. (Until we post it of course) We then generally spend time on those few photos in PP. In my case very few!
So we aren't spending inordinate amounts of time processing every shot we take, generally.

Physical grads often give a very poor visuals by too obviously darkening hillside edges inadvertently. Craig's way is the way to go. I really do not understand togs who say they don't like spending time in PS. It's an inescapable part of faux toggery. Just as darkroom work once was. If you love photography, you should love polishing photo turds until they gleam. (probably still smelly and rather dull, but you get my drift) It's part of the craft.

That's it in a nutshell Nick, you've got to run your photographs through a computer whichever way you look at it. I think the saying 'don't like spending time at the PC' is more to imply they would rather be shooting, well we all would, you have to process what you shoot anyway so it's either a darkroom or a PC and I know what I prefer.
Polishing a turd! Such a lovely expression, never fails to bring a smile to my lips. I think we should approach Adobe to raise new file extension 'dot' TURD or perhaps .trd for short. My LR catalogue is already full of ....
Back to polishing .....

 

[ian-83]

After lots of internet searching and mental mind struggles I have decided to invest in a screw in circular polarizer and possibly a ND filter for my lens and then use multiple exposure blending in Photoshop to get the desired results.

I am not a big fan of over smoothed water so a few stops of ND is all I need.

I looked into filter systems for my current lens, Nikon 16-85mm (24-125mm in full frame) and its looks like I'd need to go for a 100mm system to be able to use it at widest setting without vignetting. So I have priced up a Lee or Hitech system, which come in about £4-500 which as a hobbyists is a bit of a big investment specially for something that won't get used that often compared to if I was a pro.

Probably half a dozen times a year most. Also without the added weight I can travel lighter. And less stuff for me to probably break!

I am willing to try the cheaper option first than invest heavily in something which I doubt I'd use to its full benefit.

Extra money I have saved I'll put towards petrol money to go out in the car and upgrading the RAM in my computer.

 

[User.82148]

I have some Hoya circular polarisers which are fine for my requirements and cost a lot less than the top of the range versions.

Beginning to regret buying a set of ND grads and holder this week. However they were not expensive and at least I can make up my own mind.