HDR vs Graduated NR

D

davholla

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,325
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone got any examples of the same landscape taken using HDR vs Graduated NDR filters.
After seeing this wonderful photo
www.talkphotography.co.uk

Buttermere at Dawn

I went out to Buttermere for sunrise (I set out for Loweswater but the only gap in the clouds much further south) and having seen some colour in the sky I was worried I was too late. Well it turned out I wasn't. Buttermere sunrise by Alf Branch, on Flickr
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk

I want to know how the techniques compare, just curiosity I don't take many landscape photos.
 
I have not got a versus photo but I have tried both and I have a personal preference. You will find people on both sides of the argument but this is mine....

Firstly I mostly shoot with FF camera with excellent dynamic range. So I don't really need to use either for a majority of my shots. There is enough dynamic range in Sony sensors to deal with pulling shadows and recovering highlights using a single exposure. 2-3 stops easily, 4 stops no issues also. If i feel I need to push a bit more then I bracket for HDR.
Actually these days with excellent software (especially noise reduction for shadows) I could probably recover up to 5 stops with Sony sensors with no issues.

I don't really like ND grads because good ones are really expensive. Even the expensive ones will have some loss in sharpness but even still you have uneven colour cast sometimes.
Not to mention filters can cause flare issues. They are also fiddly and you will inevitably drop one or two.
All in all its an expensive hassles.
 
There are many ways to process HDR images some will improve situations like this others will IMO ruin the shot.
Like wise graduated ND filters (not NDR or NR) can have a range of effects. I've never been impressed with those I've tried as my sky line rarely comes close enough to a straight line.(let alone having colour casts...)
So I don't see how examples will help much. Badly processed HDR will look worse than a moderate filter used in a perfect location, the same filter in an unsuitable location will look far worse than a well process HDR.

I personally usually find curves or shadow/highlight controls give good results from a single shot - even when just shooting JPEG on many occasions (RAW is definitely better).

If the subject is moving (such as waves crashing on a shore) traditional HDR may not work at all.
 
Filters are like adding lots of nasty sauce to your food - you can't get rid of it or change it after the fact. And they can be nasty in many ways, besides the fact very few cases actually warrant a straight cut transition, namely seascapes, and in fact do nothing to help with low sun exposure. Just expensive rubbish in my view.
 
As you can see, everybody has their own views on filters.

I used filters for years and never had quality issues, although I did use quality filters. In reality the straight line doesn't cause too much of an issue if you use the right filter but that means you need to have lots of different filters for different scenarios which can be expensive.

Nowadays I never use GND filters because I've upgraded my camera which can now handle much more dynamic range and exposure blending (not HDR) solves any issues that I can't get in a single shot.
 
Irrespective of other problems using filters, grads darken everything including any trees or building which may be above the horizon. Also grads will only normally have about a couple of stops adjustment whereas you can manage a much greater range with post processing including HDR. I rarely need to use HDR now as my cameras all have much greater dynamic range than in the past.

Dave
 
Last edited:
HDR processing in LR will often get an acceptable result, but for a more powerful approach in difficult cases, take a look at how Jimmy McIntyre blends exposures.

He has lots of free lessons on his website, and although the panels he sells will speed things up, he always shows you how to do it without the panel, which is very fair of him, I think.

I prefer not to use grads for reasons others have mentioned, but if there is a lot of motion in the scene, they may sometimes be the best solution.
 
I do get the whole (especially landscape) thing of taking your time, tripod, composition, using filters & getting it right in camera etc but typically I tend to take separate exposures if possible & blend if needed - more often than not, a well exposed 'middle' image with cameras these days will be enough to use on it's own.

I only tend to carry CPL & pro mist filters. ND's if going to the coast.
 
Used to use grads, Have managed to ween myself off them. All I have my bag now is a Circ Polarizer and a 10 stop and 3 stop ND filter. As other have mentioned the dynamic range is good enough now to get by with 1 exposure 80% of the time, the rest I'll bracket and use luminosity masks or something.

Filters are quick and easy but can be a pain in the neck (ghosting and flare) and there's nothing worse than getting home and finding you had the graduated line slightly too high or too low and you now have an unsightly line in the wrong place.
 
Have you tried the Magic Cloth Technique? I started out with HDR, but it was real work to get them to look like real photos (also I ran out of memory often). When I couldn't afford a set of Graduated filters, I just bought an ND filter so that I could use a cloth to balance the sky and ground over a long exposure.. It is a great technique for night photography when you need more exposure time for the landscape but not the stars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top