LANDSCAPES - Photoshop Elements or Grad ND filters..?

Yardbent

Yardbent

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,761
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
LANDSCAPES - Photoshop Elements or Grad ND filters..?

before i spend £££ on a filter system, which is your preferred way to go..?

D5000 basic shot on 'Auto'
18-55mm VR with on-lens PLC filter


then in PSE I darkenened highlights, lightened shadows, then upped the contrast
all to simulate an approaching storm



the images are not for critique ..:).... just taken for this comparison question
and to ask if it is more usual/better to use a Grad ND filter

thanks for looking....john
 
I prefer to use filters to get the best image in the camera. I may then tweak to taste.

Not sure about your comparisons though. This is not the effect that a ND grad will give you.
I know your not looking for crit, but the bottom image just looks badly processed.
 
ecoleman said:
I prefer to use filters to get the best image in the camera.
.... but the bottom image just looks badly processed.
Click to expand...

agreed i have lots to learn about PP --- was trying to darken the skies/clouds

prob should buy a ND4 grad and see for myself........:)
 
It is possible to apply a graduated filter in post, but it's not the same as using a physical grad filter. With a real one, you can better expose for the shadows and use the filter to manage the highlights. Using a software approach, you're more limited as either the shadows are good with blown highlights or the highlights are good with under exposed shadows. Especially if you're working with JPEG files.
 
There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.

Grads can help balance a bright sky against darker foreground to help an older sensor with narrower exposure latitude cope with the different brightness levels. However different levels of density may be required to balance well, along with different gradients to cope with both the sky and lens behaviour. In addition, a grad will darken indiscriminately, so that anything sticking up into the darkened area of the image will also be underexposed by the same amount as the grad gives, resulting in artefacts and a potentially spoiled image if they can't be recovered in post. As Glenn said, if you're working with jpeg then it's probably the only way unless your camera has a good high dynamic range mode.

Use of gradient filters in post processing can be very effective to control skies provided the highlights haven't been overexposed already. Over-cooked processing can also leave halos around areas of high contrast and, as with the example you popped up, can also look odd and unnatural. Many older sensors don't have sufficient dynamic range to cope with a bright sky and also hold shadow detail at the same time, giving muddy, noisy shadows or blown highlights. The advantage of applying graduated filters in post is that they can be precisely applied to the actual image created, and objects protruding into the gradient area can be masked off or compensated for without loss of detail.

My *personal* preference, having used both, is for applying grads in post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4wd
ancient_mariner said:
......snip
Grads can help balance a bright sky against darker foreground to help an older sensor with narrower exposure latitude cope with the different brightness levels. ....
The advantage of applying graduated filters in post is that they can be precisely applied to the actual image created, and objects protruding into the gradient area can be masked off or compensated for without loss of detail.

.
Click to expand...

many thanks for the explanation - I use an older model - a Nikon D5000

since retiring I dont have a car - so 'landscapes' are those i can walk to locally - mostly farming fields - so the sky treatment always is a consideration
[ shame as i live soooo close to the West Scotland coastline ]

I've ordered some grads - and a book ''Advanced PS Elements'' to learn more...:)
 
Might be worth looking at something like Lightroom or DXO Optics Pro, rather than PSE, for image development, since those packages are optimised for the purpose. Even if PSE can achieve identical results, it's often the workflow that helps shape final image appearance.
 
I would use a combination of filters and post processing (personally prefer Lightroom but haven't tried a lot whole else)
 
Yardbent said:
many thanks for the explanation - I use an older model - a Nikon D5000

since retiring I dont have a car - so 'landscapes' are those i can walk to locally - mostly farming fields - so the sky treatment always is a consideration
[ shame as i live soooo close to the West Scotland coastline ]

I've ordered some grads - and a book ''Advanced PS Elements'' to learn more...:)
Click to expand...

you will be able to get some cracking images from that location at around sunset.
 
Comparing grads to the processing you have applied on that shot in lightroom is not a fair comparison.

If you are interested in learning luminosity masking properly in Photoshop then multiple exposures and manual high dynamic range blending using channel masks and layers is the best 'solution' out there. If you are not then just buy some grads, I don't like them or use them anymore but a 2 stop hard is very useful if you do not want to learn to edit in depth.
 
Craig_85 said:
,,,,snip,......... but a 2 stop hard is very useful if you do not want to learn to edit in depth.
Click to expand...

thanks for your thoughts
TBH i'm struggling with Photoshop Elements v7 - let alone anything more complex - ''old dog - new tricks'' ......:)

so thanks - i just ordered an ND4 grad and an ND4 solid
my photo opportunities are limited [by transport] to the local hills and streams - so trust these will suffice ATM

--------------------------------------------------------------

thanks to ALL for the various comments...........................john
 
I prefer post processing images. I have a selection of Lee grads but I often find them a bit impractical to use and carry around and there is also limited control over the graduation. Any vaguely modern SLR has a wide dynamic range in the raw file which can be exploited by duplicating a layer, changing exposure, and using a mask to bring through a layer with different exposure. This has the advantage of tailoring exactly which parts of the image are modified. A better way is to take multiple exposures on a tripod but that is not always possible. With both physical filters and post processing, if the sky is still overexposed then it is most likely that recovery will result in it looking unnatural. Enjoy the filters either way and I'm sure you will draw your own conclusions in time!
 
I typically use grad filters in Lightroom, but in some circumstances you need to use a filter when shooting. If a sky is totally blown out in a photo the grad filter tool in Lightroom (or any other program) won't have anything to work with.
 
I wouldn't pay the earth at first until you know filters are for you. I'd look at an ND grad soft & hard edge filter to start with.

As for your processing, I think you are going a little OTT in my opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top