Lightrooms Graduated Filter vs ND Grad Filter

[lolage]

What are peoples opinions on this? Ive read that some prefer to use the actual filter others prefer to do it in Lightroom. I personally think lightroom is the easier option, due to the fact that you can get almost the same effect if not better without the need of any expensive filters!?

Whats your view on this?

 

[jpwild]

I've tried using the LR grad filters, but I prefer using the slot in Lee filters. For me, results are better using filters. But each to their own maybe.

 

[Yog]

The best bet would be to get it as close as you can with a physical filter, then fine tune with Lightroom.

If the sky is completely blown out in the image, then LR will only be able to recover so much (if anything). Likewise if you expose for the sky in camera and try to recover the darker ground in LR with a positive gradient effect, then you will be intensifying the noise in the shadow areas.

Lightroom is a fantastic tool for recovering a certain amount of data, but the old adage still applies "c**p in, c**p out".

 

[Stu Meech]

Modern software is great, but it can't work miracles. If your sky is blown out, your never going to get it back. Filters are expensive, but really really worth it.

 

[Chappers]

I use both.

Lightroom when a small amount is needed (or I have forgotten the filters ) but for more than 2 stops you really need filters.

 

[Bythesea]

Filters have to be first option - as has been said, there are some things you couldn't recreate in LR.

 

[smalls]

try and get as much as possible correct in camera, so filters for me

 

[lolage]

Hmm diddn't expect this to be so one sided! Interesting.

 

[specialman]

Working quickly I'm more inclined to use software these days. My Cokins rarely get an outing these days and to be honest, the filters that get any prolonged use are my +4 and +8 screw-in ND filters for shallow DoF when using off-camera flash.

Totally agree that in particularly difficult light where you'd have to underexpose massively to get the sky good, that's where physical grads triumph.

I like processing though and find you can get good results in LR so for now I'll continue down that route

 

[joxby]

What are peoples opinions on this? Ive read that some prefer to use the actual filter others prefer to do it in Lightroom. I personally think lightroom is the easier option, due to the fact that you can get almost the same effect if not better without the need of any expensive filters!?

Whats your view on this?

Just keep a stock of sky's that you can substitute in for ones that you can't expose for...
Or take the next progressive step and chuck the camera altogether, manufacture everything from the comfort of the couch....

 

[lolage]

Just keep a stock of sky's that you can substitute in for ones that you can't expose for...

I've seen this done, but isnt it a very tedious task if the horizon line is quite busy?

 

[menthel]

Proper filters. Can do so much more than in pp. Just takes more time!

 

[scuby]

I think it depends whether you're out specifically to take photos, or if you're out enjoying life and happen to take some photos on the way.

For the first case, out specifically to take pictures, then you're more likely to stop, set up your tripod, line up a grad filter, etc. Which is all very good.

For the second case, where photography is the secondary reason you're there, then for the small additional benefit you may get from using a grad filter on the camera, you can get a near identical result from applying filters in Lightroom / whatever other software, and can do it when you're home and have all the time in the world, rather than faffing when you could be out enjoying the scenery.

No one way is better, depends entirely on the circumstances. Obviously that assumes you don't completely burn out the sky, but that's like saying you can't use a flash because you might burn out the nearest objects - if you use the camera right, you will make sure the pictures you take are suitable for the purpose for which you intend to use them!

David