I am a Canon DSLR guy....and want to buy my 1st ND grad filter.

[rick_tyrseck]

Being a Canon DSLR user...I wanted input from thee Canon boys:

 

1) Realize I can do some ND grad work in CS3 using layer blending modes, but

that assumes the sensor did capture all the tonal ranges.

 

2) So with that said and needing filter help when the situation calls for, in

deciding what type/brand, etc of ND grad set to buy, I am rather confused over

this hard-edge vs soft-edge thing. I researched old posts and found this from

the early 1900's (really 2002)

 

.....The hardness of the "edge" on an ND Grad depends in part on the diameter

of your lens. Hypothetically, suppose the hard edge transitions from clear to

0.6 over 1 cm and the soft edge transitions from clear to 0.6 over 3 cm. Your

52 mm 50/1.8 is going to "see" a smaller part of that transition than your 77

mm 80-200. Speaking of zooms, the amount of transition your 20-35 "sees" will

vary as you zoom from 20 to 35. Lastly, the hardness of the edge depends on

aperture. The amount of that 3 cm soft edge that is included in the image on

your 50/1.8 at f/1.8 will be quite different than at f/16.

 

3) and lastly...do you really need a holder, or do people often just hand hold

these. I can imagine it is hard to position manually and keep like that, but

you don't really need to keep it absolutely still don't you?

 

 

Thx....Rick

[dale_yarbrough]

Rick:

I used a friend's ND (hand-held) and absolutely loved what it did for me. I then proceeded to Singh-Ray's website (http://www.singh-ray.com/index.html) and proceeded to read everything I could about ND. I also called their facility and spoke with Dr. Singh himself...a very helpful and knowledgable individual...and proceeded to purchase my first Graduated ND glass (4"x6" 4-stop soft.)

 

I also purchased a Cokin Z-Pro Series holder from B&H that allows me to use the ND with most all of my lens. The holder really helps with placing the filter effects in the place I want without having to be a contortionist.

 

Visit the web-site and I think a few of your concrens will be addressed. Good luck.

[images_in_light_north_west]

I use Lee and they work great, I would definitly recomend the holder I use there GND soft edge in.45,.6,.9 (1 1/2,2,3, stops) with the 77mm holder that is threaded so I can also use a CPL.

[mark_chappell]

<I>Being a Canon DSLR user...I wanted input from thee Canon <B>boys:</b></I><P>

 

Not everyone here has a Y chromosome. That aside, I use Singh-Ray filters in a Cokin

holder. Hand-holding is possible but usually is a PIA, especially if you're trying for a careful

composition. I only do that if I have to (e.g., I forgot the holder or don't have the right filter

thread adapter for it). Generally I much prefer hard-edge GNDs (2- and 3-stop), even with

wideangles (down to 17mm) at small apertures, where the edge is most likely to be apparent.

[justinblack]

Singh-Ray's Galen Rowell ND Grads have always done the trick for me. I regularly use the

following:

 

- 1-Stop Hard

- 2-Stop Hard and Soft

- 3-Stop Hard and Soft

- 4-Stop Hard

 

I would strongly recommend trying a hard-edge grad to begin with. They are much easier

to learn to use and position accurately. Once you are used to the hard-edge filter, a soft-

edge filter will be a lot easier to use properly.

[eigtball]

Say good bye to those hard earned dollars! I am jealous.

[photo_dark]

I have a 2 stop soft edge Cokin...

 

The effect is wonderful for landscapes, but the quality is iffy at best. Tends to make my 17-40L inherit the characteristics of my old kit lens.

 

In my opinion, go for the singh ray. They're worth every penny.

[JDMvW]

You sorta hint about what lenses you might have in your examples, but I would say how much you should spend on this depends on a number of variables.

 

1) how "superb" are the lenses you have? Maybe if you've got the kit lens you can make do with the odd knockoff filter.

 

2) will you use the effect for a couple of pictures, or will you do like one person whose pictures for sale showed nearly every one taken with a artificially darkened sky? I would presume that that person has the very best filters, and rightly so. Maybe buy a nice set of knock-offs from eBay or someone like Fotodiox for practically nothing (by comparison to the premium ones), try it, and if you like it and think the filter is degrading your image too much, then by all means get the best (although I'm obliged to say that is not necessarily the same as the most expensive).

 

Also, do investigate the software methods in any case.

[alan_myers]

Yeah, I was going to suggest you get the two Cokin Graduated gray filters to experiment with. They're cheap. Then decide later if you need one, the other or both, or something entirely different.

 

A Cokin holder is cheap, too. And I think practically everyone else makes filters to fit it, at least the Cokin Pro size (fits up to 82mm, IIRC).

 

The way to come pretty darned close to the same effect in Photoshop is to make two exposures at the time you take the shot: One for the foreground and middle, the other for the sky.

 

Alternatively, double process just about any RAW file. There's tons more info in there than you might realize. Set the exposure/brightness/shadow on one for the foreground/middle, and the other for the sky.

 

Then just lay one image over the other and get busy with the eraser tool. (Learn about masks, selectionis, etc. eventually too, it's much faster.)

 

In some respects, it's better in Photoshop. When is the last time you saw an ND grad that perfectly matched the shape of that mountain? Or that you could use with a moving subject?

 

Ever noticed the "grad effect" in photos? It's more obvious with colored grads, but still can sometimes be seen with many NDs, too.

 

Not saying don't get an ND Grad or two, go for it. But also don't give up on double processing in Photoshop... Or Google for HDR image processing and start reading.

 

 

 

Then

[jim henderson]

Cokin are not very good. Lee are very expensive. A good affordable atlernative is to use

Hitech Filters.

 

http://www.teamworkphoto.com/index.php?

main_page=index&manufacturers_id=7&zenid=1ebac269f7fb027dda946028f883aad5

[photo_dark]

how do the hi-tech filters compare to singh-ray and cokin? I have the cokin, but i'd like to pick up that 3 piece set if it really is of better quality... $60 for all three is a great price.

[patrick.mason]

Gentlemen, gentlemen... I know I'm going to be crucified for my comment, but here goes:

I'll make this short but not too sweet. Assumption: We are all shooting digital... no one

here is shooting film. Thesis: {There is NOTHING a filter can add or subtract from any

digitally captured frame that can not be manipulated in post production with today's

software.} When we capture a digital frame, we are capturing a DIGITAL representation of

what the lens saw NOT a chemical reaction on film... BIG difference. When the capture is

in the digital domain, in the raw, anything... ANYTHING can be adjusted, augmented or

subtracted... conversely, if we were in the film domain (chemistry, one shot!)... we would

need all the help technology and the state of the art could provide. I did not spend nearly

$10K on digital equipment not to capture the image, as nature presented it. We always

have the original 'digital negative' to do with as we please, but, if we capture a 'tinted' or

otherwise falsely altered record of the shoot... we're screwed. We can never return to the

naked original that first captivated our interest. Filters have their place, I'm not convinced,

however, that 'warming' the frame, for instance, during the capture is the proper time or

application. Just one man's opinion, but think about it.

[mark_chappell]

<I> {There is NOTHING a filter can add or subtract from any digitally captured frame that

can not be manipulated in post production with today's software.} ..... When the capture is

in the digital domain, in the raw, anything... ANYTHING can be adjusted, augmented or

subtracted... </i><p>

 

In my opinion: Wrong. (consider yourself crucified, figuratively at least). The dynamic

range of any capture medium, including digital, has limits. In many scenes, especially

those that include a lot of sky, the range of ambient light intensities exceeds --

sometimes considerably -- the limits of film or digital sensors. No amount of post-

processing can recover information that is missing in the original image (i.e., blown

highlights or completely black shadow areas). However, a properly-used grad ND filter

can narrow the contrast range so that blown highlights or black shadows are reduced or

eliminated. <P>

 

<I>I did not spend nearly $10K on digital equipment not to capture the image, as nature

presented it. </I><P>

 

Presented it to what? Your visual system has a substantially greater ability to 'capture' a

wide range of light intensities than digital sensors or film, so in that sense pretty much

any camera-captured image is a distortion of the original scene relative to how a human

observer would see it. In my view, when dealing with high-contrast subjects, using tools

like grad ND's is a way of making a photograph look MORE like how I viewed a scene than

what can be captured in an unfiltered image.<P>

 

Yes, grad ND's and other filters have their limits, but so do software manipulation,

double-processing of RAW images, HDR techniques, etc.

[denny_wells]

Here's an interesting comparison of HDR software vs. Grad ND filter.

 

http://singhray.blogspot.com/2006/12/close-look-at-high-dynamic-range-hdr.html

 

The rest of the blog is a bit sales-pitch like, but it has a lot of good examples to see what folks are doing with filters.

[fotografz]

I shoot Canon and Hasselblad MF digital professionally. Filters are STILL a great tool, and in some cases ND Grads or color grads are specifically indispensable.

 

NDs shorten the exposure range and places it closer to the capture ability of the digital sensor. The dynamic range of my MF digital back is superior

to that of my Canon 1DsMKIII, yet I still use ND Grads to keep the dynamic range within the histogram parameters in many situations. HDR is nice if

nothing is moving. Dual processing of RAW files to capture the full tonal range often either produces noise in the deep shadows or artifacts/edge

C/A in the brights ... if dual processing worked evenly, there'd be no need for HDR.

[images_in_light_north_west]

Gentlemen, gentlemen... I know I'm going to be crucified for my comment, but here goes: I'll make this short but not too sweet. Assumption: We are all shooting digital... no one here is shooting film. Thesis: {There is NOTHING a filter can add or subtract from any digitally captured frame that can not be manipulated in post production with today's software..............SO SO wrong, if you use ND filtera and keep your highlights if you dont you loose them and they can never be recovered. Not with any software