ND Filters vs Photoshop

[jims pictures]

<p>Hello:<br>

I enjoy nature photography/landscapes very much, and in my first year of digital (Coming fm the old Kodachrome 25 w/ and OM-2.) I put a few graduated ND filters in my bulging camera bag. (Cokin).<br>

How large is the trade off using Photoshop or NIK software to correct a landscape vs using the real filters? Do you true experienced landscape pros carry around the filters? I suspect yes. But my camera bad is SO full when I go for a hike. (Three lenses, flash, tripod, closeup tubes, polarizer.) I'd like to lighten the load.<br>

Thanks for the info.<br>

Jim</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>I'm hardly anything but an advanced amateur ...<br>

1. There isn't any real way I know of to simulate a polarizer in post processing.<br>

<br />2. An ND filter used to slow up a camera's response to give silky water (cliche but pretty) must be done at the time of exposure. Also true sometimes to do proper fill light with a strobe in bright daylight.<br>

<br />3. Grads and grad 'technique' does lend itself to post process manipulation.</p>

<p>4. How much space does a filter(s) really take up?</p>

<p>5. Sometimes I'd rather get the effect I want at exposure time than fiddling later on each shot in post processing.<br>

Just some thoughts ...<br>

Jim</p>

[danny_low]

<p>Considering what can be done in Photoshop, I only see one set of filters that are worth carrying around, a full ND filter because sometimes the light is too bright to get a certain effect.</p>

<p>Every other filter effect can be done in Photoshop and often better because of the ability to create intricate masks to control the filter effect far better than a real filter. The one possible exception is a circular polarizing filter as I have never been quite satisfied with how the polarizing effect works in Photoshop compared with an actual circular polarizing filter.</p>

<p>My old Cokin filters were among the first things I dumped once I learned how to duplicate their effect in Photoshop. It was not so much the size and weight of the filters as the time it took to attach and adjust them. Landscape does not normally move but animals do and a setting sun can change minute minute.</p>

<p>Danny</p>

 

[colin carron]

<p>I carry polarisers and ND grads. I also don't think you can replicate these effects in photoshop.</p>

<p>In the case of the polariser only light oscillating in a particular plane is allowed through. This has the effect of reducing reflections and glare. No program can do that at it does not know how the light is oscillating.</p>

<p>In the case of ND grads these are used to reduce the dynamic range of the image, usually by darkening the sky. The aim is to prevent over- or under- exposure. And in that case no computer program can recover information which has already been lost when the photo was taken.</p>

<p>So both these filters are doing things which canot be emulated in software.</p>

 

[mike_hitchen]

<p>I am not a pro (far from it) but have read articles by many professnal landscape photogaphers who say they try and get it right in-camera as much as possible - some even prefer to use coloured filters when shooting instead of doing it in PS. It takes time to learn but eventually they are spending less time at the computer and more time shoorting (it is the shooting that earns them the money). How far you go down this line would be personal choice.<br>

My own feeling is:<br>

Polariser - you can saturate colours in PS to mimic the polarising filter, but you can't easily mimic the reduction in reflections, glare or haze.<br>

ND filter - as has been said, this will help you to slow down shutter speed if light is too bright for the f-stop you want to use. You can't do that in PS (though I suppose you could overexpose with the intension of correcting in PS if this does not blow out highlights)<br>

ND grad - if the sky is very bright/white then the ND grad will avoid blowing out. If you do not use this you will often have to take bracketed shots and combine in PS.<br>

Anything else - can be added in PS</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I bought a Singh Ray Grad ND for about $85 and sold it b/c post processing has the tools to mimic a grad ND at least as good if not better than the filter. Lightroom has a grad filter that works much the same, but I like HDR even better. I know there are plenty of people that HATE HDR, but I think that's b/c some people take it too far and it doesn't even look like a photograph anymore. If you can use HDR to bring out all the colors in a high contrast scene without making it look like you manipulated it and keeping it realistic, then I think HDR is the way to go. A polarizer cannot be duplicated in PS and is a filter to have, but I think the money spent on grad ND's could be better spent elsewhere in today's age of post processing. A plain ND may be useful for slowing shutters such as in moving water photos. A ND can be duplicated in PS to some extent, but for the best results I'd use the actual filter. The polarizer and ND are the only filters I would use, unless you use a UV for protection, but that's a whole other can of worms.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I do carry Cokin ND Grads too, in a way too big and heavy bag. The Cokin filters are the least of my worries, though....And I do use them occassionally. But, the effect is very easily replicated in photoshop (or similar). Google for <em>'exposure blending'</em>, or look on Luminous Landscape for <em>digital blending</em>, and that technique works really just fine. In fact, better, because you can compensate for non-straight horizon-lines (i.e. trees, houses etc.).</p>

<p>I still prefer using the ND grads, even when I know the Cokins have a slight colour cast and photoshop can do the exact same.. there is also the fun of working on a picture, and getting the filters out is a part of it. But for that: too each his/her own.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>The effects of a polarizer cannot be duplicated in post-processing, so carrying one is a necessity for many. Same for a ND filter - it allows the use of a slower shutter speed and its effect can often not be duplicated in post-processing. ND grads are a different story. By bracketing your shots or taking two or three select exposures and blending them later in post-processing allows often for more precise control and can be applied to images that don't have a straight horizon. HDR is another option, but often mere exposure blending and/or masking does the trick.</p>

[john_demott]

<p>As with many questions, there are pros and cons rather than a simple yes or no answer. Digital processing gives you a lot of flexibility, so you can add or reduce "exposure" in different parts of the scene in the amounts and in the areas where needed...whereas a grad ND filter limits you to a straight line border (hard or soft) with a predetermined difference in exposure. Digital processing avoids introducing the possible distortion or glare from having another piece of glass in the optical path, and it avoids the hassle of carrying and fumbling around with one more piece of equipment.</p>

<p>If the range of brightness in the scene exceeds the dynamic range of your camera, then you must either use a grad ND filter or take multiple, bracketed exposures to be combined in post-processing. Otherwise you will have areas that are blown out or have no detail in the shadows. Blending multiple exposures can be a very powerful tool but it also comes at a cost. Generally, the camera has to be on a tripod and you need to have a stationary subject so all the elements of the scene line up when you blend them digitally. Also, it requires some experience and time to get realistic results from digital blending. By contrast, a grad ND filter is easy to use and can be used hand held or with moving subjects.</p>

<p>I carry a grad ND (and other filters). Sometimes I use the grad ND; and sometimes I take bracketed exposures; and sometimes I find that one unfiltered exposure will capture the scene adequately to allow some brightening or darkening in post processing. It just depends....</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>You can spend two minutes (or less) putting a filter onto the lens and adjusting the way you want it, or you can spend two hours (or more) trying to duplicate the effect in Photoshop. Take your pick. Filters weigh virtually nothing and take up little space so I don't see what the issue is in carrying them around.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Lightroom 2 contains a grad feature and also an adjustment brush that enables you to quickly edit along an irregular skyline pretty accurately using a switch-on mask. In some respects this is more useful than the real thing in that it avoids the difficulty of "seeing the line", and creates an infinitely flexible grad edge.</p>

<p>I still carry grads, for there are times when I use film and times when I need to use a grad to maintain detail in a foreground whilst not whiting out a bright sky, or as a spray/mist barrier on a beach. But I have to say that my use of grads has probably declined by 80% due to the dynamic range of my sensor being wider than that of the slide films I use, and because of the improved capability and efficiency of post processing tools. Still I need to carry the rins and holder as well as a grad or two and I have to say that I wouldn't target that area for a reduction in weight or space. </p>

<p>If anyone does seriously think it takes hours to correct a sky using a digital ND filter I think they need to give it a try. Things are not as they were, and most times I spend well under five minutes getting the tonality of the sky as I want it. </p>

[jims pictures]

<p>Thanks for all the help. I forgot to mention that I <em><strong>do</strong></em> shoot in RAW, with a 5D Mark !!, so I do have a good sensor. The consensus seems to be to ditch the Grad filters and perhaps keep a strong nongrad one for those 'blown out' days. I'd<em><strong> like </strong></em>to carry around everything but things just get crazy. (Se my post/question about a 70-200mm tele.)<br>

Thanks again.<br>

Jim</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>ND grads can be emulated (but not duplicated) with PS or any other post. What the sensor captures is what it is. Blown pixels are just that, and are not recoverable. Sky or other bright detail that can be brought within the dynamic range capability of a digital sensor with an ND grad is often eroded or lost otherwise. If you just want to darken a too-light sky, then a fake ND grad in post will work fine, but if you want to preserve sky/cloud or other highlight detail, you'll want to use ND grads. Crude example <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_neutral_density_filter">here</a>.</p>

<p>That said, there is room in the bag for more than one technique. ND grads have their uses and limitations, as does post-processing fake ND grad and also HDRI.</p>

[deepak_chourasia]

<p>In my personal experience exposure blending works really well compared to ND grads. But it fails badly when you are stitching panorama. There you need ND grads......</p>

<p>thanks<br>

DeepC<br>