5D MkII, Lee filters and Spot Metering for Landscapes

[john_wolf2]

<p>I also use an L358 with a 5DII, but I use solid ND filters (for long exposures). I would think an incident reading and checking the histogram would be all you need. Even with a spot meter I'd be checking the histogram, so what would be the point? Why add complexity when everything you need is there in the histogram?<br>

John</p>

[dan_south]

John, a histogram won't tell you the difference between two areas of your frame, e.g. a flower in the shade in the

foreground and a distant sunlit cliff.

 

Dan, movement is not just the domain of "action shots." A sailboat moving through the water at sunset or a herd of elk

migrating slowly across a hillside might be difficult to merge effectively from multiple exposures, especially if moving grass,

trees, waves, etc. are also in the frame. A lot of my shots involve water, and water is constantly moving. With a GND filter

I compose, focus, meter, and shoot. I'm done except for minor tweaks in Lightroom. Every hour of Photoshop saved is an

hour that I can devote to something else, like cheering up my S.O. because dinner had to be rescheduled once again due

to sunset shooting opportunities. ;-)

[g dan mitchell]

First, and once again, I acknowledged that there are some situations in which the GND filter could be the better choice -

just as there are a number of cases in which the blending approach can do useful things that are impossible to do with the

GND filter. I also acknowledge that you may prefer expedience, but let's at least acknowledge that this approach can be useful for those with a different approach than yours.<br><br>

 

I think that you, like many who are familiar with the use of the filters but may not have learned the exposure

blending methods as well, overestimate the difficulties of dealing with subjects including water, moving foliage,

animals/people, clouds and so forth. You also tend to overestimate the time needed to accomplish this in post - and

perhaps are somewhat optimistic about how quickly you can use the filters in the field. <br><br>

 

Doing a basic post-process two-exposure blend in a way that is equivalent to using the filter in the field might add all of a

minute or so to the post-processing time. On the other hand, when it is useful to use more complex techniques with more

complex images (of the sort for which the GND filter would not work well or at all) it may take a few more minutes. In the

rarer situation where an exceptional image warrants extensive work it could take longer. <br><br>

 

I've included an very unexceptional image of mine at the end of this post to illustrate a couple things. First, this image does

include water and it extends through the blending area. I made the photo and I can't see.a disruption of the water that

would give away the location of the blend without going back to my master file and turning layers off. Secondly, this is a good example of the sort of shot for which the GND filter is

problematic. If we had a clear view of the horizon, using the filter would be fairly straightforward. But we don't. Instead, we

have a dark, back-lit cliff extending into part of the horizon and into the much brighter sky. The filter would make the

already dark cliff too dark, and would create an unnatural gradient near the top of the cliff. However, the blending method

allows me to retain the full better exposure of the dark cliff and still use the darker version of the sky by shaping the blend to follow these contours. In is easy and quick to do this using a mask and the paint brush tool - easier than dodging and burning in the darkroom.<br><br>

 

Dan <br><br>

 

<img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/707-3/PtLobosCoveSeawead2007_09_15.jpg">

[dan_south]

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think that you, like many who are familiar with the use of the filters but may not have learned the exposure blending methods as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You, like many who are familiar with Photoshop but who may not have learned proper use of GND filters, seem to overestimate the effort involved in using these filters in the field.</p>

<p>Blending methods are wonderful and absolutely invaluable in situations where I have to control oddly shaped hot spots. But in most circumstances, I can attach an adapter ring and my Lee holder, select the proper filter AND line it up in well under a minute. I can use this combination on a DSLR, a medium format camera, a 4x5 or an 8x10 (as long as I'm not using a Copal 3 lens with a huge front element). On a DSLR, I can position the filter using either Live View or the viewfinder. I can use the filter on a camera mounted on a tripod, a monopod, a ground pod, balanced on a rock, or handheld (highly useful in busy urban environments and optically viable with IS lenses). Every image is correctly exposed throughout the frame and looks great right off of the memory card or on the light table.</p>

<p>If blending offered superior image quality I might consider using it more often. But it doesn't except in the oddly-shaped-hot-spot case. So, I'll stick to my sixty seconds or less of filtering and I'll leave the computer blending techniques to those who have more free time than I do. The time that I save with GND filters I can apply to scouting my next composition, cleaning my gear, organizing and backing up files, loading film holders, or any of a hundred other tasks on my to do list.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

C'mon Dan. I think you are just being argumentative. The time spent working in post doesn't keep me from doing

photography or anything else, but I suppose that if you think that it has that effect on you then that is your decision.

 

I hope that my points about how exposure blending is used to produce beautiful photographs may at least prove useful to

others with more time or different priorities.

 

Dan

[zigzag]

One other thing I noticed this morning when bracketing and using LiveView, live histogram: if I have a dark foreground

and lighter background and I know in advance how a blend would go (foreground 2 stops above background) then I can

use LiveView focus with the focus optimized for the foreground and then bracket for the background, optimising focus for

the distant objects (I.e. like Helicon Focus.). This works for filters, blending or both as long as you think about it at capture

time. Even at f/18 the focus change looked significant using the 16-35mm.

[dan_south]

Dan, your points are well-taken and you use desktop blending methods with great expertise. But there is and always will

be more than one way to reach an objective.

 

I offered a list of reasons why someone might want to use an alternative to blending in post-processing. Why would

anyone perceive that as being argumentative? People can read your points, my points, and the comments of others,

compare alternatives, and choose the method that suits them. Discussions like this should be about sharing information,

not championing one idea over all others.

[philip_wilson]

<p>Dan I can add one more reason for not merging multiple shots and that is shooting handheld. I know this is not best practice but sometimes carrying a tripod is the last straw. For example when you have 2000m of ascent and your pack already weighs 40lbs. In this case you need the ND grads.</p>