In digital, is a blended exposure just as good as grad ND?

[zapped]

I'm a humble amateur with a fair amount of SLR experience prior to my

purchase of a 300D/Rebel, but I'd never used a graduated ND filter

before. Now that I understand the purpose of a grad ND, I thought I'd

be somewhat frugal and purchase a Cokin P-series grey card in

rectangular form, despite the warnings about a color shift.

 

However, I'm wondering if even that purchase is a waste of money for a

strictly digital photographer. Given that a grad ND is generally used

for a static landscape, probably with camera mounted on tripod,

certainly not for quick spur-of-the-moment shots, would I be just as

well off to take two separate shots and blend them digitally? I've

already used my RAW workflow to "develop" multiple exposures from a

single RAWfile, then combined them with a layer mask to simulate the

ND grad transistion, getting very pleasing results.

 

Am I missing any benefits of the ND grad filter if I use digital blending?

[ellis_vener_photography]

i would go with blending.

[weston_harries]

The only problem I see with doing it digitally is that it may look unnatural. If you are able to come up with an image that an experienced photographer can not tell was digitally manipulated, then I don't see any problems with it. Personally, shooting slides, I would much rather get a proper exposure at the time of shooting than do it later (even though I scan and am proficient with PS). Also, if I wish to project the slide for viewing, getting the exposure correct originally is the only option. If you do decide to buy a ND set, I would not suggest the Cokins. Buy the Cokin P holder and Lee or Hi Tek filters (innexpensive, truly ND) which will fit the Cokin holder. In your situation, I think blending is the best idea, like Ellis says. Maybe post a sample of your blending skills so we can see if it looks natural?

[seanb]

The big advantage of blending is that you're not restricted to a straight line. The bane of ND filters has always been things that break the horizon such as trees - you don't want trunks to darken halfway up.

 

If you're happy with the results you're getting with blending, I'd stick with it. I've found it does take quite a bit of practice to get natural looking results.

[marbing]

There are many situations where an 'optical' solution is superior to a 'digital' one. In this case, I have a couple of questions.

 

One concerns 'workflow'.

 

How long does it take to apply the digital blending solution to your shots? Taking into account that you will have to need to perform the process on every shot that you have taken, I have found that it is infinitely more efficient to use a photographic filter. The effect is produced in as long as it takes the shutter to open...hundredths or thousandths of a second. There is no digital after-effect that can be applied as rapidly AND the effect can be seen through your viewfinder.

 

The other concern is the usually 'tacky' and 'unnatural' results from digital effects wich lack real world variances that give a picture depth.

 

In short, I feel that the digital approach is probably more trouble than it is worth...but I recognise that digital users LIKE that sort of thing. It gives them the feeling that they are actually doing something instead of just pressing the shutter button and letting their auto-everything, electro-whizbangers do all the thinking. Multi-point autofocus systems with matrix exposure systems programmed with every possible lighting combination and STILL the thing has to be tweaked and fixed for every shot?

[zapped]

Meryl Arbing wrote --- "How long does it take to apply the digital blending solution to your shots? Taking into account that you will have to need to perform the process on every shot that you have taken, I have found that it is infinitely more efficient to use a photographic filter. The effect is produced in as long as it takes the shutter to open...hundredths or thousandths of a second."

 

True, but the very nature of the kind of image I'd capture with a physical grad ND filter makes post-processing almost a certainty. In other words, if I'm gonna spend the time to haul my heavy Bogen tripod/head into parts unknown, wait for the right light, compose the picture thoughtfully, and use a remote for shutter release, I'm not overly concerned with saving a few minutes in post-production.

 

The simplest digital emulation of a grad ND takes literally 10 seconds to emulate. Paste the image with the well-exposed sky onto the original image that had the well-exposed landscape. Add layer mask, select gradient tool, stroke a short vertical starting just below and ending just above the horizon. Done. As another poster indicated, that may leave some weird exposures on tree- or mountain-tops, just like a real grad ND would. For small extra effort, one can paint onto the layer mask to dodge/burn those areas.

 

Heh, I think I've convinced myself that the digital blend is superior to the grad ND. But contrary viewpoints are still welcome --- I genuinely want to learn here, not just re-inforce my own prejudices.

 

 

The other concern is the usually 'tacky' and 'unnatural' results from digital effects wich lack real world variances that give a picture depth.

[zapped]

Typo in my last reply. The last line was just a quote from M.A. that I didn't mean to include --- "The other concern is the usually 'tacky' and 'unnatural' results from digital effects wich lack real world variances that give a picture depth."

 

Having accidentally included it, though, I'd say that I agree in principle that it's easy to over-do digital manipulation, but honestly, layer masks in Photoshop seems like a more _subtle_ solution to handling high-contrast images, not a more _garish_ one.

[jamiew]

Digital blending of multiple photographs is easier and if done right will get better results. The only real use I see in digital to a ND filter is if you do not have a VERY stable mount for your camera (i.e. hand help photos) where you will not get the exact same shoot.

[Barry Thomas]

Meryl, still banging that drum eh? Anyone owning/using a digital camera is an unthinking drone who just needs an auto-everything scattergun to collect images which get fixed later... Your last para sounds quite tense. Are you sure you're feeling OK? I worry about you.

 

It's been a few years since you offloaded your crappy digital p'n's. Things have come a long way since then. They're just like cameras now really, where the most important element of getting a good picture is the part _behind_ the viewfinder. You should try one. I'd hate you to turn into some ranting, swivel-eyed, anti-digital bore. That would be awful.

 

On the question - since the image is digital anway, and there's none of that tiresome spotting, dust/scratch removal to do, the skies are going to be as clear as anything, etc etc - the digital grad will take a few minutes, go for it. You can also alter the exact positioning and strength of the (digital)grad when you see the image on the screen, rather than it being fixed in one position had you used the filter in the field.

[roger krueger]

I'd much rather do it in digital--you have immense flexibility. With a filter you've got a straight (albeit soft) line somewhere, like it or leave it. Plus, with a filter, if you positioned the filter wrong, you've got to trek back out and shoot it again. Yuck. Cmd Z uses infinitely less gas. I'm with Jamie, the only time I'd use a grad ND is when repeatablity was an issue.

 

And I'm not just a digital nutcase--on ultrawides I vastly prefer a center ND to trying to fix it in Photoshop--a center ND does what it's supposed to, perfectly, with no futzing around, every time. If grad NDs were that simple to use, with perfect results, I'd use them too, but that ain't how it is.