ND grad vs HDR

[arne saknussen]

What are the pros and cons of ND grad filters and HDR technique?
I understand that colors are better with ND grads. But, HDR will be better with a jagged landscape such as a cityscape.
And I hope this is in the correct forum.

[daq7]

Why would colors be better with a graduated neutral density filter?

[daq7]

Frankly with raw files, I don't understand why anyone would even use a ND filter, since you can do exactly the same thing with a gradient.

[arne saknussen]

Why would colors be better with a graduated neutral density filter?

It was something I read in my research. Maybe they meant more natural? But its why I'm posing the question.

[draymorton]

ND filter, if you can afford it. Do as much in-camera as possible. It will look better in the end.

[OldClicker]

I don't get the question (or, really, the answers).

A Neutral Density (ND) filter puts some dark glass in front of the lens to decrease the overall exposure - same range, just lower. (No gradient involved unless it is a Graduated or Gradient Neutral Density Filter). It is generally used to allow a slower shutter speed such as with a waterfall on a sunny day, but can be for any reason that you want less exposure than the settings you want will give you. I use one to completely remove the ambient light and allow flash only to be visible.

High Dynamic Range (HDR) takes multiple images and uses the exposure range from them all to increase the range past what a single exposure can capture and then 'compresses' (tone mapping) that range back into values that can be displayed or printed.

You could use both for certain effects.

Terry

[Greg McCary]

I am not convineced the HDR is the way to go. With multipule exposures taking shots in the wind can be hard with blurrred images. Even with the best results many images I see are soft in spots. I agree with Dray getting as much right in the field will cut down on processing times. Why depend on software? A cokin system when bought as a kit isn't really that expensive. Don't ever be in the field with the idea you can fix something when you get home. Do your best to get it right when shooting.

[EOSThree]

I have been using Photomatix for a couple of years now. Sometimes I am happy with the results, other times not. I am starting to think that the best method might be to go back to the GNDs and use them in conjunction with Photomatix.

[Frog]

I'd do not think hdr can correct for blown out areas unless there are shots in however many you took that have those areas not blown out. In those shots the rest will be too dark but if you got correct exposures for all the areas of the composition then photomatix should be able to adjust and create a well exposed shot.
The neutral density filters are easier and would not require so much post processing. This might not be possible if the gradation or split in the nd filter does not match the composition you are attempting. I try to get shots that require as little post processing as possible because I'm not good at post processing.

[drg]

Gradient modification and HDR are two very different things.

ND/Grads/Polarizers are meant to compress or limit dynamic range.
HDR or variants are meant to increase dynamic range.

If this is a serious consideration in your photography and you already know what a histogram can tell you about your exposure then you may need to as a last resort use one of these filters to prevent 'clipping' of the image data. Remember the default mode histogram in cameras is biased for the camera output JPEG and not what can be accomplished in post-processing from the Camera's native RAW file. There are more and more cameras that three or four types of Histogram displays for evaluation that will set up a wide dynamic range image better for later use.

Mentioned already was that more recent cameras do better with not having some of the problems that earlier cameras did with the range issue. That is true of all sensor sizes as a result of in camera processing.

One factor not weighed by many digital photographers is that their sensor doesn't work linearly from dark to light. Only in some portion of the middle range of exposure is the sensor even vaguely equally responsive to light conditions. Generally if one is familiar with the 'olden times' and film, the sensors respond to shadows more like print film in terms of noise, color and saturation issues. For the highlights they respond more like slide/chrome film, i.e. they can clip very quickly or wash out. Thus, different densities of ND may be needed depending on which way you shift the image.

This resulted in HDR or tone mapping to let us do things that film wasn't every capable of doing. Good digital images in difficult lighting and wide dynamic range is a combo of exposure, one that isn't always intuitive or 'correct', and post processing. With RAW techniques and modern tools many exposure problems go away better than anything a camera typical producing as a default JPEG output. The cameras JPEG in fact may look like hell.

Getting the best image out your camera isn't going to happen from just the camera. You have to do as much as possible at the beginning, but the best work happens later. Just like in the days of film!

[daq7]

I repeat, with a raw file you can do EXACTLY the same thing that you can do with a gnd filter. Yeah it takes a bit longer, so MAYBE you are better just shooting with the gnd, but if you don't you have a lot more flexibility what direction you go.

I consider tone mapping to be functionally equivalent to having thousands if pixel-bast graduated neutral density filters that optimize the exposure for local contrast.

[DGK*CRONE]

Frankly with raw files, I don't understand why anyone would even use a ND filter, since you can do exactly the same thing with a gradient.

Who likes shooting in raw just so they can sit in front of the computer and edit for hours? I try to shoot my DSLR like a film camera. I get annoyed when I have to edit my pictures. I try to get them right the first time.

I didn't understand the question but it looks like there are some good responses in this already.

[arne saknussen]

In regards to the question, sorry it wasn't clear. But the responses have been great.
I have been doing all sorts of reading on photography, including several of the British mags. Though no one (in the mags) has really compared the HDR and ND grads, different authors/photographers suggest one of the 2 as a way to correct exposure, especially in landscape shots. Since I might (I hope, anyway) to be taking shots in the Shenandoah Valley in a week or two, I was wondering if I should invest in a filter, or just concentrate on HDR. Ideally both would be best, but time at the location might be an issue.

[draymorton]

Take a look at Patrick Smith's work on flickr. All ND grads, no HDR. Pretty amazing stuff.

[draymorton]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/patrick-smith-photography/

[Greg McCary]

Awesome stuff Dray. Thanks for posting the link. Now I can get all jealous.

[arne saknussen]

Take a look at Patrick Smith's work on flickr. All ND grads, no HDR. Pretty amazing stuff.

Ha! I was just going to post the link myself.

But, thank you for directing me. These are the shots that I am reading about. Fantastic stuff!

[freygr]

Just remember there are hard and soft ND gradient filters and choosing the correct gradient and density is an art ( if you have the correct filter ).

[EOSThree]

Gradient modification and HDR are two very different things.

I full agree with this statement, but in the end you achieve the same thing. You get a useable dynamic range to capture the scene. Whether you fit the scene onto your sensor, or you fit the scene onto your screen, you are accomplishing the same thing. You are fitting the DR of a particular scene into what can be displayed or printed.

I am/was a big proponent of HDR techniques. I use them a lot. Lately as I get more discerning, I am liking the clownish look of HDR less and less. It's an interesting art form but it looks nothing like reality. Reality is what I am after. Like I said above, I am moving back toward GNDs and away from HDR, or maybe I'll find a good way to incorporate both.

[EOSThree]

Just remember there are hard and soft ND gradient filters and choosing the correct gradient and density is an art ( if you have the correct filter ).

Not at all an art. You meter your scene for highlights and shadow. You pick the filter to cover this DR.

.6 is the most used GND filter and even if it doesn't cover the whole DR of a scene it will hold back enough and with some creative EV you will get a lot more scene captured on your sensor. Hard line for relatively straight lines and soft for more jagged lines.

I started as a full proponent of using GND filters, then moved into a lot of experimentation with photomatix. I liked what I was getting from photomatix, but there is a lot that I get that I don't like: horrible cyan skies that are pretty hard to color correct, any noisiness is magnified and accented causing a need for a lot of detail robbing NR, gaudy unrealistic output, etc, etc.

I am ready to try going back old school. A lot of my favorite landscapes are done without HDR. The examples Dray posted are perfect examples. I think HDR is exciting, but more times than not I am disappointed with the output, and spend a lot of time in post cleaning it up. So it's back to old school for me with probably the same amount of PP.

[Frog]

I just looked at your profile and see you are using a point-n-shoot.
Is it capable of shooting raw format?
What is your lens diameter and do they make nd filters to fit.
Is it compatible with the Cokin system?

You can get a Cokin adaptor and two or three nd filters for (guessing) about 50 bucks.
Do you already have photomatix? If you don't buy it and use the trial version all your finished products will have the photomatix logo on the finished image. This isn't necessarily bad as if you get good results, you can decide to buy it and lose the logos. HDR can be accomplished in some editing programs but I've never heard anyone say the results are better and its a lot more work.

If you can shoot raw and choose to try hdr, make sure you use a tripod or other stabilizing tool and get at least 3 shots, at least one of which is exposed for the brightest area so you get the detail in that bright area. If you don't get a shot with detail in those bright areas, no amount of tone mapping will bring it out.
If you cannot shoot in raw format, I'd forget trying hdr. Not even sure if hdr can be accomplished with jpeg but you won't have as much info to work with.
Not sure what blown highlights you'll be trying to avoid but if you have clear or partly cloudy skies, a polarizer would serve better.
If you go with nd filters, you'll want graduated split nd filters.
All this kind of stuff, I learned here but sometimes I find out I don't know what I'm talking about so if anyone disagrees, please chime in.

[arne saknussen]

Ooop, I need to update my profile. I am now using a Canon D50.

[daq7]

Who likes shooting in raw just so they can sit in front of the computer and edit for hours? I try to shoot my DSLR like a film camera. I get annoyed when I have to edit my pictures. I try to get them right the first time.

I didn't understand the question but it looks like there are some good responses in this already.

Who does this? I do.

[daq7]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/patrick-smith-photography/

Yes Dray. Good link, but I also want to remind people that to get these brilliant shots sans post processing requires much more diligence and patience finding the right light. Graduated neutral density filters can help reduce that, but on reason I like post processing is that you are much less a slave to perfect light.

I don't personally care a lot HOW people get their results. I like post processing to increase the drama.

[daq7]

Not at all an art. You meter your scene for highlights and shadow. You pick the filter to cover this DR.

.6 is the most used GND filter and even if it doesn't cover the whole DR of a scene it will hold back enough and with some creative EV you will get a lot more scene captured on your sensor. Hard line for relatively straight lines and soft for more jagged lines.

I started as a full proponent of using GND filters, then moved into a lot of experimentation with photomatix. I liked what I was getting from photomatix, but there is a lot that I get that I don't like: horrible cyan skies that are pretty hard to color correct, any noisiness is magnified and accented causing a need for a lot of detail robbing NR, gaudy unrealistic output, etc, etc.

I am ready to try going back old school. A lot of my favorite landscapes are done without HDR. The examples Dray posted are perfect examples. I think HDR is exciting, but more times than not I am disappointed with the output, and spend a lot of time in post cleaning it up. So it's back to old school for me with probably the same amount of PP.

I completely agree. I really used to love Photomatix, but more often than not I do not like what comes out of it. I practically never use it alone any more, and almost always blend it back in with natural exposures to emphasize what I want to without the extremity of photomatix. Even still my shots often look too much the way photomatix looks. Sometimes I really like it but I always tone it down.

I think I would do what you are doing and try to do more "old school" in order to get better grist for post processing. There are a few reasons I don't. 1. I don't really know how. 2. Much harder work required in the field and much more need for perfect light. 3. I'm lazy.

But I think I agree in principle. But ultimately I will keep doing a lot of PP, because I have always thought of myself more as a digital painter than a photographer. Recently I have been thinking a bit differently, but I want to move toward even more drastic painterly manipulation of the photos. I want to start incorporating Painter into my work flow more.