Landscape Photography - ND Grads vs Bracketing
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- Which is best? ND Graduated filters or bracketing. I head to a remote reservoir in Yorkshire to test out both landscape photography techniques.
Follow First Man Photography for the latest updates:
Instagram - bit.ly/InstaFir...
FREE eBook - bit.ly/eBookFir...
Get a FREE trial of Adobe Lightroom CC and Photoshop - bit.ly/AdobeFir...
Buy Prints - bit.ly/PrintsFi...
My Camera Gear
Canon 5D Mark IV - geni.us/Canon5DMk4
Manfrotto 055 Carbon Tripod - geni.us/055Carbon
Manfrotto BeFree Carbon Tripod - geni.us/Befree
Canon 16-35mm F/4 - geni.us/Canon16...
Tamron 24-70mm - geni.us/Tamron2...
Canon 70-200mm - geni.us/Canon70200
Canon 400mm - geni.us/Canon400mm
Canon 100mm L Macro - geni.us/CanonMacro
My Full Gear List - bit.ly/FirstMan...
In this video I aim to find out if using physical ND grads is better than using the bracketing or HDR technique.
It is an issue I have been thinking about for a while. Partly because I often see photographers running workshops and convincing beginners that they need ND grad filters and then selling them a nice set of Lee Filters. In many cases people are people misled and I do not believe they are required thanks to the ability to use the bracketing technique.
This is not really a tutorial of how to use bracketing or ND grads but I do have other videos on the channel that will help you out. See the links in the video. I have been using bracketing for the last few years and have increasingly not bothered with the ND Grads. However I felt it was not time to test out this photography technique and see if it was true.
Many people seem to think that bracketing and/or HDR photography is cheating. They make claims like you should, ‘get it right in camera’. I do not buy into this. Ansel Adams said there are three parts to making a photograph. Firstly, it requires your visualisation of the scene and capturing it in the camera. The second part is the post-processing, the darkroom in his day and, usually in Lightroom today. Thirdly is the print. There is no such thing as an unprocessed image. A raw file is simply a digital negative that requires the addition of some processing to make it into anything other than a lifeless, flat image. If you shoot jpeg then the camera is doing the post-processing for you by adding contrast, saturation and sharpness. We only get into realms of cheating when we start to actually adjust the landscape itself, with techniques like cloning and patching etc. Post-processing therefore, is an equal part of the artistic process and bracketing and HDR are included within this.
There is nothing wrong with using Graduated Filters. If you choose to use them after some experience of creating landscape photography then I fully respect that. Personally though I believe they no longer serve a purpose. Given there significant cost, it is always worth people trying bracketing first. Even a single image, with a modern day camera like the Canon 5D Mark IV, will often contain so much dynamic range that using a software ND grad will be just as effective as the physical filter. Once you add in the bracketing technique of shooting multiple shots (usually 3) with difference exposures it makes the physical filter redundant.
There are pros and cons to using ND Grads. The pro’s are that you can get more right in the camera and be able to see, at the time of shooting, something closer to your final image. The cons are greater. They are a faff to use, they are expensive and take up more room in your bag. Bracketing on the other hand is done with no additional cost, it is easy and gives much greater control of exposure in post-processing.
Whilst the test in the video is made by looking at only one image it has only served to confirm my beliefs that physical ND grads are not required. If you choose to use them then I totally appreciate that but bracketing is definitely worth a try. It is not cheating. Processing of bracketed shots can be done using HDR or layer masking and both can work very well in the right situation.
The topic of filters is a real hornet's nest. The use of ND grads and polarizers have generated strongly divided opinions. My opinion is that you should to do what you want if it works for you. Why would you care what somebody else is doing? It is a pointless argument. People who get upset what someone else is using or doing just need to relax. Photography is an art. There is no right or wrong.
I agree. And that was essentially my message. I'm letting everyone know what I think and, at the same time, trying to help the new shooters from being misled into believing they MUST buy grads.
nevadaxtube - Well said
Fully agree
nevadaxtube agree
neva, 'photography as art' is only one of the many forms of photography. Don't pretend you can speak for the rest of us.
I personally dont see the point of graduated filters, but I have shot many images with screw in ND filters, and video with ND filters to control my dof whilst controlling video shutter speed.
I'm not convinced that your example really gives an ND grad a fair crack of the whip here. Looking at the histogram, you didn't even need to bracket, so there would be no need for a physical ND grad here and adding one with Lightroom would just be a personal preference. If you are shooting a sunset directly into the sun and want a long exposure as well you don't always have enough time if you're shooting 2 - 4 min exposures (because of failing light) to shoot a bracketed shot and to blend later, especially if you have a huge differential between a dark foreground and a very bright sky. A physical grad can narrow the exposure gap between the land and sky sufficiently to get the result you want in one shot. Another advantage is that if you have any movement in the shot i.e. clouds or if you accidentally move the camera between shots then there are none of the alignment difficulties you may have in post-processing. Just my 2 penneth!
Spot on :)
I think that was his point. Using ND filters to just darken the sky, not for rare cases. And even then, I'd get the image without ND filters because I don't want to carry them around and mess with them. And why on earth would you ever need to shoot a four minute exposure of a sunset? Even if you wanted to so something like blur water, it doesn't take anywhere near that long. All you'd have to do take two images, one exposed for the sky and one exposed for the water and combine them in Photoshop. I admit I don't use ND filters and don't really know what I'm talking about, but I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario like you described, where there is light from a sunset yet you still need a four minute exposure and a ND filter would get it done in one shot.
Seascapes often have a big difference in exposure which can be dealt with with a ND grad enabling a single long exposure, rather than blending two or more images afterwards, although even using these isn't enough when your collection of filters is limited and the exposure difference is more than 2 stops. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a user of ND grads for the sake of it and I only have a limited collection of a 2-stop hard edge and a normal ND filter, which happens to be a Lee Superstopper, but there have been situations where the sky is quite static and only an exposure of several minutes will get noticeable movement. Water needs far less time , of course. I am aware of Photoshop stacking using many images, but it is not a technique I have investigated yet(maybe I should) and therefore have to work with my current skill set. I think the point I was trying to make is that you use what you equipment and knowledge you have, but if you're going to demonstrate why you don't need an ND grad, then you should do exactly that.
Ade Pollard Very good points. ND grads and stoppers are for the most demanding and artistic landscape photographers. If you are serious about landscape photography you will end up buying a stopper and a polarizer eventually. That can also run you quite some money for good ones and most likely you wont be able to stack them. I believe that grads are particulary usefull when comebined with a stopper. For a sunset and sometimes a short oppertunity of time you would just like to have your camera and settings ready and take pictures. Lets say you want to take a sunset exposure of 15 sec which is reasonable and bracket that shot. It will take your camera 2 stops of time which is 1 minute just for the over expososed picture which is useless anyway. I could have taken 5 sunset pictures in the total bracketing time when combining a grad with the stopper. Also you tend to lose some contrast and a lot of colours when you bracket for extreme scenes.
Ade Pollard I couldn't agree more with your comments. For me, photography and making an image is all about the craft. It isn't a simple case of "using a grad etc" it's knowing which grad to use and when to use them. I don't like having to rely on a PC to make the image when I have the opportunity to do so in the field.
My final argument is that if the likes of Joe Cornish, Jeremy Walker and many other fine photographers then it's good enough for me!
In this situation no bracketing or ND grad are needed. Try demonstrating in a situation, where the brightness of the sky differs a lot from the ground (eg. sunset). Otherwise, this video is not representative of the techniques you are trying to illustrate...
In your very commendable effort to explain why all images need some processing I fear you are guilty of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The whole concept of your comparison is wrong, firstly you don't need to bracket or use a ND grad for this particular image and secondly you cannot compare a physical ND grad directly with a software ND grad using the same settings in Lightroom. They are completely different things with many subtle variables. Your reluctance to use a software grad on your filtered image is also false as processing does not end just because filters are used and each RAW image should be assessed and processed on it's merits.
I'm not sure that these were the right conditions for such a test. The straight up shot and the ND Grad shot, when unprocessed, have a much more natural sky. If you had processed the water and the mountains and left the sky as is, I think they would have made better photographs than the merged shot. I know it's all subjective, and that everyone should do as they wish, but I do think that an ND Grad (or more then one) are great to control the exposure in high dynamic scenes. It doesn't mean that you can't process them again (or even bracket for more dynamic range and blend later; using grads and blending are not mutually exclusive). The problem I have with HDR is the lack of contrast in scenes. A neat blend of two or more exposures is much better than simply merging all three shots in HDR software. IMHO.
I'm not sure why you think the Lee (or other systems) are a faff. Using a circular polariser and an ND filter together is only possible with such a system??? But I do agree, the price is often prohibitive and a waste for people that are new to photography.
Anyway, enjoying the vids.
nice vid but it missed the point :) do this again on a sunrise or sunset image.
Sometimes adding or taking away from an image isn't "cheating." Once, I got up at 4 a.m. to photograph a hiking trail through the woods at a local park after a fresh snow. I arrived, hiked through the snow to the spot, was in the process of setting my tripod and camera up when a woman (who for whatever reason was trying to jog) ran right around and through the area I was obviously trying to photograph. I was so pissed. I took the photo anyway of course and cloned out her footprints in Photoshop. And, honestly there really isn't any right or wrong or cheating, etc. Photography is an art. If a photographer wants to take a picture of a landscape and then mess around and change things in post, then there's nothing wrong with that, imo. It's their artistic vision. Unless you're a photojournalist, documenting a crime scene, etc., there's nothing wrong with editing how you see fit.Technically, for the people that say someone's "cheating" by doing this or that, I'd say that using a filter on your camera is not better or worse than making the adjustment in post.
Man that sucks, I would have done the same thing.
@@jochie18 You have also to remember that there is no "real" version of an image.
It does not matter if you take digital pictures with different cameras, take photos on film or just look with your eyes. There will always be a difference because at the time you see it it alread has been altered either by software, by the camera, your eyes or by your brain.
I am very new to photography and can so well remember that in the past I was often disapointed by photos I took since the scene looked so much better with my own eyes than it did on camera. Our eyes have a very good dynamic range and without filters or post pictures in high cotnrast scenes are often unusable while on the same time the scenery is gorgeous with my eyes.
It is the same with a slight overcast. You are at a location, the scenery is breathtaking, you take a photo and it looks shit because of the white'ish sky and the lack of contrast. Without editing or filters your pictures will not look like you would have seen them with your own eyes.
I'm sorry - but that is cheating. If you are doing something digitally that you could not have achieved with a film camera - it's cheating, pure and simple.
I have just recently purchased a DSLR and have used both ND Grad's and bracketing for the first time. I much prefer bracketing because it is less hassle, more fun in post processing and I prefer the outcome of the images. I just want to take a second to thank you for your help, it was your videos I watched to gain the knowledge of bracketing.
I don't quite understand why you bracket then add a software ND Grad
I was tempted into using ND Grads after attending a course but I've reverted to applying them in Lightroom. I find that the results are equally as good, if not better and if you get it wrong you can always step back and try again. It's also a lot easier in LR than faffing about with holders and bits of glass. I still occasionally use them but normally the only physical filters I use now are my original screw on circular polarisers, and 6 and 10 stop NDs for long exposures
Adam, I use grads because they help me to get a much better feel for what the final image will look like whilst I'm on location. I'm not adversed to a bit of selective dodging and burning to lighten or darken certain parts of an image in Lightroom but when I combine images it feels like I'm giving too much control to the software. I would like more control over the 'strength'; to be able to control how much is taken from the over and under exposed images. I have in the past blended different exposures together using layers in Photoshop, selectively increasing the opacity of the top layer to revel parts of a brighter exposure underneath. This I feel gives me the ultimate control and results in a final image that is more mine than it is Adobe's if you get my meaning. Bit of a bloody faff though mate!
I agree with your concept. I just bought my first set of filters a year 1/2 into learning photography. I recommend you don't mess with them until you know exactly how to use your camera and compose an image. The only real reason I got them is like whatThomas Heaton says, I just hate sitting around editing photos and would rather spend more time outdoors. Great Video!
There is no such thing as "cheating" in photography - what matters is that YOU are happy with the final image. If you want to take one shot of a location or 3 shots then time blend them it is up to you. Explore all that is available to you as a photographer and find what YOU like.
You can't really duplicate what a polarizer can do in certain instances
A great example for using bracketing over ND grads, is when having the likes of buildings on the horizon. You don't want to darken buildings and that's why I prefer bracketing. I'm also a graphic designer of over 6 years and for me, Photoshop doesn't intimidate me. I've had a few photographers say to me that they're not proficient enough in Photoshop, so they rather the grads. But it's only layer masks, it's not like you're trying to create a skeuomorphism metallic logo.
For me, I want firstly, what my eye can see, not what the camera can see. Secondly I want to make the image work, so if that means adding an orton effect to give the sun a stronger glow or enhance the power. I'm also a drummer of 17 years and if photographers were only shown a glimpse into the post production involved with music production, this wouldn't be as big of a topic.
where do you live? man everywhere you go its empty of people. God i need to get away from Los Angeles
Juan Alvarado trying heading to the north or the Angeles national forest
Of the 3 pictures, physical ND is better anyway
Definitely true for me - it has much better contrast between light and dark. Looks much more natural.
I still think we have 4 alternatives, filters, luminosity masks, bracketing and other software. There is no definition in your sky so what are you trying to preserve? ND filters are made for strong light, ND grads are for the difference between the highlights in the sky and the foreground, doing this video shows nothing of the use of grads.
Hello. I wonder if you still feel the same way about using ND grad filters. I noticed you latest 2018/19 videos generally have ND grads mounted to the front of the lens.
I do. I never use grad filters. I use solid ND for my long exposure but all.my filters are the screw in variety.
In most of my landscape shots, I use 2ev 3shot brackets, and I like the result I get from it. I generally use my ND when I want to get longer exposure motion blur for water or a moody effect with clouds.
I feel like Polarizers are necessary and ND-s andND-Grads or HDR/Bracketing is the choice of the photographer
Great vid. I would have liked to see the same text on a sunrise as i use filters so the sun is not blown out. I know you can HDR then but the difference between each shot tends to be more dramatic, probably more stops between to get the foreground and the sun just right. I often wonder about different types of filters, i use cokin, kood and gobe and can not tell which is better quality. Gobe is quite cheap and does colour cast but it's easily sorted in post. I use a screw on 10 stop and find it so annoying when you have to take it off each time to change focus. I always struggle to find somewhere to quickly put it down and it ends up in my mouth :-)
Still useful comparison 3 yrs later. Happy to have found it.
Ha thanks. Interestingly it's something I'm still questioning
I have 58mm, 67mm, 77mm, and 82mm ND grad filters--all 0.6 (2-stops). AEB simply doesn't work with film. You can join scanned images of film, but might as well be shooting digital in the first place if you're going to do that. These filters fit all my Pentax 67 lenses and Fuji view camera lenses. Round filters, with a soft boundary work very well for me, but I have a Lee kit as well, which contains some neat effects I apply here and there.
Since color photos work on color perception, where a big palette of colors (billions) brings effective "realism"--I like digital a lot. But film does have a thousand times the resolution, and it's a better tool for black and white photography. I find 2 -stops of neutral density to be about right, but also have a Lee kit and adapters for more refined control and occasional color effects.
My biggest negatives are 5x7 inches (so is my enlarger). A lot of people have never seen a large format print, or they wouldn't say the things they do. To large format photographers working in 4x5 the idea of HDRI falls under the heading "twice nothing is still nothing". Come what may, digital is still an inherently low-resolution medium. It's certainly got enough resolution for commercial destinations. HDRI is useful because the detail falls off more rapidly than with film and both highlights and shadows may be sparse. Algorithms that combine images are pretty impressive, but they're not perfect, and there are occasional unnatural effects, or digital noise--which is just awful.
The whole sensation surrounding HDRI is mildly amusing. The thing artists are looking for, another bucket of fine detail, is the reason millions of people continue to shoot film. It's really a distinctly different art form but thrilling detail is precisely what most artists are looking for. Some would also say silver-based printing is also much more pleasing to the eye, with far better archival properties.
I have a degree in computer science and love the whole digital fandango. Digital can never replace the sumptuous quality of transparency film, or the remarkable universe of black and white film--but it's a fantastic art form by itself with enormous creative potential. Use digital for what it does best, and the same for film. If you want high dynamic range, use and HDR medium (film). HDRI or grad filters do not expand dynamic range, they shrink the range of contrast by selectively re-mapping tones.
Keep it simple! Want high dynamic range? You only need it for high contrast subjects. Use film. B&W is great (10 stops of latitude) and some color films are not bad either (5-7 stops).
For transparencies, break out the ND Grad trick, and get back 2 stops. But watch out! All HDRI techniques are a blunt instrument, which can produce unnatural effects, leading us to failure. One of the things that makes photography a challenge is getting what we see (15 or 16 stops of contrast) on to the shorter range film, or digital sensors. But the sky is not falling! If you screw it up, try again. This how visual artists learn.
Anyone using a Sony A7 or 6000 camera should look into Sony's fascinating App for HDRI which can be downloaded into the camera. I find the results quite amazing using a Sony A7ii. There's a small learning curve, but the Sony HDRI app is the best thing since apple pie, allowing artists to manipulate the contrast range of scene with remarkable dexterity. If you want to work fast, a round glass ND grad 0.6 will do the job well 90 percent of the time--and I prefer glass over acrylic filters (Lee).
Hi Adam, another great vlog on a subject that's really key to my photography at the moment. I really appreciate your explanation of different techniques and there pros and cons to each. I do agree that filter systems can be sold as the solution to beginner photographs problems when understanding the camera and how to use is the better starting point. Keep up the great work as your channel is one of the best on here (in my opinion that is!!).
Thanks Robert. Really appreciate you watching and taking the time to comment. I also feel that your opinion carries a massive amount of weight!!!
Awesome explanation..this guy is a genius...pure unscripted knowledge...keep up the good work brother
Hi Adam, your videos are getting better and better each time. I like that you have strong opinions on subjects, but put them forward constructively so as to explain your own methods and not discount anything by telling viewers not to use certain methods or gear. I personally struggle with landscape photography as I don't have the money to spend on filters, so it's nice knowing I can get the same if not better results using in-camera/editing techniques (although I've also been told I'm useless at seeing good composition). Please keep the great videos coming.
Thanks Adam. Really appreciate the comment and I am glad you are finding the videos useful. In terms of strong opinions though......who on Earth told you you're useless at seeing good composition???? It's nonsense, it's a skill that can be developed with hard work and time!!!
I fully agree with your comments. I see it this way, the very first settings (exposure triangle) are the beginning bits of manipulation of any picture.
I LOVE using my Formatt Hitech 100x150 grad. I prefer dialing down sun and sky on location. I get a better and more efficient photography experience. Lately i have been doing more single exposure images (rather than bracketiung my butt off like i did when i first started!!), so for me the hardware grad is essential in getting the right exposure.
Nothing against bracketing or after processing I agree with you in terms of that the land scape is just a canvas and you apply to that your art an spin on the composition how ever I do think out of the three images the one with the nd grad was the better shot but only by my opinion
Excellent video. Couldn't disagree with anything you said. Like the way you clearly pointed out that all those people who brag about getting it right in camera don't really understand what they are talking about. Ive never considered an ND grad since I started using Lightroom. Keep up the good work- I look forward to watching your videos.
As a complete amateur I use both hardware grads and bracketing. Both have their merits but I find with the hardware I can see the result I'm after in camera immediately and not have to wait for software on a computer to create things for me.
Enjoying the videos, keep them coming.
Agree totally about post processing, including pushing film in the lab and printing in the darkroom with dodging and burning. Absolutely, but Ansel Adams didn’t use Luminar AI and such like - that’s my boundary, or am I being too purist? ✌️🌻
Good video, I was gonna buy filters but will wait for now. I notice you did not address “in camera HDR “ which works well for me. Your thoughts?
Thank you.
I have to say, I don't think ND grads are always necessary, especially on a digital camera. On film on the other hand, it's different; I often use Fuji Velvia 50 which has 4 stop dynamic range (5 is really pushing it). Amazing colours, but very narrow DR! I need a 3-stop ND grad to bring down the sky because otherwise there's no information there no matter what you do in post-processing. B&W film works like a charm without ND filters because it has a ridiculously wide dynamic range, but I use them anyway to flatten down the negative. A flat negative can easily be printed contrasty, but if it's punchy to begin with, it's crazy hard to get a decent print.
1. Your explanations are refreshingly simple. 2. I have been struggling with 2 sunset shots (different locations) for about a year now. 3. My personal conclusions are: If time and returning to the same location are on your side, TRY BOTH ND GRAD FILTER AND BRACKETING. Do not mix the 2 during same shooting sessions. 4. I am shooting for my book. QUESTION/HELP: I understand that it is the TIFF version that is required for prints. On the other hand I read an article that said TIFF is a lossy format. WHAT IS THE BEST FORMAT FOR PRINTS, please? Thanks and warm regards from Mauritius.
For shooting film, specifically 4x5 I use pro quality 100mm/150mm ND grads, for Digital I use either ND filters or software. Pro’s and cons..... Balancing with filters saves time in post process, using software does not degrade the optical lens path in any way with dirty filter glass or reflections/refractions. The real answer is the question..... does anybody who buys my printed images/canvas’ care?
Nope.... they buy the image because they like it and the more appealing I make that image the more I earn. Good luck!
I love your RAW T-shirt are they still available?
I am new to photography. I had a Canon 1200D as a gift a few years ago from my wife. Since the start of lockdown 1 I have been watching your TH-cam channel and loving it. Really enjoying getting to know how to use my camera. Got the bug to be honest. Steve
Hi Adam. the discussion about cheating obviously never ends. I guess if you ask three people you`ll probably get three different answers. Personally I see cheating same like you do. I hate it when people shot their frame but put in post processing a different e.g. sky because there is a far more better night sky with more stars or even the milkey way to put in to make the picture more appealing. BUT the original picture did not show anything like this!!! This is what I call cheating. Sure there are people who will discuss about when does cheating start and there might be a slight and narrow boarder about putting art when editing to get the most out of the frame. Others call this already cheating. My definition is DON`T ADD SOMETHING THAT WASN`T THERE WHEN YOU TOOK THE PICTURE. My question to you is, what do you think about deleting obstacles or distructing things like e.g. a dustbin, street signs, cars or even people.... do you call this cheating? Personally, I don`t but as mentioned in the beginning... this might get a long discussion. I would be interested what you think about my querry.
Thanks, Stephan.
Ansel Adams lived long enough to see the coming digital age of photography, and he lamented the fact that he wouldn't get to participate in it. He was looking forward to what digital post-processing could do, having already pushed the limits of "wet" processing to its limits. So, no, digital post-processing is not cheating. Like the controls exercised in the wet development and printing process, it's just another set of tools for the photographer to control towards the realization of his or her photographic vision.
Anyone who thinks "real" photography doesn't involve subjectivity never saw Ektachrome, Kodachrome, and Velvia slides of the same scene side-by-side. The film photographer makes subjective choices when buying film! Ansel Adams worked in color as well as in B&W, and I think his color work was less than inspired. Clearly, it didn't mesh with his vision, no matter how "true-to-life" color may be compared to B&W.
I am new to photography, and do not claim any expertise. Still, I want to point out that I don't think a filter is expensive if we value our time. Let's say a filter is €100 and that your hourly salary is €100, then you need to work for 1-2 hours to pay for a filter (depending on how you are taxed). Let's say the filter breaks after 1,000 photos, and you had to work for 2 hours to pay for the filter. Those two hours of work equals 7,200 seconds, so if you save 7,2 seconds on your post production for each of the 1,000 photos, then you are at break-even. This is just an example to illustrate a point, and numbers will vary greatly. However, I think that time saved could be worth buying.
MY.GOSH.
This is really a bad example, also that's a really bad hardware, and the worst situation ever. Let's go step by step:
1. In this situation you usually just take one good exposed photo. That's it. No filters. No bracketing. Actually no photo at all, just have a beer and try to get lucky the next time with some clouds and lower sun. With the sun that high there are no shadows, no clouds mean no shadows too. So no need to bother.
2. Let's say you get lucky and the clouds are there and the sun is down, good luck to do bracketing with clouds moving, water moving, lights and shadows changing. And I'm not even considering all the things that can go wrong with the bracketing: like a bird getting impressed more than one time in the photo ("ghosts") or same effect with grass or leaves in the trees.
3. The "hardware" you've used is obsolete (to be kind), a real "shit" to speak the true. The only filters that make sense to use are glass filters, with proper holders with no vignetting at 16mm full frame.
4. You've used the wrong filter, 2 stop soft (at 40mm haha) is the worst choice ever. The soft is "good" maybe at 16mm on full frame, and 2 stop is just not useful. You should start with a 3 stop Medium (or soft is you shot often wide-angle) and then 3 stop Hard.
5. If you want to do a long exposure or manage the exposure time, as you should do on proper landscape photos even if only few seconds, you need a GND. Using an ND and doing bracketing is the worst idea ever. You're going to have much more problems than those 100£ for a good optical glass filter. First of all, shooting bracketing (+2 and -2 stops) with a base shot of 4 seconds means:
1 photo at - 2 stops (1") then -1 stop (2") then the base shot at 4" then 8" at +1 and 16" at +2, a total of 31" without counting the pauses between the shots. It's a huge wast of time for a 4" shot with a GND. Think about a long exposure shot of 4 minutes (please try it sometimes because it's really cool if you are good enough to get the right exposure, a good challenge for a great result). A 4 minutes shot became a 31 minute one in bracketing, a waste of time. Even 31" means you gonna miss some good moment of light and maybe get shots that are impossible to merge. What about a pano? 10 shots maybe, 31" each, impossible.
Basically, bracketing *could* be interesting, but at the end GND (a good one...) is the best choice. Of course in the right situation.. Not during midday in the middle of Sahara desert.
Sorry for the long post but I think is pretty important to say that watching this 13 minutes video it was like shooting a 31 minutes bracketing: a wasting of time and the worst idea ever.
I agree with some here, the example scene did not justify an ND grad but probably just a polarizer to darken the sky. I'm a gear head and although I use Lee Filters they're not always needed. That said on a cloudy / stormy day I love putting the graduated filter in front of the camera because I like to see the effect within a single frame. If my histogram was not clipping on the highlights and visa versa within the shadows then if I need to darken or lighten anything I use the graduated filters within LR.
Neither way is right or wrong, would I recommend graduated filters to anyone? hell yes!
I'd like to get away from another piece of glass in front of my lens too. Not sure it's possible this way though with 1/3 second exposure and moving waves. I think I'd have done your video another day if I'd turned up with a cloudless sky facing away from the sun with everything front lit. Cheers for the video though.
Adam, It is so contentious and you are brave stepping in to potential minefield!!! However, my partner has just put is very succinctly, If do a drawing that is rubbish (which it would be) and then get an artist to come along and redraw my illustration to a high artistic standard and then claim it as "MY" picture that makes me, in my humble opinion, a complete fraud and I personally would not be happy lying to myself and others about it. I guess it comes down to the individual to set their own standards. However, sadly I look at so many photos on the web and think to myself that it is basically a Fake!!! (Trump has so much to answer for!!!!) That to me is sad, because one could argue that getting caught up in feeling the need to pay out for vastly expensive software to achieve something that you never achieved as a photographer surely rather diminishes the art of true photography and relegates one to being a very competent PC/Software operator which is another very commendable talent all in itself. However, surely it is not the photography as we all grew up knowing it to be???
Yes, you have a point about bracketing and processing. There are very powerful digital tools which can be used to great effect for post processing. There are 2 major points I have to add so that your viewers can make an informed decision.
1) When using a 16, 17 or 18mm lens, using multiple screw in filters (Filter Stacking) causes vignetting. So, you either have to zoom in or crop in post processing. This defeats the reason for purchasing a wide angle lens. Filter Holders allow for multiple filters.
2) I think you missed the point about "getting it right in camera"... It is about the craft and where and how to apply you skills. Like many other hobbies or art forms there are several ways of achieving an end result. In woodworking there are power tools and there are hand tools. In sewing there are sewing machines, needle and thread or knitting . In cooking there are maual tools and there are frozen dinners. In any case you can always BUY a piece of furniture, a garment, a meal or a framed image.
If you are going to invest in a filter setup it will be because you are dedicated to the Manual process of spending time in the field rather than in post processing.
3) Filters of any kind degrade the image quality. Resin filters are worse than glass filters. A good 100mm setup with a holder and 4 or 5 glass filters (NiSi, Lee, Formatt or Haida) will cost as much as a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8.
The first 6 minutes were a rant to enforce your point of view, and could have been condensed into a single paragraph. But, I guess that is how you make your money and keep your cult of personality going.
I don't own any ND grad filters... but I wish I did. There are times when bracketing and using HDR produces unwanted artifacts. For example, I shot the full moon a few days ago and the LR HDR function has serious issues with aligning the images, and even when it is able to do so it is not able to fully deal with the artifacts from the +1 shot, even with maximum de-ghosting enabled. An ND grad would have created a clean image straight away. While I suspect that I could use PS instead of LR for this, I only have a copy of Elements so everything would be degraded to 8bit color. And no, I am not interested in Adobe's subscription program, I believe that software purchases should be at the user's discretion and if a software manufacturer wants more of my money they should add features or significantly improve the ones they have. Besides, Thomas Heaton uses ND grads, and he is about the best there is.
Hi Adam, I'm with you, I did thing about a grad filter, but how often is the arisen straight and now trees. Bracketing gives a more realistic sky.
Cheers.......Peter.
As far as I understand, a modern sensor chip is basically quite close to linear for about 12-15 stops, starting just below saturation (highlight blowout). The bottom end is determined by noise. In most cases, there should be no real advantage to taking two-stop brackets. This is completely different from the old color film days. There you had to get the primary object exposed to within about 1/3 stop of optimal to get good color and detail. The best thing now in most cases is to “expose to the highlights”. Set the exposure so that the histogram almost reaches the right end when the ISO is at its base value. You will then have 12-15 stops of good data in one raw file. After that it’s just a matter of using software to dodge and burn, just like in the old days.
Main advantage of ND grads is high DR and movement... eg clouds moving in sky. Without movement blending removes the need for a filter, but I agree it is nice to see something in camera. That said, I generally don’t use Nd grads (I have a cheapo just in case blending won’t work). I have a CPL and a 10 stop Nd circular filter with step up rings to enable use on all lenses
I'm pretty new to landscape photography but I don't get why people use ND grads over bracketing at all.. I get why some people want to get it right in camera, but the purpose of digital cameras are to allow you to do things like bracketing. It seems to be so much fuss and money for something your camera can do a different way in seconds. If people are scared of that 'HDR' look, just get in to luminosity masking and stay away from HDR programs. Anyway, cool video. I don't think it really demonstrated as well as it could, maybe do another shooting in to a sunset with some cloud and I think the results will be way more revealing 8-)
I understand what you are saying but I feel that ND, graduated ND or even polorizing filters, give you so much more control of your camera (shutter speed, aperture and ISO) and ultimately create the photo you want. I think where bracketing falls down is when there are subtleties in a subject (like waterfall) and you'd have to take 5 or 10 photos for it to work. Filters are a tool, pure and simple, and in every profession they are there to help you and save you time.
I dont have any filters at present and have been using bracketing with Canon 80D. Definitely need a Polariser. Up until this video i was looking to buy the lee 100mm deluxe kit but at over £500 its a lot of money. Now im on the fence, do i really need to shell out over £500 when i use lightroom grad filters now anyway? Living by the sea I would like to get into long exposure so will need some stoppers of somekind. Thanks for the enlightenment!
You've braketed wrong. 1 metered for the mid-tones, 1 for the shadows and 1 for the sky, you just did 3 exposures based on the evaluative metering then still had to use a ND grad in PP. The digital grad looks utter shite! You've just given me reasons to keep the LEE filters, thanks.
each to their own and ultimately all gear are just tools to do a job and there are many ways to achieve similar results. i agree with you that there are plenty of people holding workshops that are fleecing beginners. Personally i only have circular 95mm poloriser and a 95mm 10 stop ND with step down rings , as i cba with the faff of square filters, if i have to i bracket and im quite happy with the results. To me all my gear are just tools to enable me to work. Light, composition and mood are way more important to me than the tools i use to achieve this.
Fascinating video, and there are obvious advantages in bracketing (it gives much greater exposure latitude in post-processing), but there are also disadvantages, such as dealing with ghosting. What strikes me though, is how unnatural the images with the Lightroom grad are, as in nature when would you see such a reduced tonal range in a sky? If such a thing existed, the sky overhead would be black. So leaving "artistic intent" behind, the image with the grad is much preferred, to my eye at least. Either that, or just go easy with those Lightroom grad filters.
Oh, and I should also mention that the colour cast will depend on the type/brand of filter you use. Some are much better than others.
Just a novice photographer here. But, my thought was that an ND filter is for when you are in extremely bright light and you can't achieve the correct exposure at desired f-stop. So bracketing isn't an option. But i enjoyed watching the comparison demo. Interestingly, i preferred the shot with the ND filter, it looked less of a harsh sky transition. Please keep up the good work with your interesting videos.
Adam, I think perhaps it is fair to say that all aspiring photographers must learn to use the camera and get good results FIRST?? That is the basis of photography, to rely on post processing to compose something you did NOT actually achieve surely is NOT the way to go? Post processing to illustrate what the eye actually see's and the camera has failed to pick up is in my humble opinion fine!! beyond that it all becomes very contentious and I have no really firm opinion other than the standards I set for myself!!
I think it really depends on your subject whether bracketing, or ND grads are better. If you're shooting on a windy day and have some foreground detail being blown around, trees at the side of the frame for example, then bracketing isn't going to work. The combined images won't line up correctly. Grads are better in that situation, but otherwise I think I prefer to bracket, it's just less hassle.
Excellent vlog. I'm trying to decide if I should invest in grads I've only got the 0.6 hard but I think I might just bracket and keep my ND's for long exposures.
I think its is not the best way to show difference between bracketing and gnd filters. It should be sunset, sunrise or very moody sky. Gnd is good for those who don't want to spend much time in post and wanna have image done in camera. Bracketing is good for exposure blending or building manual HDR. Not all of us are good in Photoshop, so Gnd gives good for quick result in camera like i said.
Hi. I agree with you that its not a nesessity to use grad filters. Just a remark.. When you bracket in order to compare a soft grad of two stops you can only combine one of you brackeded shots. Othervise it vill be actually up to 5 stops differens. 2 over, 2 under and on normal. The resault would be prety mutch the same then. The other thing about cheating. Editing in any way weather its removal of distracting parts or even usig the spot removal tol, cloning etc is NOT cheating. Its the photographers artistic vision. But if you start claiming its an image thats something that its not THEN its cheating. For instans.. look at the sunset i saw and it was a cloned in sunset etc etc. / Regards Andreas
I think a good reason for using a ND grad filter on the camera is; when there is wind that causes movement between the bracketed images. like flowers in the fore-ground or something. but then there is exposure blending (luminosity masks), but I'm horrible at it so..
'getting it right in the camera' is only important for compressed video.
I also shoot true raw, uncompressed 14bit 444 video, and the gradability is amazing, just like with raw stills - you dont need a lut in camera.
What are you using to merge the bracketed images? I know Lightroom can do a pretty good job these days but personally, find that Photoshop still does it better. If one is hand-holding, or it's winding, ghosting occurs and it seems Lightroom can't really handle any serious ghosting. I tried using it recently and even on high, it did nothing. Photoshop got rid of the ghosting instantly. Love to hear more about your process. Thanks for the video.
Good advice. I’ve always liked the idea of ND grads but never mastered them. They are essentially a hangover from film photography and used to be a kind of art form in itself. I guess technically not necessary in digital. However, it is all preference and whatever works for people. I guess more can be done in camera with filters to cut down post processing time....for some.
Hey Adam. In my case I don't use photoshop so I don't have the possibility to use the graduated tool. I use DPP software from canon. I use instead a variable nd filter that I screw into my lens. I like it a lot specially for long exposure but the downside is that is very difficult to get good results taking landscape like this one you show to us. So in my case i tend to use more brackting and hdr for processing my image like this one:500px.com/photo/213813641
Thanks for the tips. Cheers.
I think ND grads are much better in more challenging light conditions where there 1 image can't capture all of the dynamic range. Still an interesting watch though. I think software or hardware both have their merits. Your bracketed version doesn't look as natural with such a dramatic graduation.
Love your videos.
I'm not a fan of ND grads but have to agree with some other comments that the 'test' situation probably wasn't ideal. My issue with grads is that I very rarely find myself with an uninterrupted skyline. I've found that even soft grads leave a tell-tale trace, especially on nearer subjects. For example another youtuber recently used a 3-stop soft grad on a high dynamic range scene that had a sail boat in the middle ground. The white mast extended well into the skyline. In the final image, the sky was exposed nicely but the top half of the mast was rendered black, transitioned into grey and then white at the bottom. There's no way to get a scene like that correct in camera.
I used to use multiple exposure quite often. The problem is that some of the best landscape photos can be found when the weather is less than ideal. Wind is a real problem. Even a little wind and you have to deal with ghosting in an image. Physical ND filters negate that. They also allow you to compose and shoot a single image. With multiple exposures, you are always faced with the inevitable decision to delete, or not delete, hundreds of over and underexposed images, once the final HDR is done. Cheers.
I always thought the main purpose of graduated filters were to get detail in a bright sky as well as in the shadows. Especially late in the day, close to sunset, when no camera can handle the dynamic range in a single shot. Midday is no challenge for the camera.
The disadvantage of the filter is that it's difficult or impossible to avoid that the sky becomes unnaturally bright near the horizon - bracketing or HDR can do that trick.
But you seem to want that unnatural look of the filter, which I would like to avoid.
In the bracketing shot, you went 2 stops either way - that's a total of 4 stops of variation.
With the ND grad filter you only had 2 stops of variation... So it wasn't really a fair comparison.
I like using filters etc but don't use ND grade because far too often the light to dark difference is unusual in the composition - like the setting sun shining out from under a bridge or past the side of a high rise etc.
It's matter of personal choice. One Man like blondes, another like brunetes. I personaly prefer physical filters as they make me stay longer out, they make me think more about the image I'm taking. It's just more fun to me. Thank You for this comparison.
ND grad image is the best of the three. Horses for courses, but in this case, the grad wins. I won't use bracketing and exposure in windy conditions in which trees and branches and other objects are moving or when water is moving. Try bracketing taking a pic of yachts that are moving in the wind and you'll see what I mean.
I personally use the bracketed approach, but I have to say that in this instance, I think the ND Filtered image looks the most natural. Of course, you could achieve the same look by lowering the strength of the digital grad, so the method makes zero difference in this instance.
I use nd grads or bracketing, sometimes both together, depending on the situation. They are bits and pieces in my artistic thoolbox from which I pick to get my chosen expression. The same goes for my choice of lens or for that matter aperture or exposure time. They will all influence the look of the picture. I will give you that software grads give you more control and often is easier to apply but there is a challange to do it the old way that I like. I use my nd grads to bring the athmosphere (clouds or fog) to life and have never used them as in your test. I think you should do this test with a subject that has much more dynamic range. I like watching your videos so do another one!
I'm sorry - but we're going to disagree on the post processing thing - as modifying anything that comes out of the camera is in a sense cheating. You wouldn't have been able to do any of this with film photography - so whether it's digital or not for me, makes no difference. A good shot in the first instance won't need any post-processing - period.
For me it is all preference. Id rather use the filters on location, see the image change in front of me. Thomas Heaton does a fantastic job of putting it into words. Simply another style of photography. necessary, maybe not. worth trying and developing your own opinion.. most certainly!
I think you should have been testing this around sunrise or sunset straight into the sun. If you do so than you'll find that these filters are really useful. They are quite expensive indeed but you'll see no colorcast with them. And from the example photos you showed, there was no need for a nd filter in the first place. The dynamic range is not really affected.
Because I don't care to sit in front of my computer messing with settings, I prefer to do as much in camera as possible. I've tried to manually do HDR's and I didn't care for jacking with the layers and such
To each their own and it doesn't hurt me
It all comes down to being properly educated. Then you can make your own decisions as to what suits your style of photography and post processing. There are people who shoot hdr monstrosities and there are people who prefer to use filters. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer in this case. But I do agree with what you said about selling gear to beginners who don't know what to do with it. In additions our decisions relate to the people who have taughts us photography and the way they have influenced us. This plays an important role too.
After watching this video and reading a lot of comments below I am more confuse about the topic of ND filters. Can you replicate this video using a longer exposure with a ND vs without one?
This is a pretty terrible example honestly. It's an incredibly very boring photograph under a plain sky with clean simple lines. Go into the mountains, then lets have an adult discussion about this.
All I have to say is that I completely disagree with you, the bracketed shot using the digital grad' looks completely false and is simply ugly, looks nothing like the scene you shot.
I agree with your reasoning (I prefer bracketing too), but the scene you photographed wasn't a good example - it didn't benefit enough from such techniques.
Yes, my opinion on ND grad filters has changed. I have them, but have never used them, and I see that I don't really need to. If I don't have to fuss with them, so much the better! Thank you for doing this video!
ND grads are great for very long exposures otherwise you don't really need them, i just use bracketing for normal exposures.
ND grads are a lazy mans choice. Better results can be made blending images in post processing with layer masking techniques if you have the time and the knowledge.
Doesn't bracketing and averaging blur the water (or leaves or grass)? It may do so only a trivial amount, or maybe you're only applying the averaging to a masked area, but it does seem like a consideration.
The comparison is intriguing but what is exactly the reason to put a grad filter or to use bracketing with a scene that flat and with such poor dynamic range? You must test the different techniques in a very contrasted situation. That would be much more interesting...
This is an old argument Adam, on the one hand you have very good software to take care of just about everything in post but then you have those who see photography as a craft. By this I mean it something that gets under your skin and you feel the need to use every tool to reach your aim. I understand pro,s wanting to save time but when you enjoy your hobby you want to get as much out of it as you can and exploring everything about it. Still a good video and it is up to the individual to make their own mind up, keep it going my friend.
Just so I'm clear on the concept of bracketing. The focus point does not change, so you don't expose for the sky and then expose for the foreground. The bracket shots are just a couple of stops apart from each other. Do I have that right?
you misused the ND grad plus compared it to a dissimilar software grad simply to support your position. for someone who claims to not want to sway people one way or the other, you sure put a lot of effort into trying to make ND grads look ineffective. good job.
brackting iv no got that on mynikon d3200 only on my fujiflim is bracka\ting like the light stops in the menu of the nikon the one at the botom of the menu ie flash - + then thares another - + is that my brackting
I didn't like the software hdr version (3rd one), it has very blue sky on top and then nearly white sky in the middle. very unnatural. the second image for my taste was the best looking
Your camera is capable of HDR internally. I'm disappointed you didn't demonstrate that in addition to the other techniques.
As u say u r not used nd grad filters but I saw in ur long exposure photo tutorial u used nd filter.. I am confused.. What is the difference between nd grad u talk about in this video and nd filter u used in long exposure tutorial and also give the link of the filter
Have never seen this method explained for landscape, always seen folks using the mounted filters. Have to give it a try, I do think a polarizer is warranted though when shooting those water shots.
Nice video but I agree in those shooting conditions you wouldent need to do either, grad filters come into there own when you have a high contrast scene, I used to bracket but now I use filters I much prefer it that way, I can get everything done in camera without spending too much time at the computer.