Why use ND Grad filters these days when you can apply the same in lightroom?

[ajm057]

For years and years I have taken landscape images with a range of Lee and Nisi  Neutral Density and Graduated Filters - but these days I am really doubting the benefit of using a ND Grad in the field when I can achieve "better" results in lightroom (CC 2015).  Please note that I am not at all considering ditching my ND filters or my Lee Polariser -- both of which are vital to me.

Why better -- well while I am as careful as I can be in setting up my shots and aligning the ND grad, I am finding more often than not that the edge of the grad is not perfectly aligned, just in the wrong place, or covering some element of the image that for example sits above the horizon, I have to lighten in post later, creating even more work in post.  The end result of this has been that I take lots and lots of shots in the field with different filter positions. I believe this is no longer necessary.

My "hypothesis" is that the combination of a D810 shot in 14-bit RAW and lightroom gives me such a huge tonal range and ability to add "grad filter" effects later to the parts of the image that need darkening, without the risk of getting the set-up wrong in the field creating an almost unrecoverable image. And, when I need to access a broader tonal range to cover the full range of exposure values than one-shot provides an HDR or stacked may be the answer.

I am interested in hearing your views/experience

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Why better -- well while I am as careful as I can be in setting up my shots and aligning the ND grad, I am finding more often than not that the edge of the grad is not perfectly aligned, just in the wrong place, or covering some element of the image that for example sits above the horizon, I have to lighten in post later, creating even more work in post.  The end result of this has been that I take lots and lots of shots in the field with different filter positions. I believe this is no longer necessary.

Well, that's the drawback of a straight-line gradient, it only works best at (usually boring) straight horizons or rooftops. In addition, each filter in front of the lens will cause some sort of degradation, either due optical flaws or reflections, dirt, and vignetting. It also tends to diminish the effectiveness of sunshades/hoods, which increase glare and reduces contrast.

My "hypothesis" is that the combination of a D810 shot in 14-bit RAW and lightroom gives me such a huge tonal range and ability to add "grad filter" effects later to the parts of the image that need darkening, without the risk of getting the set-up wrong in the field creating an almost unrecoverable image. And, when I need to access a broader tonal range to cover the full range of exposure values than one-shot provides an HDR or stacked may be the answer.

That's basically my take on it as well. There is another (more subtle) effect of using a grad, and that is due to the non-linear tone compression that Rawconverters apply. The sky may be roughly at the same brightness (ETTR), but the darker tones now have a relatively higher brightness, which puts them in a different location on the 'adjustment curves'.

That's also why the results of blending multiple exposures (depending on method used, e.g. fusion) often looks better, more natural. Both shadows and highlights were exposed to look good on the overall tonecurve close to the middle of the histogram, and not shifted into another brightness range. Obviously noise should also improve with multiple exposures, but due to subject motion that technique is not always possible. In that case the high DR capture will help to boost shadows.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

IF you're not blowing out highlight data not using the grad and using a software grad provides the results you desire (no odd color shifts), go for it.

[KMRennie]

If you use an ND grad and manage to increase your exposure time by 1 stop then you get 1 stop more light and thus 1 stops worth less noise and 1 stop more DR. If you use ETTR it allows you to go 1 or more stops to the right assuming that the brightest parts of the image are covered by dark parts of the grad. So increased DR and less noise, however whether you will notice this in most cases is open to question. I similarly use a D810 and grads but if I am posting a 8 bit jpeg in sRGB at 1400px wide on the web it is unlikely that I could tell the difference between a "perfectly" exposed shot and a fairly close one. I used to go the whole hog and used uniWB but in the end got sick of reviewing weird colours and trying to analyse my shots on the camera screen like this. Since going back to a "normal" WB I have not noticed a degradation in image quality. For a lot of shooting we are probably using a tool several times better than we ever need. This is my take on it. The 14 stops orn whatever it is DR of a D810 only happens at ISO64 if you are using much higher ISO then the DR decreases and an extra stop or so may help but since I almost always use a tripod, ISO 64, EFCS and grads I try and get the most information into my images even if I end up carrying lots of stuff.
ken

[MattBurt]

I generally do it with exposure blending instead as well. I almost always like to have something crossing my horizon in landscape compositions if possible which I feel ties the layers together and just feel right to my compositional sense.
If I can do it in a single exposure I try to but I'll bracket if there is any doubt.
This is with a couple of Pentax crop sensor cameras and a Pentax 645D. With the DR of the D especially, I just need to make sure the highlights are ok and I can almost always bring up the shadows as needed.

[luxborealis]

I'm sure there are photographers who will keep on using ND Grad filters, and they may even have a plausible reason for doing so - habit, old sensor with low DR or not able to do simple exposure blending (formerly HDR), unable to process using layers, grad masks or adjustment brushes - but when you come right down to it, ND Grads have gone the way of film.

Personally, I never liked them. They were over-rated. Even in the hands of experienced photographers, far too many seemingly "great" landscape photos suffered from what I like to call "tan lines" - not the obvious line through the trees, but still an unnatural shift in light. Many people - general public and photographers alike - never noticed them until they were pointed out. And it's often not immediately noticeable, but many who have spent time observing nature and the play of light will recognize an unnatural inconsistency in lighting or light values - one that is now much easier to blend with adept software processing.

[bjanes]

I'm sure there are photographers who will keep on using ND Grad filters, and they may even have a plausible reason for doing so - habit, old sensor with low DR or not able to do simple exposure blending (formerly HDR), unable to process using layers, grad masks or adjustment brushes - but when you come right down to it, ND Grads have gone the way of film.

One advantage of the grad filters would be the reduction of veiling glare, which limits the effectiveness of HDR processing. For some details, see this paper from Stanford University. The grad filter could serve as the structured occlusion mask described in the article.

Bill

[Paulo Bizarro]

I suppose I am old school and just prefer to work it in the field. I have only two ND grads, one with a soft transition, one with a hard transition (for ocean scenes). Later in post I can also adjust in LR if needed. Simple really. I see no reason to change my workflow and field method.

As I said, I just prefer to try and get things right in the field.

[john beardsworth]

I suppose I am old school and just prefer to work it in the field. I have only two ND grads, one with a soft transition, one with a hard transition (for ocean scenes). Later in post I can also adjust in LR if needed. Simple really. I see no reason to change my workflow and field method.

As I said, I just prefer to try and get things right in the field.

I don't think you are old school, just that the case against ND grads is being overstated here. Sure, there's less need to use ND grads than before, sometimes none, and the need is diminishing with newer camera bodies. Still, when you can get things right in the field, why wouldn't you? Isn't it so much more satisfying?

[the_marshall_101]

Because if you're trying to use the sky in your composition (which you should be) and it's too bright to see the detail in your viewfinder, a grad helps you compose much better in the field.  This has really helped me on several occasions.  The extra two stops of detail in the foreground is a nice bonus which might help in marginal conditions (although less important these days as you say).

[FelixBelloin]

You are right, in the sense that it is no longer needed. You can achieve incredible results with simple tools like luminosity masks in PS and a few exposures.
Now, personally, I think ND have several advantages:

1- they will cut the time spent post processing your files (I shoot with a 5DsR and files are big enough to make you want to stick to basic adjustments only)

2- they make you stop and think about your composition. It is such a pain to take your filter holder out of the pouch, mount it, choose the right filter, clean the sucker, adjust the horizon line, clean the sucker again... that you tend to really think beforehand.

They do not come cheap, and are a pain to use and carry, but for some (especially young guys like me), they are a good way to stick to traditional methods of image capture, which I find slightly more satisfying than simple optimum data acquisition.

Cheers,

Felix

[BAB]

Either way you will still carry some filters anyway Poloriser, Big Stopper, so caring a selection of ND is moot. Use them or not I think it's worth shooting anything both ways if your shooting digital it's free films another story as is TIME.  Also on extremely wide lenses I find ND a bit difficult, one needs at least 150 X 150 mm but you need to attach it parallel to the lens surface if you don't want internal reflections from stray light rays. This is not easy a few new holders became available but not enough to cover the vast variety of lenses. Unfortunately companies like Lee have a very hard time to make a five dollar pert to sell a three hundred dollar filter they just can't seem to find their way out of a paper bag SHAME.

[maddogmurph]

I shoot the d810 and my advice is to ebay your grad ND while it's still worth $10.

I carry two filters. The 10 stop and the polarizer.

The best light of the day happens quickly and doesn't wait; I've got multiple comps I want to nail in that light. When I need to focus stack, bracket, and change comps... I'd miss shots (in my pref'd light) fiddling with filters. Often times during the best light of the day you'll see me running around to nail my scouted comps.

[Tony Jay]

I would still use ND grad filters when the need arises, however, shooting landscapes with cameras incorporating newer generation Sony sensors I almost never have to.
This is especially so if one is shooting at base ISO and on a tripod.

Tony Jay