Does LR mean grad filters are not needed?

[Pelao]

I am still learning to use LR. I have heard and read statements that some of the new adjustment options in LR2 mean that it's not really necessary to use ND Grads anymore. Is this the case - or is it overstatement?

[Josh-H]

I am still learning to use LR. I have heard and read statements that some of the new adjustment options in LR2 mean that it's not really necessary to use ND Grads anymore. Is this the case - or is it overstatement?

It does depend on your point of view - I however, beleive it to be incorrect and a clear missunderstanding of the purpose of the grad filter in LR.

The bottom line is it is always better to try and get the exposure correct in camera - rather than trying to correct for it afterward (even with the putty like flexibility of modern RAW files to be pushed and pulled) . If you shoot a landscape for example without a grad and blow out the sky, then no matter how strong a grad filter you apply in LR nothing will save it - the pixels are blown period.

If you use a grad filter in the field and 'save' those pixels from otherwise blowing out then the grad filter in LR becomes a creative tool for further darkening or lightening the sky as one wishes.

In reality - provided the pixels in the sky are not blown at time of exposure the grad filter in LR can be used as a substitute for a grad filter in the field. However, when shooting landscapes I dont leave home without my grads - even with the capability of modern cameras to capture huge dynamic range nature is easily able to exceed the cameras capabilities on a more then frequent basis.

My set of lee grad filters doesnt weigh much and doesnt take up much space - so pretty much lives in my kit - I use LR's grad filter just as a creative tool - but use the filters in the field to get my exposure correct. Thats my take on it anyway.

[dchew]

I agree with Josh.  Maybe one stop, but to replace a 3-stop grad?  The results would not be the same.  I find that if I'm using the LR adjustment tool for more than 1/2 stop, it's because I missed the shot and I'm trying (usually in vain) to save it.

It would be a better argument to say bracketing and merging could replace a grad.  But again, I don't think the results are the same.  I admit though, I've never merged.

Dave Chew

[Ken Bennett]

It would be a better argument to say bracketing and merging could replace a grad.

I would make this argument. In fact, I think one could make the argument that multiple bracketed shots provide a much more accurate way of blending areas that can't be captured in one exposure (skies with dark foregrounds being the easy example.) It's much easier to get an accurate blend line (and it doesn't have to be straight!), and to avoid darkening things that stick up above that line (trees, building, that sort of thing.) I haven't carried my grads in several years unless I have a specific need for them. And now I'm trying to recall an example of that need, and failing to do so.

BTW I'm not talking about HDR and such here. Just blending two exposures together, one for the sky and one for the foreground in the easy example.

(Dave, I like your work a lot.)

[stevebri]

Simply put, you do need to 'capture' all the image information before you can manipulate it in post.

If you look at a scene you are about to photograph, skill and experience will tell you if the contrast range, or dynamic range is too wide for your camera to handle, think of a sunny day at the beach, can your camera really get the sky detail and the the waves and the wet sand...?  Some cameras, like a MF back or a Fuji S5 you will get a better dynamic range, or the ability to capture more of the shadow and highlight detail, at least 1 to 2 stops more.

But, if you think your camera will blow out the highlights or block up the shadows, then use a filter to bring down the sky, retaining it's detail, then if you are exposing for a mid tone you should have good detail in everything from your dark shadow areas to your sky.

With all this detail, LR then becomes your best friend as you can darken sky even more or open up shadows even more because you captured the detail in the first place.

Everyone's experience with post production workflow is different but I find that if I have captured all the detail in the photo I can work faster on the final image in LR, it almost replicates the traditional darkroom that Igrew up on.  Merging two or three files in Photoshop is quite easy these days but for me at least still takes considerably longer.

Ultimitely though, if you capture the detail in the first place using a grad or ND then you will have the ability to create a better image later on.

Also a point of note with digital, expose to capture the highlight detail even if the shadows block up a bit as it's easier to then compensate for that in LR etc afterwords and still have a fairly noise free image.

Steve

[NikoJorj]

I have heard and read statements that some of the new adjustment options in LR2 mean that it's not really necessary to use ND Grads anymore.

LR didn't bring out the ability to simulate a gradND filter in processing : in PS, an adjustment layer and a simple stroke with the gradient tool in the mask did the same since (at least) PS6.0 or 5.5 - it's just about 10 times faster and more convenient in LR.

Some time is needed to properly set up a gradND to give a pleasant effect.
In the same amount of time, bracketing exposures often gives at least as much dynamic range.
The very valuable ability to set a complex and non-linear boundary of the filtered zone while processing seals the deal for me : I really see the darkening of the top of a mountain or of the tip of the tree as an unpleasant and distracting artifact, and with a gradND it's often unavoidable.