graduated ND filters

[alex2074]

I am interested in buying a soft graduated neutral density filter for landscape photography in which the sky/horizon can cause the forground to be too dark.   My search for what is out there leaves me very confused.  First off, I read all these things about how great this type of filter works for landscape shots.  But then when I do a search, I find that some well known camera dealerships dont even carry them, and if they do they dont describe their shape.  There are square ones and round ones.   I would prefer a round one, but when I actualy do find one, they say that it doesnt rotate.  I dont get it.  All I want is a 77mm 0.9 GND soft that rotates just like a polarizer.  Can anybody help me?

[Hoang]

I am interested in buying a soft graduated neutral density filter for landscape photography in which the sky/horizon can cause the forground to be too dark.   My search for what is out there leaves me very confused.  First off, I read all these things about how great this type of filter works for landscape shots.  But then when I do a search, I find that some well known camera dealerships dont even carry them, and if they do they dont describe their shape.  There are square ones and round ones.   I would prefer a round one, but when I actualy do find one, they say that it doesnt rotate.  I dont get it.  All I want is a 77mm 0.9 GND soft that rotates just like a polarizer.  Can anybody help me?

It is best to get rectangular/square ones so that you can position the horizon/effect line correctly. You use these with filter holder systems such as cokin, lee filters, etc. A round one that mounts onto your camera would be very un-versatile, only usable for dead center horizon shots.

[francois]

If you really want to use a ND filter, then don't use a round one. Just as Hoang said above, they only work if the you need to have the separation line in the center of your photo and it's rarely the case.

Read this article (written by Galen Rowell). It might help you understandy why rectangular filters are preferred.

[Tyler Mallory]

Keep in mind a common and versatile alternative to the ND filter is to shoot more than one frame of the scene at different exposures, one exposed for your foreground then another exposed for that brighter, highlight part. You can then combine them afterwards, using the best exposed portions of each. This saves you from having to add an additional layer of material on the lens, as well as enabling you to track the exposure change over a range that may not be in a straight line. When you change the exposure, use only the shutter speed for variations, so you are not altering the depth-of-field between frames.

[Greg D]

I am interested in buying a soft graduated neutral density filter for landscape photography in which the sky/horizon can cause the forground to be too dark.   My search for what is out there leaves me very confused.  First off, I read all these things about how great this type of filter works for landscape shots.  But then when I do a search, I find that some well known camera dealerships dont even carry them, and if they do they dont describe their shape.  There are square ones and round ones.   I would prefer a round one, but when I actualy do find one, they say that it doesnt rotate.  I dont get it.  All I want is a 77mm 0.9 GND soft that rotates just like a polarizer.  Can anybody help me?

I agree with the other responders - rectangular is better (although they're not without potential problems - vignetting and reflections).  That said, I do own and occasionally use a round one.  Sometimes it's just right, more often it's only "better than nothing" (I carry it when backpacking and don't want the gadgetry of the rectangular filters).  However, I've never seen a 0.9.  1 or 2 stop versions are all I've found.  Ex: http://www.adorama.com/BW77GND.html

[spotmeter]

I am interested in buying a soft graduated neutral density filter for landscape photography in which the sky/horizon can cause the forground to be too dark.   My search for what is out there leaves me very confused.  First off, I read all these things about how great this type of filter works for landscape shots.  But then when I do a search, I find that some well known camera dealerships dont even carry them, and if they do they dont describe their shape.  There are square ones and round ones.   I would prefer a round one, but when I actualy do find one, they say that it doesnt rotate.  I dont get it.  All I want is a 77mm 0.9 GND soft that rotates just like a polarizer.  Can anybody help me?

I have used many different brands of ND graduated filters, and was never happy with any of them. The Tiffens are all to abrupt, and the Heliopans are only dark at the very top.  They both have unpleasant color casts.

I solved my need for ND grads on my recent trip to Yosemite. I used Singh-Ray ND grads. They are rectangular and come in hard and soft transitions. The nice thing about them is that they are long enough that you don't need to fiddle around with a holder. You just grab the transparent end with your thumb and forefinger and hold it in front of the lens. Move it up or down and/or tilt it sideways until you get the effect you desire.

Since you won't put the transparent end over the lens (it would serve no purpose), it does not matter that you get thumb and finger prints there. They come in a nice padded case so that you can keep them clean and protected.

They are also color neutral.

For most landscapes, I used the #3 soft transition. It was big enough to cover the 77mm front of my 17-40 zoom lens.

Now, if I could only get the money back I wasted on all those circular ND grads!

[250swb]

I agree with Tyler. Graduated ND filters are a clunky way to do it nowadays, and two or more bracketed exposures blended together in post processing achieve a much more controlled and subtle result. You can do this even with a simple cut and paste for straight horizons. And an HDR image doesn't have to look weird either, in fact they can look a whole lot more natural than a filters graduated straight line trademark running across the photograph (unless you have a whole range of filters for every occasion).

Steve

[DaveCurtis]

I hand hold Singh-Ray ND grads too. Especially when there is movement within the scene. Trees moving in the wind, the ocean etc.  I carry a 2 stop hard and and a 2 stop soft.

If the landscape scene appears to have no movement i will do the digital merge thing.

Both methods work well.

I also use the Lightroom grad filter which works well at times.

[Greg D]

I agree with Tyler. Graduated ND filters are a clunky way to do it nowadays, and two or more bracketed exposures blended together in post processing achieve a much more controlled and subtle result. You can do this even with a simple cut and paste for straight horizons. And an HDR image doesn't have to look weird either, in fact they can look a whole lot more natural than a filters graduated straight line trademark running across the photograph (unless you have a whole range of filters for every occasion).

Steve

Of course, this works only if nothing moves in the scene. Trees moving in the wind, passing clouds, etc. can render this technique useless.

[NikoJorj]

Of course, [digital blending] works only if nothing moves in the scene. Trees moving in the wind, passing clouds, etc. can render this technique useless.

Sir yes Sir, but even with my goodol' Rebel, I can often pull until 3EV from the shadows of an optimally exposed 100ISO raw file, rendering less-than-3-stops gradND filters useless in many cases.  
Therefore, the choice between the Scylla of bracketing with moving objects and the Charybda of the obvious linear delimitation darkening tree tips and mountain tops can be left for the only REALLY problematic cases (more than 9EV in the present case, ie more than from Zone I to Zone X).

As we say in French, goes without saying but better saying it... Sorry to state the obvious, for those to whom it is.

[Greg D]

Sir yes Sir, but even with my goodol' Rebel, I can often pull until 3EV from the shadows of an optimally exposed 100ISO raw file, rendering less-than-3-stops gradND filters useless in many cases.  
Therefore, the choice between the Scylla of bracketing with moving objects and the Charybda of the obvious linear delimitation darkening tree tips and mountain tops can be left for the only REALLY problematic cases (more than 9EV in the present case, ie more than from Zone I to Zone X).

As we say in French, goes without saying but better saying it... Sorry to state the obvious, for those to whom it is.

Good point, but in my (admittedly limited) experience, I can only pull shadows up so much before producing noise.  I guess what I'm seeing in this thread is that each of these approaches works sometimes, none work all the time, and sometimes you have a choice (whether you'd rather spend more time fussing with filters or more time fussing with computers!)  

[JeffKohn]

Of course, this works only if nothing moves in the scene. Trees moving in the wind, passing clouds, etc. can render this technique useless.

I find this to rarely be a problem for manual blending with masks/layers. As long as you can make sure the areas containing movement are sourced from a single exposure it's a non-issue. It's only a problem when the movement between frames takes place in your 'transition zone', and can't easily be dealt with using careful masking. It is more of an issue if using automated techniques such as HDR though, where all parts of the image are 'averaged' from multiple exposures. That's one reason I still do most of my blending the old-fashioned way (the other big reason being that I dont' care for the garish results that Photomatix tone-mapping often produces).

On the other hand, compositions that make getting a seamless transition impossible with a grad filter come up all the time; and there's really nothing you can do about them except live with unnaturally darkened objects that stick up into the sky (trees, mountains, etc).

[Jonathan Ratzlaff]

There was much more reason to use an ND grad with slide film when all you had was 5 stops of latitude.  Considering the dynamic range of most cameras are greater than slide film plus a 2 or 3 stop grad.  There are very few images where a grad does not intrude into the frame, prairies and seascapes.  I used to use them regularly, I used the hitech grads and they are a good value with little colour cast, however now I basically shoot raw and pay careful attention to exposure.  I am happier with the results than using a grad.

[250swb]

On the other hand, compositions that make getting a seamless transition impossible with a grad filter come up all the time; and there's really nothing you can do about them except live with unnaturally darkened objects that stick up into the sky (trees, mountains, etc).

Not necessarily Jeff.

For probably the same price, or less, of a sack of ND filters and adapters NikSoft have Color Efex Pro that has some very clever filters. Incorporated is some amazing technology that uses control points to mask colours rather than shapes (to put it in crude terms). So for instance with a reasonably exposed frame a blue sky can be darkened and mountains and trees or clouds that encroach into the sky area are not affected if you don't want. Or you could do it the other way around, maybe warm the whole image up but leave the blue sky blue without having to create selections or masks. Its worth having a look at the video tutorials on the Niksoft web site.

Something like Color Efex could be a part of the strategy when used with other techniques already described.

Steve

[JeffKohn]

Steve,

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was saying that if you use grad filters for these types of compositions there's no way to avoid unnaturally darkening objects that shouldn't be darkened.

Still, Viveza is only useful if you've managed to retain some color in the sky. Better off to bracket exposures if at all possible so you have more image data to work with.