Question on combing exposures vs. using a filter

[FlyPenFly]

Lets say you have a 21mm Zeiss lens and you're taking a picture of a seascape with your camera on a tripod with remote and mirror lock.

It's sunset so the sky is bright but you want to capture some of the details and rocks in the foreground.

Typically you're supposed to use a GND or reverse GND filter to capture it one exposure.

What if you took 3 shot burst auto bracketed +-3ev. You open the 0 shot in Photoshop and start blending in the parts from the under and over exposed shots into the image.

Now this of course won't work for scenes that aren't static but shouldn't this work equally or better than using a Lee adjustable filter set?

[stamper]

You mean taking an exposure with the filter on the camera and one without? I don't see why not. A 2 stop ND filter and an exposure for the rocks.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My view is that GND filters are sort of "old think". The effect can be achieved with the "gradient filter" in Lightroom or ACR. Using the software filter naturally gives up some dynamic range. The idea of using multiple exposures and blend is basically sound.

Best regards
Erik

Lets say you have a 21mm Zeiss lens and you're taking a picture of a seascape with your camera on a tripod with remote and mirror lock.

It's sunset so the sky is bright but you want to capture some of the details and rocks in the foreground.

Typically you're supposed to use a GND or reverse GND filter to capture it one exposure.

What if you took 3 shot burst auto bracketed +-3ev. You open the 0 shot in Photoshop and start blending in the parts from the under and over exposed shots into the image.

Now this of course won't work for scenes that aren't static but shouldn't this work equally or better than using a Lee adjustable filter set?

[hjulenissen]

You mean taking an exposure with the filter on the camera and one without? I don't see why not. A 2 stop ND filter and an exposure for the rocks.

You dont even need a filter, just take two shots of different exposure times.

-h

[Justan]

If you have a recent version of Photoshop (I think CS3 had it) you can use the HDR merge feature to achieve the results you described.

[FlyPenFly]

I was thinking about this, and I can see how this might not work for extended exposures designed to capture cloud movements or water movements. I think it might just look really unnatural.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It also depends where you want to spend your time: out in the field or in front of the computer.

[philipkenney]

I combine exposures a lot. Usually there is only a stop to two stop difference though. Anymore than that I feel like it gets unnatural looking. HDR works too but that is belabored with a certain look that you may not want. I have also found that you can rescue a lot of shadows in digital before you lose the integrity of the image. I would definitely err on the safe side though and just combine exposures with no more than two stop difference. Because you will have to mess a lot with the making smooth gradients through brush opacity (or fading) and midtone contrast. I agree that getting it in camera is easiest, but there is more flexibility to get what you want when combining exposures.

[KevinA]

It still could depend on the shadow to highlight range in the sky, a stop or two stops under might still not stop the highlight from burning out, but render everything else to dark. Blending will take some practise to keep it looking real, something I think auto HDR fails to do. You can also get subject movement with the clouds if it's windy, as you are no doubt shooting digital I would do both, you might find a blending of both techniques achieves your desired look.

Kevin.

www.treewithoutabird.com