Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: haring on February 08, 2011, 10:50:30 am
-
I like the look ND filters create. Which brand should I get? Is it really important to get an expensive one? Is there a visible difference?
How do you use them? Do you screw them on the lens or hold it in front of the lens when you take the photo? I saw both.
I am sorry about my silly questions. I have never used one.
Thanks,
Otto
-
With cheaper GNDs, you will suffer some color distortion and image softening.
With mid-price GNDs, you will get some vignetting, especially on UWA.
With the best, you won't be able to detect any degregation, unless you stack them. Never stack filters.
I don't know of any that screw in like other filters. Most are used with holders made specifically for the filter sizes and lens size. These are somewhat handy, especially if you plan to stack filters, but since I consider that a no-no, I just hold one flat on the front of the lens.
I prefer this not only because it is cheaper, but because I don't get the flairing that happens with holders at certain light angles.
-
I like the look ND filters create. Which brand should I get? Is it really important to get an expensive one? Is there a visible difference?
How do you use them? Do you screw them on the lens or hold it in front of the lens when you take the photo? I saw both.
I am sorry about my silly questions. I have never used one.
Thanks,
Otto
I use square ND grads of the sort that fit in a Cokin "P" holder, but I don't use the holder - I attach an 82mm step-up ring to the lens and clip the filters on with a couple of clamps like this: http://www.amazon.com/Spring-Clamps-Woodworking-Craft-Repair/dp/B000RB03M2 . I have used a screw-in ND grad, but they're not so useful, since you can't adjust the position of the graduation in the frame. I carry soft-edge filters in 2-stop & 3-stop and a hard-edge 1-stop. (A 1-stop soft-edge is almost invisible, and any situation it would address can usually be dealt with as well in post process.) Between these I've been able to deal with most situations. I've had no problem stacking 2 filters. I've never tried stacking 3, so I can't say what that would look like. As far as brands, Lee and Singh-Ray make good ones. I use Hi-Tech and they're okay. Glass is no doubt better optically, but too fragile for my use (usually hiking - not to mention the time I drove off with them on top of my car!). Check out the variety here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Graduated-Neutral-Density/ci/15073/N/4256189594 .
Of course, some people don't use ND grads at all, but just rely on stacking exposures. Some situations (fast-moving clouds, wind in trees, etc.) don't really allow that, but in many situations it's just a choice of whether you'd rather spend the time fooling with filters or fooling with pixels.
No expert here, just my experience. Hope it helps.
-
I started with Cokin and then "graduated' to Hitech and then finally moved onto Lee filters. I shall be sticking with Lee filters. I like the system and I find very, very little if any affect on the final image as regards to quality. They're excellent filters. I found with Cokin filters, there would be a very clear purple colour cast, Hitech the same but to less extent and Lee, nothing noticeable. At the very least, buy Lee filters and if you need to save money on the holders, get the Hitech holders (or possible Cokin if they do 100mm holders?) or just hand hold them but you want the best filters you can afford in front of your lenses.
-
I agree that screw in graduated filters aren't much good and that Cokin square filters have excessive color cast. I use Singh-Ray filters in Cokin P-size filter holders, a combination that is used by many photographers.
You can use square filters without holders by hand holding the filter in front of the lens, but I find that difficult. It requires that the camera be on a tripod. My tripod weights several pounds; the filter holder weighs about an ounce. With a filter holder, I can hand hold the camera. So, when backing, I sometimes opt for the holder rather than the tripod.
First, you will need an adaptor ring to match the filter holder to your lens. You can save money by buying the ring as a package with the Cokin filter holder. This will give you a filter holder that allows you to stack up to 3 filters and adjust the height of each one independently. However, this holder is quite thick and causes vignetting with wind angle lenses. So you need to also get the Cokin wide angle holder which holds only one filter. It is much thinner and causes much less vignetting. I use the wide angle holder about 90 percent of the time.
You can choose between filters with a hard graduation from clear to opaque or with a gradual or soft graduation. Keep in mind that skies are darkest near the zenith and lightest near the horizon. You need the most correction near the horizon, but filters with soft graduations produce the least effect near the horizon. So, I generally use filters with hard graduations and 2 or 3 stops of correction. However, for jagged horizons, such as mountainscapes, soft graduations work best. If you follow the rule of thirds and put the horizon one third of the way down from the top edge of the frame, you won't get much correction from a 2 stop, soft filter. It starts out with zero correction, then slowly fades to 1 stop. By the time you get to 2 stops, you may be off the top of the frame. So, my only soft filter is a 3 stop filter.
These are great tools that should be used by more potographers.
-
I bit the bullet and bought a Singh-Ray, 4x6. I hand-hold it in front of the lens. These are expensive, but they're among the best if not THE best. Buy good once, cry once; buy poor... cry often.
Ed
-
My answer would be "neither". I find I can do the same thing in software with much more control. I did buy a couple of Singh-Ray filters, and I found it difficult (old eyes!) to see the dividing line. And with filters the the line is straight, not the case with software.
-
My answer would be "neither". I find I can do the same thing in software with much more control. I did buy a couple of Singh-Ray filters, and I found it difficult (old eyes!) to see the dividing line. And with filters the the line is straight, not the case with software.
What do you use for your software GND effects? I tried one and didn't like it, but I'm open to suggestions. Fooling with GNDs in the field is a bit of a hassle.
-
What do you use for your software GND effects? I tried one and didn't like it, but I'm open to suggestions. Fooling with GNDs in the field is a bit of a hassle.
If you use Lightroom, here's a recommendation I got here a few weeks ago: http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/lrenfuse.php . LR/Enfuse works great in each case where I've tried it so far. Feels like cheating it's so easy.
-
My answer would be "neither". I find I can do the same thing in software with much more control. I did buy a couple of Singh-Ray filters, and I found it difficult (old eyes!) to see the dividing line. And with filters the the line is straight, not the case with software.
That is not such a good idea. If the dynamic range of the scene is outside the range of the sensor there is no way you can capture all the information in one shot. The digital solution is to make several exposures at varying settings and then combine them using layers in Photoshop. This is extra work and if there is any movement in the scene that can cause problems.
IMO the only solution is a good set of soft and hard edge ND Grads from Lee. I have tried the others and agree with an earlier poster that they are not so good. I have the complete set of ND's plus the Big Stopper and occasionally use them in combination (multiple filters sometimes also with a polariser).
They do a nice combined filter holder and hood and they also do a set for the Leica M series and a special holder for the Nikon 14-24. I have used them with lenses down to 28mm on a Hasselblad digital MF with no vignetting (using the clip on holder).
This is a once only purchase and will last a lifetime.
-
That is not such a good idea. If the dynamic range of the scene is outside the range of the sensor there is no way you can capture all the information in one shot. The digital solution is to make several exposures at varying settings and then combine them using layers in Photoshop. This is extra work and if there is any movement in the scene that can cause problems.
As I indicated, I find the GND filter cumbersome and hard to use. This opinion is shared by some and not by others. You need to try them out and make your own opinion. I find Lightroom to be easier and much more effective to use than the GND filter. As far as the "digital solution" goes, I don't know many people "making several exposures at varying settings and then combining them using layers in Photoshop". There are dedicated HDR programs such as NIK HDR Pro which do a magical job combining images with much less effort. And yes, movement in the scene can cause problems when doing HDR, as it can in other situations.
-
Thanks sooo much for all the input!
-
The Lee filter holder is lovely bit of engineering and a pleasure to use.
I know photographers who use Cokin filters but bought the Lee holder to put them in.
I've only got two graduated filters and have never felt the need to have more - so getting Lee wasn't cripplingly expensive. My 0.6 Hard came with the Lee foundation kit and I bought a 0.9 Soft to compliment it.
Two Lee accessories worth having are the lens cap which fits over the adaptor ring (can't use the original lens cap on most of my lenses); and the soft cloth pouch which holds three filters.
-
To me there is a very different look between using a GND and any software alturnative, especially HDR.
I tried the suggested Enfuse and still like the more natural, richer look of a GND.
-
Hi,
I used Cokin filters in my film days but now in digital I only use postprocessing. The graduated filter in LR works really well. A couple of suggestions:
- Don't reduce exposure to much, use brightness instead
- Increase saturation
- Increase clarity
I also came up with a technique to darken sky with good results: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/46-fixing-sky-with-luminosity-mask
Best regards
Erik
What do you use for your software GND effects? I tried one and didn't like it, but I'm open to suggestions. Fooling with GNDs in the field is a bit of a hassle.
-
I also use LR grads extensively - there are great for balancing an image and giving the sky a bit more zing.
But when faced with a high contrast image there are real limitations in what LR can achieve.
In this context I mean an image that is deliberately under exposed by a stop or more and the highlights are still blowing out.
LR can only pull back a couple of stops before it starts to look less natural; in a lot of cases there is no single image solution. It has to be fixed when the image is captured, either using GNDs or bracket the exposure and combine in post-processing.
Hence when faced with a high contrast scene my preference is GNDs.
However, I'm not aiming to create the final image in camera. I'm looking to control the exposure extremes so my sensor can do the tones justice. I'll use LR grads and Photoshop to produce the final image in the comfort of my home.
-
I also use LR grads extensively - there are great for balancing an image and giving the sky a bit more zing.
But when faced with a high contrast image there are real limitations in what LR can achieve.
In this context I mean an image that is deliberately under exposed by a stop or more and the highlights are still blowing out.
LR can only pull back a couple of stops before it starts to look less natural; in a lot of cases there is no single image solution. It has to be fixed when the image is captured, either using GNDs or bracket the exposure and combine in post-processing.
Hence when faced with a high contrast scene my preference is GNDs.
However, I'm not aiming to create the final image in camera. I'm looking to control the exposure extremes so my sensor can do the tones justice. I'll use LR grads and Photoshop to produce the final image in the comfort of my home.
This is basically what I've found as well. When you need a GND, you really need a GND. I've been using design softwares for a long time, and gradually I've learned that the less you do in PP the better, because anything you do doesn't just change the target, but other things throughout the image spectrum. The only software thing I think might work for this is to be able to quick select the sky and apply EV to it separately. Do any programs do this?
Still, if you are in a situation with great contrast between sky and land, exposure for the land blows highlights in the sky, which can't be recovered, so even what I've suggested wouldn't work when a GND is really needed. Getting it right, or as close as possible, at time of capture still is the best policy.
The majority of photographers seem to want to shoot in auto and process in manual. I'm leaning the other way.
-
Hi,
Sky and relevant highlights would not be burned out in a digital image correctly exposed to the right. That essentially means that shadows will get less exposure, which in turn may increase noise.
Here is a method to selective darken sky: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/46-fixing-sky-with-luminosity-mask
Here is a image taming pretty high contrast:
Default image: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Other/Demos/13965719_7UrQm#1196458231_4G2JV-X3-LB
Adjusted in LR: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Other/Demos/13965719_7UrQm#1196458145_qy3yr-X3-LB
Perhaps not the greatest example, the image could take another +0.5 - +1 stops of exposure.
Best regards
Erik
This is basically what I've found as well. When you need a GND, you really need a GND. I've been using design softwares for a long time, and gradually I've learned that the less you do in PP the better, because anything you do doesn't just change the target, but other things throughout the image spectrum. The only software thing I think might work for this is to be able to quick select the sky and apply EV to it separately. Do any programs do this?
Still, if you are in a situation with great contrast between sky and land, exposure for the land blows highlights in the sky, which can't be recovered, so even what I've suggested wouldn't work when a GND is really needed. Getting it right, or as close as possible, at time of capture still is the best policy.
The majority of photographers seem to want to shoot in auto and process in manual. I'm leaning the other way.
-
A lot of this problem, which really has no easy answer, I believe will be improved when I can finally afford a Pentax K5 with its dramatically expanded DR range.
-
Thanks for all the great advice!
-
Hi,
Sky and relevant highlights would not be burned out in a digital image correctly exposed to the right. That essentially means that shadows will get less exposure, which in turn may increase noise.
Here is a method to selective darken sky: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/46-fixing-sky-with-luminosity-mask
Here is a image taming pretty high contrast:
Default image: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Other/Demos/13965719_7UrQm#1196458231_4G2JV-X3-LB
Adjusted in LR: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Other/Demos/13965719_7UrQm#1196458145_qy3yr-X3-LB
Perhaps not the greatest example, the image could take another +0.5 - +1 stops of exposure.
Best regards
Erik
From what I can see here - you are doing a sort of HDR processing. Also, in your image sky is not at all overexposed. So it's quite easy to give it extra details. However since your digital sensor's exposure range is about 1 1/3 stops you will simply not have enough detail to do anything in post processing short of resorting to proper HDR (multiple bracketed exposures and then using software to combine tones).
GND filters are the only way (at least I haven't seen any other technique) to get images exposed within sensors range. Lee, from what I know, are of a top quality and not extremely expensive.
-
From what I can see here - you are doing a sort of HDR processing. Also, in your image sky is not at all overexposed. So it's quite easy to give it extra details. If there is high dynamic range in the picture you will simply not have enough detail to do anything in post processing short of resorting to proper HDR (multiple bracketed exposures and then using software to combine tones).
GND filters are the only way (at least I haven't seen any other technique) to get images exposed within sensors range. Lee, from what I know, are of a top quality and not extremely expensive.
-
Am I the only one using a screw-on GND filter (from B+H) and loving it? It is in place most of the time, balances sky with the rest of the shot. Sometimes I turn it around when the water portion of a scene is lighter than the upper area. I mark the darkest part of the ring on the filter with a dot of nail polish so it is easy to position on the camera. Once you enjoy the benefits of a nicely saturated sky with fewer or no blown highlights (before you get into post-processing) you will want a GND for each lens you often use for landscape. Obviously there's the question of which strength to use, but anything is better than nothing when faced with bright skies. --Barbara
-
Well, there I go saying B+H when I should have said B+W. BHPhotoVideo in New York on-the-brain. --Barbara
-
Hi,
I don't know what you mean with 1 1/3 stops of sensor range.
You are correct that the sky is not overexposed, the trick is to make it darker without getting a dull image.
There are a couple of problems with graduated filters.
1) The cheap ones, like Cokin reduce sharpness (at least in my experience)
2) In many cases we don't have a straight horizon
3) I couldn't use Cokin filters with any of my real wide angles because of vignetting
So what I say is that if the image is correctly exposed for highlights the same effect as with graduated filters can be achieved conveniently in Lightroom or ACR.
If the horizon is non regular the technique I described can be used, or an even simpler variant.
1) Duplicate image
2) Press alt+cmd+5 to used sky as luminosity mask
3) Click to top layer
4) Select multiply
5) Add layer mask
Probably there is some need to paint out some parts of the luminosity mask.
Best regards
Erik
From what I can see here - you are doing a sort of HDR processing. Also, in your image sky is not at all overexposed. So it's quite easy to give it extra details. However since your digital sensor's exposure range is about 1 1/3 stops you will simply not have enough detail to do anything in post processing short of resorting to proper HDR (multiple bracketed exposures and then using software to combine tones).
GND filters are the only way (at least I haven't seen any other technique) to get images exposed within sensors range. Lee, from what I know, are of a top quality and not extremely expensive.
-
Hi,
I don't know what you mean with 1 1/3 stops of sensor range.
Sorry, I should have said 'exposure latitude'. And for digital sensors in cameras, from what I know, it's about 1 1/3 stops. You can extrapolate that to 2, but not really any further. So with higher dynamic range in your composition you will either start losing details in the dark or overexpose the light areas thus losing details there.
You are correct that the sky is not overexposed, the trick is to make it darker without getting a dull image.
There are a couple of problems with graduated filters.
1) The cheap ones, like Cokin reduce sharpness (at least in my experience)
2) In many cases we don't have a straight horizon
3) I couldn't use Cokin filters with any of my real wide angles because of vignetting
So what I say is that if the image is correctly exposed for highlights the same effect as with graduated filters can be achieved conveniently in Lightroom or ACR.
If the horizon is non regular the technique I described can be used, or an even simpler variant.
1) Duplicate image
2) Press alt+cmd+5 to used sky as luminosity mask
3) Click to top layer
4) Select multiply
5) Add layer mask
Probably there is some need to paint out some parts of the luminosity mask.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for the details on the process of adding a graduated filter in post processing. It definitely works when your shot is within what your sensor is capable of capturing in terms of exposure in a single frame.