Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: larkis on January 01, 2012, 04:20:48 pm
-
I have some grad and nd filters Cokin made and wanted to get a few new ones recently but the sales people at Henry's in Canada told me the company went out of business and they no longer carry the brand. What other replacement system can I buy that uses square filters ?
-
Use the graduated filter in RAW converter! A lot more control, one less thing to pack, scratch or lose.
-
Hi!
I second that. At the time I was shooting grads on my Pentax 67 and in my view they were detrimental to image quality. I used Cokin, other filters may have less effects.
It may also be worth trying these methods:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/46-fixing-sky-with-luminosity-mask
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/61-hdr-tone-mapping-on-ordinary-image
On the other hand, a graduated filter actually reduces scene contrast, while the above methods only work on the tonal scale captured by the sensor.
Best regards
Erik
Use the graduated filter in RAW converter! A lot more control, one less thing to pack, scratch or lose.
-
I find that a real filter in front of the lens does have some merits. Yes I use the grad in Lightroom but if scenes contrast is to large I have to start doing exposure stitching which I try to avoid if a simpler solution works fine.
-
Cokin filters aren't very high quality. Lee or Singhray are higher quality. Lee are hard to get, not sure about singhray.
I use both filters and photoshop, and sometimes even both on the same image, but getting most of everything right with filters, then using bracketed exposures to pull detail back in areas where the filters killed it because the horizon wasn't straight.
-
Calumet's house brand filters are made by Lee and the graduated ones are extremely high quality. They're a standard in the film industry.
I still carry a .6 graduated ND, solves those burned out skies over the ocean. Of course you could take 2 shots and comp them together as well but seeing it in the finder is nice. I shoot it both ways and more often than not use the filtered shot.
-
Use the graduated filter in RAW converter! A lot more control, one less thing to pack, scratch or lose.
I'd rather use filters myself. My hobby is photography...not computer art. Part of the pleasure is in making things happen in the lens.
-
If you're looking for high-quality grads, try Singh Ray: http://www.singh-ray.com/. Great stuff, generally in stock (as opposed to Lee which can be troublesome at times), and... expensive. But you get what you pay for.
Neil
-
As the OP appears to be in Canada, Singh Ray is available in Canada through the "Camera Store" out of Calgary, (can be ordered online and shipped). Also available via places like B&H
-
Lee filter. 0.6 ND Grad Hard, 0.9 ND Grad Soft. Maybe a 0.9 Glass to slow down motion e.g water. A Big Stopper for very long exposure.
-
Hitech are another, less expensive option for grads and NDs. Used these for years, quality is great, no colour cast, but do scratch easily - probably true for all resin filters.
-
As the OP is using Lightroom I'll assume we are talking about a digital camera. So a bracketed sequence of exposures has to be the easiest and most effective method of balancing exposure, as opposed to a grad ND. Software does the blending for you, you can do it yourself with Layers and Masks, or you can simply cut and paste, and it is fully controllable depending on the exposure ranges of the images you choose to work with. Why you can even add a graduated tobacco effect if you are inclined that way ::). The only filters I would take out with me are an ND and a polariser.
Steve
-
The only filters I would take out with me are an ND and a polariser.
Ditto!
As said, you got way less artefacts (ever saw those horrid black cliffs or trees against the sky, trapped in the GradND?) doing proper tone compensation in post after a proper capture (to the right : highlights needing detail not blown but almost so).
Bracketing still gives the potential for a tonally much cleaner output, but may introduce other artefacts with moving subjects. Generally a better proposition IMHO, as it's not more complicated in the field.
-
Using two exposures and blend them in photoshop is possible. Actually you can do that this one proper exposed image, by using two versions. If you have to use two exposures you can only blend them, if there is no movement involved.
-
NB On the specific topic of gradND vs. processing, there is another active thread : http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60883.0
-
As the OP is using Lightroom I'll assume we are talking about a digital camera. So a bracketed sequence of exposures has to be the easiest and most effective method of balancing exposure, as opposed to a grad ND. Software does the blending for you, you can do it yourself with Layers and Masks, or you can simply cut and paste, and it is fully controllable depending on the exposure ranges of the images you choose to work with. Why you can even add a graduated tobacco effect if you are inclined that way ::). The only filters I would take out with me are an ND and a polariser.
Steve
To me it sounds like you are talking about HDR. Or color "filters" in post processing. However, good luck replacing GNDs if you don't want to resort to HDR.
-
Use the graduated filter in RAW converter! A lot more control, one less thing to pack, scratch or lose.
How do you deal with exposure when the range is more than your camera's sensor is capable of handling? I think you can't do anything since you sensor will not have enough data for you to do anything in PP.
-
There is an online store in UK (http://www.teamworkphoto.com/) that sells Lee and Hitech systems amongst others. Prices seem to be very good and I hear the reputation is good as well.
-
However, good luck replacing GNDs if you don't want to resort to HDR.
Very easy in LR : capture for the highlights, and then bring back the shadows (Fill Light + Black). No gory HDR look involved (but as with any treatment or use of filter you have to do it right), and even with older cameras you still can bring back about 3 more stops of DR (as said Guillermo Luijk in the pother thread, it's more 6 stops with the best and last cameras).
If this margin is still not enough, then it's the GradND or a second capture and blending (go see ZeroNoise (http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/nonoise/index_en.htm) eg) or some other method as the stacking suggested in the other thread.
-
Thread sorta focused on graduated ND filters, but others are more important with a subject of "Best Filters for Landscapes." There are two in my opinion that should be in everyone's kit... first, a polarizer and second a VARIABLE neutral density. The polarizing filter can be used for many things and the variable ND is a must if you take images of water. Use a grad if that is your style, some photographers are comfortable with them and some are not.
-
Very easy in LR : capture for the highlights, and then bring back the shadows (Fill Light + Black). No gory HDR look involved (but as with any treatment or use of filter you have to do it right), and even with older cameras you still can bring back about 3 more stops of DR (as said Guillermo Luijk in the pother thread, it's more 6 stops with the best and last cameras).
If this margin is still not enough, then it's the GradND or a second capture and blending (go see ZeroNoise (http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/nonoise/index_en.htm) eg) or some other method as the stacking suggested in the other thread.
I'm surprised at your comment about '3 more stops', which is more than a sensor's exposure latitude, from what I know. Let alone "6 or more" stops.. I would really want to see proper scientific backing of that quote. If exposure latitude is 6 or more stops, then why is there HDR technique at all? Shouldn't a sensor be able to just capture all those glorious details? And here I'm not talking about a possibility to make 2 shots 3 or 6 stops apart (even though then there will be no overlap in exposure between the two).
As for 'gory' HDR.. I guess it depends on how you do it and to what extent one goes when doing HDR. It's all very personal and some HDR is done in a way that one would have hard time telling it's not a single frame shot (unless that one is a very experienced photographer).
-
Let alone "6 or more" stops..
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49200.msg405505#msg405505
Note that exposure latitude is only on the shadow side... Saturation is a harder wall on the HL side than noise in the shadows.
-
Cokin filters aren't very high quality. Lee or Singhray are higher quality. Lee are hard to get, not sure about singhray.
I use both filters and photoshop, and sometimes even both on the same image, but getting most of everything right with filters, then using bracketed exposures to pull detail back in areas where the filters killed it because the horizon wasn't straight.
Wayne,
I'd love it if Pixels started carrying the Singh-rays...
L
-
Hi!
What latitude is depends on a lot of factors. The tonal range of the scene, the dynamic range of the sensor and how much noise you are willing to expect.
If you expose correctly to the right, latitude for overexposure is zero and you are using the sensor optimally. Exposing higher, highlight detail is lost. Exposing less reduces the amount of detail in the darks we can extract.
Modern DSLRs seem to have a DR (technical term) of about 12 stops. But the definition of DR is (maximum signal)/(SNR=1). SNR=1 (Signal Noise Ratio equals one) is the normally used figure in signal processing, but may be far to noisy for shadow detail.
The article here indicates how much information we can extract from a single image:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/61-hdr-tone-mapping-on-ordinary-image
Further discussion about the processing is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60082.msg490533#msg490533
Something very similar can be done in Lightroom 4 with just three klicks:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=61027.msg492127#msg492127
Best regards
Erik
Best regards
Erik
I'm surprised at your comment about '3 more stops', which is more than a sensor's exposure latitude, from what I know. Let alone "6 or more" stops.. I would really want to see proper scientific backing of that quote. If exposure latitude is 6 or more stops, then why is there HDR technique at all? Shouldn't a sensor be able to just capture all those glorious details? And here I'm not talking about a possibility to make 2 shots 3 or 6 stops apart (even though then there will be no overlap in exposure between the two).
As for 'gory' HDR.. I guess it depends on how you do it and to what extent one goes when doing HDR. It's all very personal and some HDR is done in a way that one would have hard time telling it's not a single frame shot (unless that one is a very experienced photographer).