What ND filters?

Buchanan0204 · 15 May 2013 at 01:40

I'm looking to get some ND grad filters for landscape photography.

I'll be sticking it on a standard 18-55mm kit lens at the moment, however I'll hopefully be upgrading to a better lens in the near future.

Here's where I'm confused? I realise when I get a new lens I'll need a new adapter ring to fit the new lens, however will I still be OK using the same size rectangular filters?

If anyone can point me in the direction of which grad filters I should be buying and where the best place to buy them from.

cheers.

Buchanan0204 · 15 May 2013 at 02:44

Forgot about a polariser, would like to double up with a polariser and grad.

Amp34 · 15 May 2013 at 09:21

Personally I'd forget about the grad filters for the moment and spend the money on the better lens you want then buy the grads at a later date.

Just use photoshop/lightroom and shoot in RAW, it gives you more flexibility for the majority of situations.

buzzlightweight · 15 May 2013 at 18:11

Amp34 said:
Personally I'd forget about the grad filters for the moment and spend the money on the better lens you want then buy the grads at a later date.

Just use photoshop/lightroom and shoot in RAW, it gives you more flexibility for the majority of situations.

^^ very sound advise

Shadowness · 15 May 2013 at 18:17

I would say the opposite actually. Photoshop cannot replicate ND filters properly, sometimes not even at all. So I would get some ND filters, but you might want to make sure that when you get a new lens, you can still use them.

Amp34 · 15 May 2013 at 18:29

Shadowness said:
I would say the opposite actually. Photoshop cannot replicate ND filters properly, sometimes not even at all. So I would get some ND filters, but you might want to make sure that when you get a new lens, you can still use them.

How so?

ND grad filters just reduce the light getting to the camera in certain areas. You almost always have to have a straight edge though, whereas with Photoshop and processing a raw to two exposures you can create almost any grad you like.

The only situations I can think of at the moment are if the light is a large number of stops different or you're shooting action. The former not being much of a benefit as most nd grad filters are only a stop ish anyway and if you're shooting on a tripod you just shoot another exposure and merge in Photoshop. The latter is very specialised and is only an issue if you also have the issue of several stops of light different. As most nd grads are used in landscapes it's a rare occurance.

ND filters on the other hand (such as 10 stop screw in ones) id agree, Photoshop cans do that.

King Damager · 15 May 2013 at 18:30

Lightroom is VERY powerful as an ND filter. But I still don't think it gives the same feel and stuff. It just doesn't give the same feel to an image. I have used the LR filters extensively, and think they're more than enough for a stater. That said, I did eventually buy a set of cokin ND grad filters. Still need to use them, but for £36 or so, couldn't really go wrong.

If you really wanted to do that kind of thing I'd be looking at HDR (not overdone)

kd

Amp34 · 15 May 2013 at 18:32

HDR is very different to using grads in Photoshop/Lightroom though.

IME you cms normally tell who uses a grad filter, it's because there is a distinct (if discrete) line where it gets darker regardless of the subject in shot. For example the tree sticking out into the sky being darker at the top due to the ND grad.

domthecondom · 15 May 2013 at 18:39

I thought ND filters are used to have long exposures in the day

Buchanan0204 · 15 May 2013 at 18:45

I do shoot in RAW and process in LR and PS. I just can't seem to get my foreground to the same exposure as the sky and it all looks a bit fake.

Here's a shot I took last night. It just doesn't pop in the foreground the way other landscapes photos do. I'd prefer to capture as much detail in the original shot and minimise post processing... although I do sometimes get carried away with PS and LR, more for fun than anything. I'd never pass them off as photographs.

This is the photo straight from the camera, completely untouched. Just converted from RAW to JPG and resized. Never adjusted brightness, contrast etc.

If I exposed more for the foreground, the sky would have been overexposed. This is why I "think" I need a grad filter.

Buchanan0204 · 15 May 2013 at 18:47

domthecondom said:
I thought ND filters are used to have long exposures in the day

Depends on how many stops it is. The 8/10 stop filter allows for long exposure during the day. The 2 stops, not so much. Obviously they allow for a longer shutter speed, but not exactly classed as a long exposure.

ND filter are all dark and block all the light. The one's I'm referring to are half dark, half clear. So the top part blocks the light from the sky. Allows for an overall properly exposed photo.

Or something like that

D.P. · 15 May 2013 at 19:36

Amp34 said:
How so?

ND grad filters just reduce the light getting to the camera in certain areas. You almost always have to have a straight edge though, whereas with Photoshop and processing a raw to two exposures you can create almost any grad you like.

The only situations I can think of at the moment are if the light is a large number of stops different or you're shooting action. The former not being much of a benefit as most nd grad filters are only a stop ish anyway and if you're shooting on a tripod you just shoot another exposure and merge in Photoshop. The latter is very specialised and is only an issue if you also have the issue of several stops of light different. As most nd grads are used in landscapes it's a rare occurance.

ND filters on the other hand (such as 10 stop screw in ones) id agree, Photoshop cans do that.

That is not really true, I have ND-grads up to 4 stops, in fact most are at least 3 stops. ND Grads are critical in scenes with high DR.
Yes, post processing is much more powerful and can work well in scenes witha controlled DR but it is not always possible. The best solution is to bracket multiple exposures and blend in software, AKA HDR done right.

D.P. · 15 May 2013 at 19:37

Amp34 said:
HDR is very different to using grads in Photoshop/Lightroom though.

IME you cms normally tell who uses a grad filter, it's because there is a distinct (if discrete) line where it gets darker regardless of the subject in shot. For example the tree sticking out into the sky being darker at the top due to the ND grad.

Not if they use soft filters

D.P. · 15 May 2013 at 19:43

Buchanan0204 said:
I do shoot in RAW and process in LR and PS. I just can't seem to get my foreground to the same exposure as the sky and it all looks a bit fake.

Here's a shot I took last night. It just doesn't pop in the foreground the way other landscapes photos do. I'd prefer to capture as much detail in the original shot and minimise post processing... although I do sometimes get carried away with PS and LR, more for fun than anything. I'd never pass them off as photographs.

This is the photo straight from the camera, completely untouched. Just converted from RAW to JPG and resized. Never adjusted brightness, contrast etc.

If I exposed more for the foreground, the sky would have been overexposed. This is why I "think" I need a grad filter.

You will never be able to replicate what a ND-Grad can do in software from a single RAW file in a scene with sufficient DR. You might be able to eak out a stop or 2 from the RAW file but risk a lot of clipping and colour channel issues. With an ND-Grad you can add 3-4 stops on to that with less risk of issues. The downside being less control of where the darkening occurs.

With modern Nikon/Sony sensors at14 stops you can get much further than 9-10 stops of earlier DSLRs but we are still a long way form the 20 stops that B&W provided for example, and still well short of the natural DR in the real world.

pecnarf · 16 May 2013 at 02:27

well to answer the op question which nd filter. I suggest if you willing to pay get the corkin p-series nd grad kit as it let you connect it up to a max len diameter of 82mm. so instead of buying multi nd filter at different lens diameter, you just buying adpter ring for the different lens diameter which cost hell of lot cheaper than buying filters at different diameter.

I personally used the corking nd grads for water effect on waterfalls, you cannot reproduce it properly using software of raw taken without a nd grads, but you can use it help enhance it. software can be use to simulate some HDR images for example take 1 photo then use pp software to copy the image into three, applie different level of nd to each image (low, normal, high) then combine the three into one using HDR merge software it can to some of effect do the same thing if you were using the AEB bracketing function on your camera. but using nd filter will get better results.

taken using corkin p-series nd grad

Early attempt at HDR Image using AEB Bracketing Function on camera

Amp34 · 16 May 2013 at 11:07

D.P. said:
That is not really true, I have ND-grads up to 4 stops, in fact most are at least 3 stops. ND Grads are critical in scenes with high DR.
Yes, post processing is much more powerful and can work well in scenes witha controlled DR but it is not always possible. The best solution is to bracket multiple exposures and blend in software, AKA HDR done right.

Most people get the basic set (ND2/4/8), which is 1,2 and 3 stops... For all intents and purposes when you are shooting on a kit lens and basic equipment you're not going to get much benefit over using photoshop and eeking that stop out of a single RAW... Either way that's for taking a single RAW and processing it, if you have more DR then just shoot two shots and overlay the images using layers and masks available in Photoshop, which does exactly the same thing. No need to blend the whole image, just decrease the exposure of the sky like you would with an ND grad.

D.P. said:
Not if they use soft filters

Doesn't matter, all you're going to do is change the gradualness of the change, the tree is still going to be darker at the top!

Amp34 · 16 May 2013 at 11:19

Buchanan0204 said:
I do shoot in RAW and process in LR and PS. I just can't seem to get my foreground to the same exposure as the sky and it all looks a bit fake.

Here's a shot I took last night. It just doesn't pop in the foreground the way other landscapes photos do. I'd prefer to capture as much detail in the original shot and minimise post processing... although I do sometimes get carried away with PS and LR, more for fun than anything. I'd never pass them off as photographs.

This is the photo straight from the camera, completely untouched. Just converted from RAW to JPG and resized. Never adjusted brightness, contrast etc.

If I exposed more for the foreground, the sky would have been overexposed. This is why I "think" I need a grad filter.

Personally I think that's the difference between Art and a snapshot... It's like in the old film days, you could shoot and send your images to a printer and get your snaps back, or you could shoot and process them yourself in a dark room, blending, brightening and darkening areas.

It's one of the odd things about modern photography, so many people forgetting the film days were full of processing as well (think Ansel Adams).

Obviously there are points where the photo kinda becomes a piece of digital art (adding planets, adding fake skies etc) but a reasonable amount of adjusting is normal and always has been.

As for the image, that is, however if you just take two shots and use the mask tool (rectangle with a little square) you can merge the images in PS.

Save your money, get a decent lens and then think about saving for a Grad system IMO.

King Damager · 16 May 2013 at 13:15

For reference, this is what I achieved with a grad filter last night.
Left is no filter, right is filter.
Cokin P Series
Straight out of camera
Sky was naturally quite pink, rather than an 'orange' sky

kd

Raymond Lin · 16 May 2013 at 13:40

Amp34 said:
Personally I think that's the difference between Art and a snapshot... It's like in the old film days, you could shoot and send your images to a printer and get your snaps back, or you could shoot and process them yourself in a dark room, blending, brightening and darkening areas.

It's one of the odd things about modern photography, so many people forgetting the film days were full of processing as well (think Ansel Adams).

Obviously there are points where the photo kinda becomes a piece of digital art (adding planets, adding fake skies etc) but a reasonable amount of adjusting is normal and always has been.

Like this one.

http://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/for...ss-photo-winner-a-fake-photographer-responds/

Personally if the content is the same then to me it is not photo maniplation.

D.P. · 16 May 2013 at 16:44

Amp34 said:
Most people get the basic set (ND2/4/8), which is 1,2 and 3 stops... For all intents and purposes when you are shooting on a kit lens and basic equipment you're not going to get much benefit over using photoshop and eeking that stop out of a single RAW... Either way that's for taking a single RAW and processing it, if you have more DR then just shoot two shots and overlay the images using layers and masks available in Photoshop, which does exactly the same thing. No need to blend the whole image, just decrease the exposure of the sky like you would with an ND grad.

Doesn't matter, all you're going to do is change the gradualness of the change, the tree is still going to be darker at the top!

I almost entirely agree - Grad filters have there limits that can be overcome easily in software IF there is sufficient DR in the RAW file. bets solution is multiple exposures, what I meant by blending was as you describe, masking and composing a final image from multiple RAWs creating an effective natural HDR image without any tonemapping that leads to unnatural local contrast.

However, ND grads still have a solid place in the landscape photographers tool box. Many scenes will have well defined edges between the sky and foreground and others will work fine with soft grads. Getting the photo right in the camera makes life much easier in post processing, even allowing straight from camera captures, and allows things that are not possible such as if the scene;s DR far exceeds the sensor's.
In general I prefer to minimise post processing requires and get the image as close to perfect as I can while in the field, which is why I would prefer a single exposure with an ND grad than a 2-3 exposure capture requiring to fire up photoshop.

Another advantage of an ND grad is if you can dim the highlights then you can push the ETTR technique even further and pull out far more shadow detail.Again bracketing can be a better solution but much more work.