# Why ND grads are not always necessary for landscapes



## CraniumDesigns (Jan 6, 2010)

ND grad filters are good to have for landscape, essential really, IF you're not very good at photoshop, or dont wanna spend a lot of time in photoshop in post-production, or you absolutely HAVE to capture the image in one exposure.

however, im pretty experienced with photoshop, and i prefer to spend more time behind a screen than behind a camera, because when ur taking pics, ur light is constantly changing. if u spend more time behind a computer, when u HAVE the time, u can take many more comps IN the field. 

my process is this. i usually leave my filters in my bag, use AEB, and fire off various exposures back to back with the amount of stops i want. sometimes it takes firing 2 AEB sets, but thats ok.

this allows me to take many more shots, take many more comps, and combined the elements from various shots that i like. maybe the sky is good in one, but the land sucks. so i grab the land i like from a brighter exposure, and mask em together in PS.

95% of the time i never use filters. filters are cool, but they take more care, more time, and they only offer a straight line, which in most cases is not what your landscape will have, unless its an ocean scape. often times the dark part will darken a mountain u may not want that dark.

basically, u can do all the things a filter can do, and much more, using just multiple exposures and photoshop.

the ONLY time a ND grad is ABSOLUTELY needed, is when u HAVE to get the shot in 1 exposure to capture movement of something. for that reason i still own a set of soft and hard ND's, 1, 2, and 3, stops of each.

good to have, but not necessary at all most of the time if you know photoshop.


----------



## Shockey (Jan 6, 2010)

Or you can use a tripod with a graduated neutral density filter, take it right in camera and you are done.
Of course if you enjoy doing all that work in Photoshop, rock on..to each his own.


----------



## CraniumDesigns (Jan 6, 2010)

Shockey said:


> Or you can use a tripod with a graduated neutral density filter, take it right in camera and you are done.
> Of course if you enjoy doing all that work in Photoshop, rock on..to each his own.



yes, a tripod is a MUST for landscape, and you have to use one when ur taking multiple exposures of the same scene. i prefer not to use grads though. this requires getting the filter placed right, picking the right filter, etc... this takes a lot more time and when ur working at sunset or sunrise and the light is changing so quickly, u can lose the opportunity to take more comps.

also, because a grad filter is straight, it may darken parts u dont want dark, like mountains that break the horizon.

so, unless u need to capture the action in one shot, if you're decent in photoshop, i feel u can produce much better images NOT using grads.

i'm just speaking from my own experience. i have lost out on other comps because i was spending too much time aligning filters, cleaning em off, etc... i want the highest quality possible in my images, so i dont mind spending more time in photoshop if it means my image will perform better and sell better.

plus it's cheaper, doesnt take up space in your bag, etc...


----------



## patrickt (Jan 6, 2010)

Since I switched to digital the only two filters I use are a polarizing filter, frequently, and a ND, not graduated, occasionally.


----------



## CraniumDesigns (Jan 6, 2010)

patrickt said:


> Since I switched to digital the only two filters I use are a polarizing filter, frequently, and a ND, not graduated, occasionally.



yeah, i often use a circular polarizer, unless im shooting into the sun, as its not really effective in that situation.

i also have a 10 stop ND filter that i LOVE for taking long exposures during the day.


----------



## CSR Studio (Jan 6, 2010)

I don't use a ND filter for landscapes. I usually use a polarizer.


----------



## Heretotherephoto (Jan 7, 2010)

Out of curiosity can this photoshop method be done in Elements 8?  I know it has a new feature where you can combine two images for the purpose you described above but I have not seen anything about masks yet in the book.  I'm only about halfway through the book though.


----------



## CraniumDesigns (Jan 7, 2010)

Heretotherephoto said:


> Out of curiosity can this photoshop method be done in Elements 8?  I know it has a new feature where you can combine two images for the purpose you described above but I have not seen anything about masks yet in the book.  I'm only about halfway through the book though.



not sure. never used elements. just CS4.


----------



## CSR Studio (Jan 7, 2010)

Why do you think ND filters are essential for landscapes?


----------



## CraniumDesigns (Jan 7, 2010)

they're not. i only use/need em 5% of the time.


----------



## Arch (Jan 7, 2010)

Well personally i prefer using ND Grads, i do also use exposure blending, but i think sometimes using just photoshop can make an image too sterile and emotionless.

This can depend on what you are going for too, if its for a good balanced exposure on a bright sunny day an exposure blend would be fine, however in some of my more moody landscapes an ND grad has given me the best results.


----------



## CraniumDesigns (Jan 7, 2010)

Arch said:


> Well personally i prefer using ND Grads, i do also use exposure blending, but i think sometimes using just photoshop can make an image too sterile and emotionless.
> 
> This can depend on what you are going for too, if its for a good balanced exposure on a bright sunny day an exposure blend would be fine, however in some of my more moody landscapes an ND grad has given me the best results.



to each his own. exposure blending is effectively the same thing as using an ND grad. u just end up doing more work behind the computer, and not in the field. i can usually create the same mood exposure blending as i would using a filter, as long as their isnt crazy movement in the shot. just depends on how good the user is at layer masking and blending.

i just want newbies to know their options, and give us more seasoned landscapers something to think about for the future. i just prefer the flexibility photoshop offers. i'd rather have 3-4 full frames of raw data at different exposures levels to work with, than one full frame and run the chance of that one frame being off once i get home. but ive been using photoshop for years as a web designer, and its just where i feel more comfortable.


----------



## Big (Jan 7, 2010)

Sooo, basically you're doing HDR?


----------



## Garbz (Jan 7, 2010)

Shockey said:


> Or you can use a tripod with a graduated neutral density filter, take it right in camera and you are done.
> Of course if you enjoy doing all that work in Photoshop, rock on..to each his own.



Yes but the upside of being done also has the downside of limited equipment. Your NDGrad filter has a finite adjustment, graduation, and setting. 

For me it is not a convenience thing as much as a cost thing. Getting a full set of various stops in the ND department, and various harnesses in the Gradient department would cost a fortune. Whereas the photoshop option is selectable from a variety of exposures after the fact. 

I do agree though, some people just prefer to do it in camera.



CSR Studio said:


> I don't use a ND filter for landscapes. I usually use a polarizer.



A solution to a very different problem. A polariser will not help you darken overcast clouds, or while shooting into the sun. Definitely a polariser is a must in any camera bag though and I often use it for landscapes.



CSR Studio said:


> Why do you think ND filters are essential for landscapes?



What's a landscape? A photographer who had a gallery in the city had pictures full of landscapes which were all about bringing out bright foregrounds against dark looming storms. NDGrad filter would be 100% essential to his line of work (all film, no digital, and doing a gradient in the darkroom takes hours compared to minutes in photoshop). 

A friend of mine shoots landscapes mostly during the evening. Don't think she knows what an ND Grad filter is.

The word landscape only defines the object, and not the style. A ND Grad filter may only be essential for a certain style.


----------



## CraniumDesigns (Jan 7, 2010)

Big said:


> Sooo, basically you're doing HDR?



no. take this pic for example that i did on a recent photo trip... 







this is made from 2 exposures, one for the land and water, and one for the sunset sky. i put the 2 layers in photoshop, masked them together and BAM, sweet pic.

an HDR requires tonemapping and affects all aspects of the image, whereas i am just putting pieces of different exposures together to make one nice exposure. this is less extreme and more natural than HDR.

i do like HDR, but i prefer not to use it for landscape most of the time. i tend to use it more for indoor shots.


----------



## Shockey (Jan 7, 2010)

A graduated ND filter does not put a straight dark line on the photo. It provides a gradual darkening as it gets more into the sky, perfect for those uneven sky lines.

Your process is fine for you, and a perfectly valid method. 
For people just starting out with landscape photography they should get the filters and learn how to do it that way first.
It takes no extra time to hold the filter in front of the camera, sometimes it takes a couple shots to get the filter in the correct position.
Of course just my opinion and I am sure we agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## KmH (Jan 7, 2010)

Heretotherephoto said:


> .... but I have not seen anything about masks yet in the book.....


You don't mention which book, but true masking is one of the features in Photoshop that's never been included with Elements though I have not yet looked at PSE8.

You can always go to the Index in the back of the book and see if they include anything, though if the have 'Masking' as an entry, they could be refering to the masking slider in the Sharpening tools which is not what Steven is talking about.


----------



## brianT (Jan 7, 2010)

I was thinking about getting an NDGrad filter but I knew it was pointless for me because like the OP, I'd rather use editing software to adjust my exposure.  The biggest advantage to using photoshop is the ability to paint a unique mask for each photo, in order to blend multiple exposures.  The unique mask can be any shape.  This ability offers way more flexibility than using a linear filter that can only be adjusted in minimal ways.

For just about any photo I use masks to make adjustments.  For example rarely do I adjust contrast on the entire image.  Almost everything is masked.


----------



## CraniumDesigns (Jan 7, 2010)

Shockey said:


> A graduated ND filter does not put a straight dark line on the photo. It provides a gradual darkening as it gets more into the sky, perfect for those uneven sky lines.
> 
> Your process is fine for you, and a perfectly valid method.
> For people just starting out with landscape photography they should get the filters and learn how to do it that way first.
> ...



it does make it straight, just depends on hard the transition is, but it will always make something dark that u dont want dark, like a mountain or rock that breaks the horizon line of the sky, and i dont want that happening. this is where masking in PS wins out.

and it does take more time, especially if ur taking many shots, u dont wanna hold that filter up all the time, especially for a really long exposure. so u get a filter holder, which i have, which takes even longer to setup, and then if u wanna turn ur CPOL, u gotta realign things, and really for me its just a huge pain in the butt. if i dont absolutely NEED to capture the image in one shot because of movement, im gonna do 2-3 exposures for different brightness levels in the image, and then do it in photoshop.

obviously we all have our preferences, and i dont really care what other people do, as long as theyre creating good images, but newbs to photography are often told they HAVE to get some nd grads, and im just here to say you dont if you know PS.


----------



## Montana (Jan 7, 2010)

Hmmm, interesting.  I personally prefer the fun and challenge of trying to do it in the camera. ( I should fun and challenging to me personally)  I actually hate sitting in front of the computer.


----------



## CraniumDesigns (Jan 7, 2010)

Montana said:


> Hmmm, interesting.  I personally prefer the fun and challenge of trying to do it in the camera. ( I should fun and challenging to me personally)  I actually hate sitting in front of the computer.



cool  whatever works for u. i find it it fun and challenging to get it right in PS and get better at it that way. im addicted to computers and the internet 

i dont like doing all the work in camera, because thats ur only chance to get it all right. i prefer to have less things i cant control at the moment when im shooting, and focus on those things later when i have more time and am not blinded by the excitement of the shoot. haha.


----------



## Gabriel (Jan 7, 2010)

I don't mean to put you down, as the image you posted does look mighty fine - and I'm sure you're a lot better at Photoshop than I am - but it sounds to me like you are much more into computers than into photography. And that's fine, but if you rely on Photoshop that much, I'm going to have trouble thinking of you as a photographer instead of a digital artist. Photography is all about the light, and having to merge a few different images to make one is a little too close to cheating for my taste. 

You may be a fantastic photographer in your own right and, as you say, you only _prefer_ to do it all digitally. But as I said before, you just seem much more enamored with the computer than the camera, and that just sounds odd to someone like me :mrgreen: I've been shooting digital for years, but if you take my laptop away I'll just switch to my Canon film body and keep shooting the same pictures. 

Maybe I'm a purist, or I think like a caveman. Who knows. But check out Galen Rowell, though I doubt that you've never seen his work. He shot some amazing stuff, was known for his perfectionist approach to exposure (yes, he used ND grads), and as far as I know, only shot film. 

Either way, to each their own, and I'll still respect your skills and your own approach to the work, even if it's not in line with my own. You wrote an interesting post.


----------



## CraniumDesigns (Jan 7, 2010)

Gabriel said:


> I don't mean to put you down, as the image you posted does look mighty fine - and I'm sure you're a lot better at Photoshop than I am - but it sounds to me like you are much more into computers than into photography. And that's fine, but if you rely on Photoshop that much, I'm going to have trouble thinking of you as a photographer instead of a digital artist. Photography is all about the light, and having to merge a few different images to make one is a little too close to cheating for my taste.



i love both, and digital photography is a blending of the two. what i do in photoshop is the same as using an ND grad in my opinion. anything can be considered cheating. shooting digital in itself can be considered cheating, since ur using a screen and a histogram. technology changes and there will always be purists, but i just see them as new tools to create the same end result. photoshop is just a more modern, faster way of doing the same things the greats like galen rowell (yes i know who he is) and ansel adams did manually for years. i just like to take a lot of comps when i'm in the field, so i have a lot options when i decide what to process and put in my portfolio, and handling more equipment when im in the field takes more time, and thus cuts down on the amount of pics i can take as the light is quickly changing.



Gabriel said:


> You may be a fantastic photographer in your own right and, as you say, you only _prefer_ to do it all digitally. But as I said before, you just seem much more enamored with the computer than the camera, and that just sounds odd to someone like me :mrgreen: I've been shooting digital for years, but if you take my laptop away I'll just switch to my Canon film body and keep shooting the same pictures.
> 
> Maybe I'm a purist, or I think like a caveman. Who knows. But check out Galen Rowell, though I doubt that you've never seen his work. He shot some amazing stuff, was known for his perfectionist approach to exposure (yes, he used ND grads), and as far as I know, only shot film.
> 
> Either way, to each their own, and I'll still respect your skills and your own approach to the work, even if it's not in line with my own. You wrote an interesting post.



yes, i differ there. i wouldnt do it if it wasnt digital. i am not patient enough to process in a dark room and deal with film. this is why digital photography is creating so many more photographers. it's much easier now. u r a purist, more traditional than me, and that's ok, but that's not me.

the bottom line is that photography is art, and there are different ways of producing that art, and im doing it for the love of creating beautiful images, and i dont really care how i make them, as long as i create everything, and i am not stealing someone else's work. i do this for the love of the hobby, and to sell the occasional print. i wouldnt fork out thousands of dollars in photography equipment every year if i didnt love it and wasnt serious about it.

and remember, im not saying it is THE way to do it, but its the way i prefer and what works for me. me shooting 2 images of the same comp, seconds apart, and blending them in photoshop, is the exact same thing as taking 1 comp using a filter. i would prefer to get more comps as the light is quickly changing, and do all the post work on the comp when i have the time and am not constrained by the light. 

whether people think it's cheating or not, i still make beautiful images that people love and buy, so what do i care? thank u for expressing yourself in a humble, polite way though


----------



## Gabriel (Jan 7, 2010)

I checked out your site and you do have some beautiful work, and I'd be proud to hang some of it on my own walls, but I'd always think of it as the picture that was Photoshopped. It's just how I am - I got out of fashion because it's too artificial for my taste, and have always loved journalism and documentary photography for their purity and honesty. So I'm the wrong guy to be in a discussion about using a lot of Photoshop, but your post got my attention. 

I've cheated using a lot of filters - yes, that can be very similar to using PS - as experiments, but I was never happy with the results because they weren't real to me. I'll use an ND or a polarizer, though not often. Maybe that's just my tolerance level for it or something. 

Either way, if it's working for you, then keep on keepin' on. I've put in my two cents and better stop now, before I run out of lunch money...



CraniumDesigns said:


> ... thank u for expressing yourself in a humble, polite way though



Absolutely. There's never a need to be a keyboard cowboy, I don't think


----------



## CraniumDesigns (Jan 7, 2010)

haha. yeah, different strokes... thanks for the compliments on my work though. if u think MY stuff is fake, u should check out trey ratcliff's stuff at Stuck In Customs HDR Photography. beautiful hdr work, but highly highly fake and processed.


----------



## Gabriel (Jan 7, 2010)

CraniumDesigns said:


> haha. yeah, different strokes... thanks for the compliments on my work though. if u think MY stuff is fake, u should check out trey ratcliff's stuff at Stuck In Customs HDR Photography. beautiful hdr work, but highly highly fake and processed.



Well, even if you do use a lot of post, for whatever reason I would not use the word _fake_ to describe your work. Ratcliff's, though, seems more like illustration than photography. Definitely not my bag.


----------



## CraniumDesigns (Jan 7, 2010)

yeah, but his newly published book is sold out worldwide on amazon's websites, so he must be doing SOMETHING right. his fanbase is HUGE. he's like the king of HDR work.


----------



## Gabriel (Jan 7, 2010)

I'm sure he's quite big, but as you can probably tell by now, I'm not one to go with the masses too often, hehe...


----------



## Derrel (Jan 7, 2010)

CraniumDesigns said:


> yeah, but his newly published book is sold out worldwide on amazon's websites, so he must be doing SOMETHING right. his fanbase is HUGE. he's like the king of HDR work.



McDonald's is the WORLD'S number one restaurant. More meals served than ANY other restaurant in the world. Ever. So McDonald's must be doing SOMETHING right. Their fan base is HUGE (in more ways than one,I might add). McDonald's is like the King of Restaurants.

Jersey Shore is a popular new TV series. So was John & Kate + Eight.

There's no accounting for taste...


----------



## CraniumDesigns (Jan 7, 2010)

haha. true, but to many people "taste < making money & fame".

and his work IS really good and nice. its just very far out there. not natural, but very cool looking sometime, so i dont feel its wrong. people have different tastes  i like all kinds of stuff.


----------



## Heretotherephoto (Jan 7, 2010)

KmH said:


> Heretotherephoto said:
> 
> 
> > .... but I have not seen anything about masks yet in the book.....
> ...


 

The book is Elements 8 for Photographers.  Author is Philip Andrews.  He does talk about using masks in relation to layers.  Unfortunately I really didn't understand much of the material and how to work with the layers or how to mask parts off if able.  Guess I need to find another book.


----------



## HikinMike (Jan 8, 2010)

Heretotherephoto said:


> The book is Elements 8 for Photographers.  Author is Philip Andrews.  He does talk about using masks in relation to layers.  *Unfortunately I really didn't understand much of the material and how to work with the layers or how to mask parts off if able.*  Guess I need to find another book.



I posted this before but here it is again:

I used 3 separate exposures on this image. The pink shows the transparent on that layer (mask)....

Top Image










5D, 70-200mm, ISO 100, 1/4, f/11

Middle Image









5D, 70-200mm, ISO 100, 1/8, f/11

Bottom Image (no mask)




5D, 70-200mm, ISO 100, 1/30, f/11

Final Product....





Here's a screen print of the layers in CS2


----------



## CraniumDesigns (Jan 8, 2010)

see what the magic of multiple exposures can do?


----------



## HikinMike (Jan 8, 2010)

CraniumDesigns said:


> see what the magic of multiple exposures can do?



Yep, but I'm poor and I can't afford a good set of GNDs. Besides, I'm pretty savvy with Photoshop. I can't replicate a CP though, so I bought one. :mrgreen:


----------



## Heretotherephoto (Jan 8, 2010)

Hey Mike,  Thanks for [posting that again.  I have seen it before but it is helpful to see what layers can do.  I should have stated that my lack of understanding is in getting the program to do what I want it to do.  I understand the purpose of layers and am excited to see the potential, I just haven't figured out which buttons to push to manipulate things in such a way.  I have only been looking at it for a couple of days though.  When I get home from this trip I may look around for a photoshop class  at one of the local community colleges.  They always seem to have something going on.

I am starting to think Elements 8 is able to perform the function you illustrated above.  Just want to make sure before I spend the money.  It does have an exposure merging function which seems similar to working in layers.


----------



## CraniumDesigns (Jan 8, 2010)

looks like u cant do layer masks in elements... Photoshop Elements: Create a Layer Mask


----------



## goodoneian (Jan 10, 2010)

though grads and use of photoshop are both viable methods, i prefer the filters because to me it's a more rewarding experience going out and shooting somewhere and getting the exposure to look the best it possibly can rather than getting some base exposures to put together on the computer. though i still rely on photoshop to get my pictures to look how i want/ how i saw the landscape itself, i still find it more exciting to look at a picture im 95% happy with on the back of my lcd before even going home. just my opinion


----------

