Thanks for the detailed response Andy. The article suggests this would create a variable ND filter but in reading your thoughts, it sounds like the effect may only be seen when the two filters are at exactly 180 degrees. What would happen at say 45, 90 or 135 degrees of separation?
E
I think it will work at other angles, but the effect will be the most profound (almost dark) when the light wavelengths are 180 degrees out from each other, thus causing a cancelation. At least that is the way I understand it, and light waves work the same way mostly as sound waves, which is what I deal with every day. In the sound world we call it Lloyds Mirror Effect. Which basically states that if two different paths of sound arrive at the same time 180 degrees out of phase, there will be a null (an almost black viewfinder). If they are arriving at the same time but not entirely out of phase, there will be a reinforcement. So the 45, 90 135 etc. should be the reinforcement (visable light and a direct effect on EV). What I would like to see is different shots, showing the different angles off of each other. If you do this, try it, and post results. If anyone has a different opinion of what's occuring, please speak up. The two different paths of light in this case are the direct light in the scene, and reflected light (Direct Path sound and Bottom Bounce or Surface Bounce noise in the SONAR world)
For a photographic application I would suggest that 2 attributes may prevent the method from being the best method for a neutral density application:
1) Color purity. Crossed polarizers may induce undesirable coloration. (Blue tonality is common with typical crossed polarization filters.)
2) Birefringence effects. Since polarization is caused by transmission through a crystalline structure, transmission through multiple layers can cause a necessary reduction in image quality. Whether the resulting IQ is sufficient to your needs is entirely subjective.
Ultimately, I think that standard ND filters retain more image quality and offer the best combination of usefulness for general photography.
Do you want to shoot shot with a lot of dynamic range and contrast, (sunrises and sunsets with good foreground interest), and have everything exposed right?
I found this thread in my research and I believe this is the best explanation of my application.
Many times when shooting vehicles on bright, hot, sunny days, there's so much dynamic range that my cheap cameras can't take it. I can force them to properly expose the vehicle, but then sometimes the background is completely overexposed. Other times, the foreground is underexposed. Here's some examples:
Would a ND filter (not a GND) help these shooting situations? How many f-stops worth would I really need? My cameras will top out at f8, so I'm guessing at least two f-stops would help.
Would a ND filter (not a GND) help these shooting situations? How many f-stops worth would I really need? My cameras will top out at f8, so I'm guessing at least two f-stops would help.
Any feedback appreciated.
I'm gonna say no that a ND won't fix this. It seems to be a subject of metering from what you describe. In all the cases you described, and showed photos for, the car is mostly the brightest object in the shot, and I would be you are metering off of it. If you meter off of the brightest object, if the rest of the scene is very dark overall, the camera will underexpose, since it will meter to get the really bright "thing" correct, leaving the "darker" rest of the scene underexposed. I am not an expert with car or portrait photography, so someone else will probably have to chime in here and help out. You might want to spot meter off the background, or whatever the darkest thing is, then spot meter off the brightest object, and then pick a shutter speed in between the two meter readings. Although the pictures you posted, look just fine to me.
I'm gonna say no that a ND won't fix this. It seems to be a subject of metering from what you describe. In all the cases you described, and showed photos for, the car is mostly the brightest object in the shot, and I would be you are metering off of it. If you meter off of the brightest object, if the rest of the scene is very dark overall, the camera will underexpose, since it will meter to get the really bright "thing" correct, leaving the "darker" rest of the scene underexposed. I am not an expert with car or portrait photography, so someone else will probably have to chime in here and help out. You might want to spot meter off the background, or whatever the darkest thing is, then spot meter off the brightest object, and then pick a shutter speed in between the two meter readings. Although the pictures you posted, look just fine to me.
-Andy
Thank you for the quick response Andy. I believe I did use a mixture of spot metering as well as whole scene metering for exposure on these pictures depending on which yielded the best results. The problem is that there would still be "hot spots" or "cold spots".
The first picture is a good example of a cold spot. Because the car is so dark and the sky is so bright. The best metering without blowing out the sky made the car dark.
In the second picture, the doors of the vehicle were slightly blown out because of the strong contrast between the fenders and the doors.
In the third and fourth, both the cars were used as the metering source since a full scene metering would blow out the car since they were so bright from the intensity of the sun.
I'm curious if ND filters can actually improve this lack of dynamic range in my cameras. A Canon 1d would solve the problem, but would also inflict a problem on my wallet. :cry
I'm curious if ND filters can actually improve this lack of dynamic range in my cameras.
Think about what an ND filter is and what it does--you'll have your answer.
You are working with very bright and very dark exposures. I'm going suggest shooting in manual mode and setting the exposure using a gray card or the green grass.
Camera meters are often 'fooled' by such extremes and setting the exposure using the constant of a gray card should help a lot.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Thank you for the quick response Andy. I believe I did use a mixture of spot metering as well as whole scene metering for exposure on these pictures depending on which yielded the best results. The problem is that there would still be "hot spots" or "cold spots".
The first picture is a good example of a cold spot. Because the car is so dark and the sky is so bright. The best metering without blowing out the sky made the car dark.
In the second picture, the doors of the vehicle were slightly blown out because of the strong contrast between the fenders and the doors.
In the third and fourth, both the cars were used as the metering source since a full scene metering would blow out the car since they were so bright from the intensity of the sun.
I'm curious if ND filters can actually improve this lack of dynamic range in my cameras. A Canon 1d would solve the problem, but would also inflict a problem on my wallet. :cry
I don't think any camera alone is going to give you perfect results SOOC with tricky lighting. If you autobracket exposures, there are PP techniques which can improve dynamic range. I don't mean HDR. There is one I don't quite remember where you autobracket, and then in PS blend using Layers and Apply Image. If anyone knows this technique I'd be very happy of a reminder or link for all the details!
There is one I don't quite remember where you autobracket, and then in PS blend using Layers and Apply Image. If anyone knows this technique I'd be very happy of a reminder or link for all the details!
Neil
Just make two exposures. One for the dark and one for the light. Load both images into PS as layers. Then use the quick mask feature to paint away in the areas that need it.
If you wanted, you could use a tripod and the same technique for as many layers as you might need. But at that point, you might as well just HDR it
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Just make two exposures. One for the dark and one for the light. Load both images into PS as layers. Then use the quick mask feature to paint away in the areas that need it.
If you wanted, you could use a tripod and the same technique for as many layers as you might need. But at that point, you might as well just HDR it
Appreciate that Ian.
I have just figured out the technique I was thinking of -
I don't do any PP due to volume. It's typical for me to have to process a batch of 2000 pieces of media and publish them in under 48hrs. This includes the many hours of upload time.
From my understanding, a ND filter simply limits overall light to a scene in the same way using a much higher f-stop may. Hypothetically speaking, if it was possible for me to shoot with a higher f-stop vs an ND filter, would I be able to gain more dynamic range?
I don't do any PP due to volume. It's typical for me to have to process a batch of 2000 pieces of media and publish them in under 48hrs. This includes the many hours of upload time.
From my understanding, a ND filter simply limits overall light to a scene in the same way using a much higher f-stop may. Hypothetically speaking, if it was possible for me to shoot with a higher f-stop vs an ND filter, would I be able to gain more dynamic range?
I'm learning here, so I appreciate the feedback.
Dynamic range is almost entirely under the domain of:
Lighting
Imager
ISO and in-camera processing
Post-processing
The lens and filters have almost nothing to do with DR except in how they impact the above. (For example, ND filters might require a higher ISO to maintain shutter speed and f-stop. Higher ISO would "reduce" the system DR capabilities.)
If I had to batch process a ton of images, all captured in a high-DR condition (outdoors, full sunlight, bright conditions, for example) I would be very careful to protect important highlights from getting blown and shoot in RAW format.
In post-processing (ACR), I would choose a suitable white balance and tint, process as neutral Exposure, very low Contrast, boost both Clarity and Vibrance, controlling the basic appearance with Recovery, Fill Light and Brightness. I would also add a highlight "knee" curve to the "Tone Curve - Point" to help protect the highest highlights even more.
Most of the settings could be saved as a custom Setting and recalled, or even saved as Default Settings. The resulting processed image would be saved as a 16 bit TIFF.
Then the TIFFs would be sorted by basic attributes and brought into PhotoShop as groups. Each group would have a custom action to adjust according to the attributes of the group and custom curves/levels and tonal adjustments and sharpening applied, and finally reduced to 8 bit sRGB. The output would be high-quality JPGs.
Dynamic range is almost entirely under the domain of:
Lighting
Imager
ISO and in-camera processing
Post-processing
The lens and filters have almost nothing to do with DR except in how they impact the above. (For example, ND filters might require a higher ISO to maintain shutter speed and f-stop. Higher ISO would "reduce" the system DR capabilities.)
If I had to batch process a ton of images, all captured in a high-DR condition (outdoors, full sunlight, bright conditions, for example) I would be very careful to protect important highlights from getting blown and shoot in RAW format.
In post-processing (ACR), I would choose a suitable white balance and tint, process as neutral Exposure, very low Contrast, boost both Clarity and Vibrance, controlling the basic appearance with Recovery, Fill Light and Brightness. I would also add a highlight "knee" curve to the "Tone Curve - Point" to help protect the highest highlights even more.
Most of the settings could be saved as a custom Setting and recalled, or even saved as Default Settings. The resulting processed image would be saved as a 16 bit TIFF.
Then the TIFFs would be sorted by basic attributes and brought into PhotoShop as groups. Each group would have a custom action to adjust according to the attributes of the group and custom curves/levels and tonal adjustments and sharpening applied, and finally reduced to 8 bit sRGB. The output would be high-quality JPGs.
Good suggestion. I was coming to this, but ziggy you worded it very well. ND grads are primarily used by Landscapers to control the sky at a set position in the scene. I use soft edge grads, that I position usually when I set up in the spot, and then pretty much leave it alone, unless I am clipping due to drastic/sudden lighting changes (sun coming above the horizon, or from behind a cloud). So I'm not saying you couldn't use grads, but I would suggest a weak (1stop, 2 at the most) or less, and using an apeture priority mode with a 1/3 stop of exposure comp taken out). I suggest this, since presume that you are shooting handheld most of the time, and recompose a lot, either high angle or low angle, so you would have to babysit your grad a bit more. The grads are meant to control a portion of the scene, so if subject falls into the grad "line", it could yield the subject underexposed if you aren't metering off of it. Not sure if this helps. Have you tried using a polarizer? This can help mid-day skies, and contrast control a lot. It will not polarize or cut reflection from metal though, as that is un-polarized light.
Good suggestion. I was coming to this, but ziggy you worded it very well. ND grads are primarily used by Landscapers to control the sky at a set position in the scene. I use soft edge grads, that I position usually when I set up in the spot, and then pretty much leave it alone, unless I am clipping due to drastic/sudden lighting changes (sun coming above the horizon, or from behind a cloud). So I'm not saying you couldn't use grads, but I would suggest a weak (1stop, 2 at the most) or less, and using an apeture priority mode with a 1/3 stop of exposure comp taken out). I suggest this, since presume that you are shooting handheld most of the time, and recompose a lot, either high angle or low angle, so you would have to babysit your grad a bit more. The grads are meant to control a portion of the scene, so if subject falls into the grad "line", it could yield the subject underexposed if you aren't metering off of it. Not sure if this helps. Have you tried using a polarizer? This can help mid-day skies, and contrast control a lot. It will not polarize or cut reflection from metal though, as that is un-polarized light.
Thank you for the suggestions. The more I've read on what makes up the dynamic range of a camera, the more it seems my equipment may be more of a factor than anything. Smaller sensors, consumer a/d chips, and the like will plague almost any efforts to effectively capture a highly contrasted scene. :cry Unfortunately, this is all I have and all I can afford. These cameras are running on over 100k+ shutter actuations now, so the sensors may also be wearing out and reducing the effective dynamic range.
I'll have to rent a 1-2 stop ND filter and try shooting with -1/3 next season. I have a Hoya circular polarizer, but it does very little for scenes like this. I mainly use it to remove glare when shooting through glass at a subject.
Thank you for the suggestions. The more I've read on what makes up the dynamic range of a camera, the more it seems my equipment may be more of a factor than anything. Smaller sensors, consumer a/d chips, and the like will plague almost any efforts to effectively capture a highly contrasted scene. :cry Unfortunately, this is all I have and all I can afford. These cameras are running on over 100k+ shutter actuations now, so the sensors may also be wearing out and reducing the effective dynamic range.
I'll have to rent a 1-2 stop ND filter and try shooting with -1/3 next season. I have a Hoya circular polarizer, but it does very little for scenes like this. I mainly use it to remove glare when shooting through glass at a subject.
As you say, the camera body will affect DR performance, but this is only partly what you are talking about. You are also talking about tricky light situations, and it's what you do that counts most here, both in capture and PP.
As you say, the camera body will affect DR performance, but this is only partly what you are talking about. You are also talking about tricky light situations, and it's what you do that counts most here, both in capture and PP.
Seems to me.
Neil
I've actually been studying light meters and how the in-camera ones work as opposed to external ones. A better solution might just be a hand-held light meter that can give me better exposure settings.
As you say, the camera body will affect DR performance, but this is only partly what you are talking about. You are also talking about tricky light situations, and it's what you do that counts most here, both in capture and PP.
Seems to me.
Neil
This.
I'll try not to put this to bluntly. Gimme a Hassleblad Digital MF camera, and I will still mess a shot up if I don't expose or adjust settings to optimize exposure, and then make proper changes in post to optimize the shot when I develop. So equipment I tend to think is less of the equation. All that stuff helps, but here is the deal, a majority of it is the photographer, and how well he knows the equipment, and how to employ what he is dealt for equipment. I also look at it this way, sometimes you can't compensate for bad light, but there are techniques to help that...Tried minor HDR's at all? Also are you shooting RAW? It makes a huge difference.
I'll try not to put this to bluntly. Gimme a Hassleblad Digital MF camera, and I will still mess a shot up if I don't expose or adjust settings to optimize exposure, and then make proper changes in post to optimize the shot when I develop. So equipment I tend to think is less of the equation. All that stuff helps, but here is the deal, a majority of it is the photographer, and how well he knows the equipment, and how to employ what he is dealt for equipment. I also look at it this way, sometimes you can't compensate for bad light, but there are techniques to help that...Tried minor HDR's at all? Also are you shooting RAW? It makes a huge difference.
-Andy
That's not too blunt, it's pretty true, I think. You are agreeing with me, right?
I've actually been studying light meters and how the in-camera ones work as opposed to external ones. A better solution might just be a hand-held light meter that can give me better exposure settings.
A lot of serious guys use light meters and in a situation where the light is tricky and you have time to use one you might get better exposure that way, as you say. I still think, though, that some PP work would be necessary. As you said before, you usually batch process a large number photos at a time, so you are between a rock and a hard place. How do your photos print? Do you find you are dissatisfied with the dynamic range in the prints?
A lot of serious guys use light meters and in a situation where the light is tricky and you have time to use one you might get better exposure that way, as you say. I still think, though, that some PP work would be necessary. As you said before, you usually batch process a large number photos at a time, so you are between a rock and a hard place. How do your photos print? Do you find you are dissatisfied with the dynamic range in the prints?
When I batch process images, that actually involves just uploading them and culling them before publishing them. Shots like that aren't perfect are simply thrown away since I have so many others, but I'm always looking for ways to make my percentage of keepers 100%.
I'm glad I posted in this thread as the information here has led me to understanding how I can push the limits of my cheap equipment even further. A light meter is cheaper than a good dslr rig any day.
When I batch process images, that actually involves just uploading them and culling them before publishing them. Shots like that aren't perfect are simply thrown away since I have so many others, but I'm always looking for ways to make my percentage of keepers 100%.
I'm glad I posted in this thread as the information here has led me to understanding how I can push the limits of my cheap equipment even further. A light meter is cheaper than a good dslr rig any day.
I would challenge you to find any photographer whose gets 100% keepers. Here is the great thing about digital, you can keep shooting. I still shoot film, and that takes me back, and makes me think when I do it. I have to think a lot harder about how I set-up the camera prior to the shot, or I am wasting the limited number of frames I have to shoot based on what I can afford, and brought with me. I do use a light meter when I shoot with my old Mamiya M645, as it isn't metered. Digitial has let me experiment much more than I used to be able to. When you are shooting Kodachrome, or Velvia, you can't experiment (you can but is costs $$). So what it boils down to, digital has made me a better photographer, because I shoot more now. It lets me experiement, and lets me learn things that I can repeat, and then remember how to do it again, when it comes time to shoot film. So don't look at it as failing, just because every shot isn't a keeper. What it is, is learning your equipment's limitations, and then using that to your advantage. Yes filters can help this, but I think in this case, ND grads might not be so great, but I could be wrong, and there is nothing keeping you from trying it. If it doesn't work out, there are always people looking to buy them. So what I am saying, is try different settings, until you find something that works. Then once you have it, store those settings, either in the camera, or in your memory. Then you can use it when needed. And the more you shoot, the more you will be able to adapt to different conditions everytime.
I would challenge you to find any photographer whose gets 100% keepers. Here is the great thing about digital, you can keep shooting. I still shoot film, and that takes me back, and makes me think when I do it. I have to think a lot harder about how I set-up the camera prior to the shot, or I am wasting the limited number of frames I have to shoot based on what I can afford, and brought with me. I do use a light meter when I shoot with my old Mamiya M645, as it isn't metered. Digitial has let me experiment much more than I used to be able to. When you are shooting Kodachrome, or Velvia, you can't experiment (you can but is costs $$). So what it boils down to, digital has made me a better photographer, because I shoot more now. It lets me experiement, and lets me learn things that I can repeat, and then remember how to do it again, when it comes time to shoot film. So don't look at it as failing, just because every shot isn't a keeper. What it is, is learning your equipment's limitations, and then using that to your advantage. Yes filters can help this, but I think in this case, ND grads might not be so great, but I could be wrong, and there is nothing keeping you from trying it. If it doesn't work out, there are always people looking to buy them. So what I am saying, is try different settings, until you find something that works. Then once you have it, store those settings, either in the camera, or in your memory. Then you can use it when needed. And the more you shoot, the more you will be able to adapt to different conditions everytime.
I'm usually above 90% on my keepers. But as you have stated, it has come with practice. Each of my cameras have over 100k images taken. I've shot over 300k images since I picked up a digital camera in 2002. The number of film rolls probably means I've shot another thousand or so in my lifetime, but those are just a small percentage and were with fully automatic settings.
Unfortunately, I know almost the bleeding edge of the limits of all my equipment--which one not to use in the dark, which one for fast action, which for the sharpest images, which for continuous shooting, which for shutter lag, etc, etc. But as I strive to overcome the limits of the equipment, I find that I must overcome the limits of my own knowledge--I must learn.
And learn I did. I think a light meter will be a wise purchase. Not only for the tricky shots to set exposure on like in the examples, but also for paid shoots where exposure must be perfect and even more is at stake.
Thank you again for all the feedback. I've learned about ND filters, about PP techniques, and light meters.
While I think a meter is a great accessory to have, I also think you can learn to use your camera's meter to better meter difficult conditions as well. Depending on what you're shooting, this might be a better choice.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
While I think a meter is a great accessory to have, I also think you can learn to use your camera's meter to better meter difficult conditions as well. Depending on what you're shooting, this might be a better choice.
Since I don't have any cash to burn on equipment, I was also going to study histograms on each camera for current and past images. Two of my cameras have live histograms and I need to start relying on them vs the picture on the screen in front of me. More studying to do...
This was a great thread regarding ND & GND's!!! I have one question: has anyone compared the Hitech filters to the more expensive Lee filters? I'm planning on purchasing some over the next few days - Thanks!
Travis M. Chance
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass site ∙ facebook
This was a great thread regarding ND & GND's!!! I have one question: has anyone compared the Hitech filters to the more expensive Lee filters?
I can't give you a comparison between hitech and Lee, just wanted to throw in another option.
I have been using the Galen Rowell Graduated ND filters and the Reverse Graduated ND filters from www.singh-ray.com, and I have been very happy with both of them. In both cases I am using the version that fits in a Cokin P holder.
B&H sometimes has these filters in stock, but I usually have needed to get them from Singh-Ray directly. Singh-Ray does not sell the Cokin P holder though - I've been getting the holder and the adapter rings from B&H.
Thanks Denise. The SR filters are really on the expensive side though. I have a Cokin P system now and it's been tough at times when I used my 16-35L and not so much with the 24-105L. I'm pretty much sold on the Cokin Z and 4x6 filters (since my fingers have shown up in the Cokin P when handheld).
Travis M. Chance
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass site ∙ facebook
Comments
I think it will work at other angles, but the effect will be the most profound (almost dark) when the light wavelengths are 180 degrees out from each other, thus causing a cancelation. At least that is the way I understand it, and light waves work the same way mostly as sound waves, which is what I deal with every day. In the sound world we call it Lloyds Mirror Effect. Which basically states that if two different paths of sound arrive at the same time 180 degrees out of phase, there will be a null (an almost black viewfinder). If they are arriving at the same time but not entirely out of phase, there will be a reinforcement. So the 45, 90 135 etc. should be the reinforcement (visable light and a direct effect on EV). What I would like to see is different shots, showing the different angles off of each other. If you do this, try it, and post results. If anyone has a different opinion of what's occuring, please speak up. The two different paths of light in this case are the direct light in the scene, and reflected light (Direct Path sound and Bottom Bounce or Surface Bounce noise in the SONAR world)
-Andy
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=PTWpSv2KGYrBlAf73uXeBg&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=crossed+polarizers&spell=1
For a photographic application I would suggest that 2 attributes may prevent the method from being the best method for a neutral density application:
1) Color purity. Crossed polarizers may induce undesirable coloration. (Blue tonality is common with typical crossed polarization filters.)
2) Birefringence effects. Since polarization is caused by transmission through a crystalline structure, transmission through multiple layers can cause a necessary reduction in image quality. Whether the resulting IQ is sufficient to your needs is entirely subjective.
Ultimately, I think that standard ND filters retain more image quality and offer the best combination of usefulness for general photography.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Top shelf post, thank you very much! It answered a lot of questions I had
Getting started on DGrin? Go here first!
Contact a Support Hero: http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/emails/new
Would you guys mind stickiing this? It might help out a lot of people, as I can answer questions about ND's right here.
Or add it to this "Threads of Note" thread: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=52429
-Andy
Many times when shooting vehicles on bright, hot, sunny days, there's so much dynamic range that my cheap cameras can't take it. I can force them to properly expose the vehicle, but then sometimes the background is completely overexposed. Other times, the foreground is underexposed. Here's some examples:
Would a ND filter (not a GND) help these shooting situations? How many f-stops worth would I really need? My cameras will top out at f8, so I'm guessing at least two f-stops would help.
Any feedback appreciated.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
I'm gonna say no that a ND won't fix this. It seems to be a subject of metering from what you describe. In all the cases you described, and showed photos for, the car is mostly the brightest object in the shot, and I would be you are metering off of it. If you meter off of the brightest object, if the rest of the scene is very dark overall, the camera will underexpose, since it will meter to get the really bright "thing" correct, leaving the "darker" rest of the scene underexposed. I am not an expert with car or portrait photography, so someone else will probably have to chime in here and help out. You might want to spot meter off the background, or whatever the darkest thing is, then spot meter off the brightest object, and then pick a shutter speed in between the two meter readings. Although the pictures you posted, look just fine to me.
-Andy
The first picture is a good example of a cold spot. Because the car is so dark and the sky is so bright. The best metering without blowing out the sky made the car dark.
In the second picture, the doors of the vehicle were slightly blown out because of the strong contrast between the fenders and the doors.
In the third and fourth, both the cars were used as the metering source since a full scene metering would blow out the car since they were so bright from the intensity of the sun.
I'm curious if ND filters can actually improve this lack of dynamic range in my cameras. A Canon 1d would solve the problem, but would also inflict a problem on my wallet. :cry
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Think about what an ND filter is and what it does--you'll have your answer.
You are working with very bright and very dark exposures. I'm going suggest shooting in manual mode and setting the exposure using a gray card or the green grass.
Camera meters are often 'fooled' by such extremes and setting the exposure using the constant of a gray card should help a lot.
I don't think any camera alone is going to give you perfect results SOOC with tricky lighting. If you autobracket exposures, there are PP techniques which can improve dynamic range. I don't mean HDR. There is one I don't quite remember where you autobracket, and then in PS blend using Layers and Apply Image. If anyone knows this technique I'd be very happy of a reminder or link for all the details!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Just make two exposures. One for the dark and one for the light. Load both images into PS as layers. Then use the quick mask feature to paint away in the areas that need it.
If you wanted, you could use a tripod and the same technique for as many layers as you might need. But at that point, you might as well just HDR it
Appreciate that Ian.
I have just figured out the technique I was thinking of -
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=151647
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I don't do any PP due to volume. It's typical for me to have to process a batch of 2000 pieces of media and publish them in under 48hrs. This includes the many hours of upload time.
From my understanding, a ND filter simply limits overall light to a scene in the same way using a much higher f-stop may. Hypothetically speaking, if it was possible for me to shoot with a higher f-stop vs an ND filter, would I be able to gain more dynamic range?
I'm learning here, so I appreciate the feedback.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Dynamic range is almost entirely under the domain of:
Lighting
Imager
ISO and in-camera processing
Post-processing
The lens and filters have almost nothing to do with DR except in how they impact the above. (For example, ND filters might require a higher ISO to maintain shutter speed and f-stop. Higher ISO would "reduce" the system DR capabilities.)
If I had to batch process a ton of images, all captured in a high-DR condition (outdoors, full sunlight, bright conditions, for example) I would be very careful to protect important highlights from getting blown and shoot in RAW format.
In post-processing (ACR), I would choose a suitable white balance and tint, process as neutral Exposure, very low Contrast, boost both Clarity and Vibrance, controlling the basic appearance with Recovery, Fill Light and Brightness. I would also add a highlight "knee" curve to the "Tone Curve - Point" to help protect the highest highlights even more.
Most of the settings could be saved as a custom Setting and recalled, or even saved as Default Settings. The resulting processed image would be saved as a 16 bit TIFF.
Then the TIFFs would be sorted by basic attributes and brought into PhotoShop as groups. Each group would have a custom action to adjust according to the attributes of the group and custom curves/levels and tonal adjustments and sharpening applied, and finally reduced to 8 bit sRGB. The output would be high-quality JPGs.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Good suggestion. I was coming to this, but ziggy you worded it very well. ND grads are primarily used by Landscapers to control the sky at a set position in the scene. I use soft edge grads, that I position usually when I set up in the spot, and then pretty much leave it alone, unless I am clipping due to drastic/sudden lighting changes (sun coming above the horizon, or from behind a cloud). So I'm not saying you couldn't use grads, but I would suggest a weak (1stop, 2 at the most) or less, and using an apeture priority mode with a 1/3 stop of exposure comp taken out). I suggest this, since presume that you are shooting handheld most of the time, and recompose a lot, either high angle or low angle, so you would have to babysit your grad a bit more. The grads are meant to control a portion of the scene, so if subject falls into the grad "line", it could yield the subject underexposed if you aren't metering off of it. Not sure if this helps. Have you tried using a polarizer? This can help mid-day skies, and contrast control a lot. It will not polarize or cut reflection from metal though, as that is un-polarized light.
-Andy
I'll have to rent a 1-2 stop ND filter and try shooting with -1/3 next season. I have a Hoya circular polarizer, but it does very little for scenes like this. I mainly use it to remove glare when shooting through glass at a subject.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
As you say, the camera body will affect DR performance, but this is only partly what you are talking about. You are also talking about tricky light situations, and it's what you do that counts most here, both in capture and PP.
Seems to me.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
This.
I'll try not to put this to bluntly. Gimme a Hassleblad Digital MF camera, and I will still mess a shot up if I don't expose or adjust settings to optimize exposure, and then make proper changes in post to optimize the shot when I develop. So equipment I tend to think is less of the equation. All that stuff helps, but here is the deal, a majority of it is the photographer, and how well he knows the equipment, and how to employ what he is dealt for equipment. I also look at it this way, sometimes you can't compensate for bad light, but there are techniques to help that...Tried minor HDR's at all? Also are you shooting RAW? It makes a huge difference.
-Andy
That's not too blunt, it's pretty true, I think. You are agreeing with me, right?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
A lot of serious guys use light meters and in a situation where the light is tricky and you have time to use one you might get better exposure that way, as you say. I still think, though, that some PP work would be necessary. As you said before, you usually batch process a large number photos at a time, so you are between a rock and a hard place. How do your photos print? Do you find you are dissatisfied with the dynamic range in the prints?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I'm glad I posted in this thread as the information here has led me to understanding how I can push the limits of my cheap equipment even further. A light meter is cheaper than a good dslr rig any day.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Yes.
I would challenge you to find any photographer whose gets 100% keepers. Here is the great thing about digital, you can keep shooting. I still shoot film, and that takes me back, and makes me think when I do it. I have to think a lot harder about how I set-up the camera prior to the shot, or I am wasting the limited number of frames I have to shoot based on what I can afford, and brought with me. I do use a light meter when I shoot with my old Mamiya M645, as it isn't metered. Digitial has let me experiment much more than I used to be able to. When you are shooting Kodachrome, or Velvia, you can't experiment (you can but is costs $$). So what it boils down to, digital has made me a better photographer, because I shoot more now. It lets me experiement, and lets me learn things that I can repeat, and then remember how to do it again, when it comes time to shoot film. So don't look at it as failing, just because every shot isn't a keeper. What it is, is learning your equipment's limitations, and then using that to your advantage. Yes filters can help this, but I think in this case, ND grads might not be so great, but I could be wrong, and there is nothing keeping you from trying it. If it doesn't work out, there are always people looking to buy them. So what I am saying, is try different settings, until you find something that works. Then once you have it, store those settings, either in the camera, or in your memory. Then you can use it when needed. And the more you shoot, the more you will be able to adapt to different conditions everytime.
-Andy
Unfortunately, I know almost the bleeding edge of the limits of all my equipment--which one not to use in the dark, which one for fast action, which for the sharpest images, which for continuous shooting, which for shutter lag, etc, etc. But as I strive to overcome the limits of the equipment, I find that I must overcome the limits of my own knowledge--I must learn.
And learn I did. I think a light meter will be a wise purchase. Not only for the tricky shots to set exposure on like in the examples, but also for paid shoots where exposure must be perfect and even more is at stake.
Thank you again for all the feedback. I've learned about ND filters, about PP techniques, and light meters.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass
site ∙ facebook
I have been using the Galen Rowell Graduated ND filters and the Reverse Graduated ND filters from www.singh-ray.com, and I have been very happy with both of them. In both cases I am using the version that fits in a Cokin P holder.
B&H sometimes has these filters in stock, but I usually have needed to get them from Singh-Ray directly. Singh-Ray does not sell the Cokin P holder though - I've been getting the holder and the adapter rings from B&H.
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass
site ∙ facebook
I'm in the LEE filter category (same ones that fit a Cokin P type holder). Been very happy so far.