Split Grad Filter or Photoshop?

Tiziano

I follow this blog here and in one of the latest posts Moose talks about using a split grad filter. Part of the post flat out says that one could not achieve the effect he did unless it was on capture (ie- not in post). He does not allow comments so I could not but I am wondering what others think of this. It seems to me that shooting in RAW and a judicious use of Photoshop layers or even some Lightroom magic ought to do it.

Also, and this is my reason for posting this here, does anyone know where these filters are available or a substitute? Amazon lists his suggestion as 'unavailable' here.

denisegoldberg

Tiziano wrote:

...does anyone know where these filters are available or a substitute? Amazon lists his suggestion as 'unavailable' here.

I use Singh-Ray graduated neutral density filters - http://www.singh-ray.com/grndgrads.html. I have seen them at B&H but they are not always availalble there. I purchased mine directly from Singh-Ray.

--- Denise

Tiziano

Thanks Denise.

dyuhas

Tiziano wrote:

I follow this blog here and in one of the latest posts Moose talks about using a split grad filter. Part of the post flat out says that one could not achieve the effect he did unless it was on capture (ie- not in post). He does not allow comments so I could not but I am wondering what others think of this. It seems to me that shooting in RAW and a judicious use of Photoshop layers or even some Lightroom magic ought to do it.

Though I prefer to get the shot in the capture, his statement is BS. The only filter that can't be duplicated with digital manipulation is the polarizer when used to eliminate reflections, imho.

Dave

jfriend

dyuhas wrote:

Though I prefer to get the shot in the capture, his statement is BS. The only filter that can't be duplicated with digital manipulation is the polarizer when used to eliminate reflections, imho.

Dave

To duplicate the effect of a split grad used with a high dynamic range shot, you would have to take multiple shots from a steady tripod and then blend them in post processing. Any single shot wouldn't have the dynamic range to capture the whole scene, but it could have the dynamic range to capture it in one shot with the right gradient filter. It depends upon what you think it easier. I do some of each because sometimes it's easier to use the gradient.

The other thing that's difficult to do in post is to appropriately introduce motion blur of something like a waterfall or stream when you can only get a slow enough shutter speed when using an ND filter.

Pick the tool you like. Sometimes I think it's easier or generates a better result to use a filter at capture time.

colourbox

dyuhas wrote:

Though I prefer to get the shot in the capture, his statement is BS. The only filter that can't be duplicated with digital manipulation is the polarizer when used to eliminate reflections, imho.

You can apply the same effect in software, sure. But that does not mean you can achieve the same result. For example, one use of the split ND filter is to be able to put the foreground into a reasonable range of the exposure (e.g., not so dark that it's all noisy when you boost it in post), while preserving the color of the sky. Without an ND filter, you can try exposing for the foreground and applying a graduated filter in software, but chances are the sky details and color in the capture will be blown out with clipped highlights - it will look just terrible - and completely impossible to fix in post without synthetically replacing the sky.

What the graduated ND filter can do is bring down the exposure of the sky in the original capture so that it is not blown out, while the clear bottom part of the filter allows the foreground to be exposed in a way that is not too dark. All of the important tonal details fit within the dynamic range of the sensor, in one shot.

The only other alternative without an ND filter is to merge multiple exposures like jfriend said, but that takes time, processing, and several times the storage space on the card.

angevin1

I love my split ND. It allows me to get the photo and be pretty well contented with it from the capture. It makes exposing for landscapes a cinch! Mine is a Tiffen glass and it was pretty darned cheap form Amazon: <$50 for a 77mm.

astockwell

I religiously use Grads. I agree with Moose almost 100%, amd don't think his comment is BS, and not because I am a Moose faboi. I rarely use the ND filter function in LR2 since I don't think they have perfected it yet. I think there is alot to be said about proper capture in the field. I would rather spend the 30 seconds or whatever it takes to use the filter in the field, and save me several minutes/hours trying to cover the sky with a digital filter in post, and get it to look the way I saw it in reality. You don't even need a big setup. My filter pouch consists of a 2 stop and 3stop grad, and a 3 and 4 stop ND solid, with a holder and rings. Most people could probaby get by on less, but I use the filters for effects also, like motion blur of clouds etc. I have seen numerous posts/comments from pros saying to affect that digital processing is no replacement for proper capture in the field. Bottom line do what you like, but I bet I spend a lot less time in post trying to control the sky than people that are doing it digitally.

-Andy

Tiziano

Thanks all for the advice and opinions.
In the end I've gone down the path of buying a set of grads. I went with Cokin's Z-Pro grad set as I wanted to be able to use them without vignetting on my Tokina 11-17mm. Even though I now own the set I've yet to be able to try them out. Everyday I get the time it's either raining or cloudy.:cry

What made me go for it was some personal logic (as such I may be wrong) as well as the opinions here. It seems to me that in capture RAW data can give some processing leeway in LR2. Would it not make sense that leeway in a non-grad shot would be more or less used up trying to make the grad in post? But, leeway from a grad shot would give one some headroom in post?

Anyway, Cokin has my money and I'm itching to try them out. We're heading to San Diego soon so I think clouds won't be much of an issue.:D