Options
HDR vs Graduated Filter:: Your Thoughts?
SimplyShane
Registered Users Posts: 153 Major grins
The topic says it all.
I've been doing LOTS of research on the issue of dynamic range and have found out that digital cameras simply *don't* have enough flexibility to capture the lightest of light and the darkest of dark in most landscape scenarios. (Film is better in this regard...or so the research says.)
However, that matters not, since I use a cheap Canon DSLR (Rebel XS).
So, I've been looking for ways around this and these two methods seem like the best solution.
However, each has its flaws. HDR requires the scene to be *absolutely still." Strange artifacts can occur when your images don't line up exactly.
Graduated Filters, on the other hand, are rather messy and can be hard to use apparently. Furthermore, it usually requires a flat horizon line. Otherwise, the effect darkens the tops of mountains and whatever else lies in its path.
I *have* heard that if you shoot RAW (Which I do), it may be possible to use two different exposures from a single file and try to mimic (to a lesser degree) the effect of full-blown HDR through masking in Photoshop. That really interests me because it would solve the "movement" issue... Granted, i'm sure noise would become a problem, but I *do* have Topaz De-Noise, and it can work miracles when used properly.
The bottom line is this:: Do I need a Graduated Filter for use in digital photography? (Assuming one has Photoshop and/or HDR software.)
I've been stressing out BIG TIME over this and I need some advice. This site has been magnificent so far... You guys are really amazing. Hopefully I can get some direction here. Right now I am filter-less and am very confused as to what to buy...:dunno
I've been doing LOTS of research on the issue of dynamic range and have found out that digital cameras simply *don't* have enough flexibility to capture the lightest of light and the darkest of dark in most landscape scenarios. (Film is better in this regard...or so the research says.)
However, that matters not, since I use a cheap Canon DSLR (Rebel XS).
So, I've been looking for ways around this and these two methods seem like the best solution.
However, each has its flaws. HDR requires the scene to be *absolutely still." Strange artifacts can occur when your images don't line up exactly.
Graduated Filters, on the other hand, are rather messy and can be hard to use apparently. Furthermore, it usually requires a flat horizon line. Otherwise, the effect darkens the tops of mountains and whatever else lies in its path.
I *have* heard that if you shoot RAW (Which I do), it may be possible to use two different exposures from a single file and try to mimic (to a lesser degree) the effect of full-blown HDR through masking in Photoshop. That really interests me because it would solve the "movement" issue... Granted, i'm sure noise would become a problem, but I *do* have Topaz De-Noise, and it can work miracles when used properly.
The bottom line is this:: Do I need a Graduated Filter for use in digital photography? (Assuming one has Photoshop and/or HDR software.)
I've been stressing out BIG TIME over this and I need some advice. This site has been magnificent so far... You guys are really amazing. Hopefully I can get some direction here. Right now I am filter-less and am very confused as to what to buy...:dunno
0
Comments
i shoot one RAW , no filter
in lightroom i change exposure 4 times [ -4 , -2 , +2 and +4 ] [ 0 allready exists ]
and save as TIFF [ TIFF holds more info than JPG]
not as good as bracketing , but it works
btw
i like "Three Orange Lights" .
/ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
1. Try to get it as good as you can in the camera. That often means using a GND as well as bracketing your exposures.
2. If you don't get the full dynamic range in camera, you can blend two or more exposures in PS
or
3. You can blend exposures in software like Photomatix.
Lots of discussion on this topic and the pros and cons of each. I personally do all of the above, and find that each has it's merits. #1 is the best choice if you can achieve it. I use a Singhray 3 stop soft gnd filter and have no problem hand holding it against my lens.
Dan
http://danielplumer.com/
Facebook Fan Page
I have found a way to increase the Dynamic Range of a single RAW shot. I use a Tiffen #3 Ultra Contrast Filter. It uses ambient light (outside of the framed picture) to brighten the shadows. Sounds like a joke, but it really works and Tiffen got an technical award from the film industry for it. In effect, it compresses the Dynamic Range to fit more closely the DR of the camera sensor. Once I get the RAW shot exposed correctly (ETTR) without blowing the highlights, I use Adobe Lightroom to create under and over exposed versions (usually 5 to 7 copies from -4 (-2) EV to +2 EV with the properly exposed shot my EV 0 anchor. I combine them with Dynamic Photo HDR (since it a single shot with 5 to 7 exposures, there is no need to align them). I then tonemap using the Smooth Compressor option. The final file (in 16 bit TIF) is then adjusted for curves in Paint.NET. Works very well. It is not as good as 5 to 7 shots, but it is much better than an in camera jpg or RAW. I would rate it about 90% versus 100% for a multiple shot versus. Additionally you have a sharper shot with no movement from shot to shot (like leaves blowing, people moving, etc).
basfit and dlplumer pretty much covered it top to bottom.........as to tripod shooting and lineing up (stacking exposures)...if your shooting on a pod and not able to line up the shots, then something is wrong.....either the pod is not truly stable or your wriggling the cam during exposure....do some tst shooting in doors with the pod using the self timer on like 10 seconds without flash on a long exposure (15 - 30 seconds)....no walking around the pod...keep everyone in the house still for a couple of test shots...look at them at full size and see if there is any movement...if not pod is good...then it is your pushing of the shutter that is moving the camera.......an inexpensive trigger release can do the trick.....I bought mine off ebay for less than $20 including shipping from china and they work like a charm........Good Luck
It is true that negative/print film and typical processing has excellent latitude and DR that exceeds a typical digital camera, however you typically either select a smaller DR subset of that available from the film or you compress the tones into the lesser range available in the print process. Since the typical use of the DR is simply to select a subset of available DR, that means that negative/print film allows looser control of exposure. It takes both specialized technique and specialized processing to compress the available DR and tones and make the resulting print look like a natural tone distribution. (Digital scanning allows multiple passes at different exposures, for example, and provides a similar experience and opportunity to acquiring multiple digital images with a digital camera. Negative/print film can have up to 12 stops of DR.)
According to Norman Koren photographic print media can represent 5-7 stops of information.
http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html (Located under "Exposure".)
Typical high-quality monitors can have up to 8 stops of DR, but the cheap 6 bit LCD monitors are much, much less.
In reversal/slide film and process the DR is typically more restricted and similar to digital, with slide DR of around 7 stops. Slide film also has more similar contrast compared to digital camera images.
The FujiFilm S5 has a special mode that allows single image acquisition with up to 11.8 stops of DR. This is amazing but it does require massaging that available DR back into the usable range of the desired distribution system, print or monitor viewing, for example. The S5 images also lack contrast and contrast has to be added in processing to make the images look "natural".
Bottom line is that daylight scenes can contain more dynamic range than even the best digital cameras and film can record, but the presentation systems are still the limiting factor in most cases and require either selecting a DR subset or compressing/remapping the tones for distribution.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Yes, it is perfectly acceptable to use graduated ND filters as appropriate. No, it does not cover all situations and circumstances.
It is even sometimes applicable to "invert" the graduated ND filter as described here in the caption for the top image:
http://www.bythom.com/filters.htm
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Here are a couple sample trial images:
1) For this sunrise shot, I wanted a clean break at the horizon where the light was brightest and then to taper off towards the top of the frame where the light was darker, so I flipped the grad ND panel upside down and put the hard edge on the horizon line with the transition heading towards the top:
2)
I missed the light on this sunset shot almost completely - the grass pasture was almost void of color at all when I used the camera's meter for the sky. For this shot, I stagger-stacked two grad ND panels and a 1/6 sec exsposure which made for light foreground to a eventual transition to the horizon and then up into the clouds.
I am looking forward to playing around with this idea a bit more when I am not as rushed.
Depends on the film, paper, and sensor.
Phase One is claiming 12.5 stops of DR on their P 65+ digital backs.
At a starting price of $39,900/back.......That is a whole different world than what the OP is working in........
Why does it have to be one or the other? Both are useful at times, whether separate or combined.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I tend to agree with pathfinder that aim high and start to use NDG and HDR as a full solution, not just one or the other.
I have quickly understood that pro's like "Stuck in Customs" are dedicated to striving for perfection and using "all the tools in the tool box"
I have only started in the world of HDR and have learned a lot from trial and error, the best advice would be to get a decent tripod and bracket your photos
The second advice would be to invest in a Photomatix Pro software as this will make your life a little easier and you will see some direct results for your efforts.
I’m not sure if your camera does bracketing, however if not the multiple exposures of the same can be achieved by the old cheating method in Photoshop or Lightroom.
I hope my 2 cents worth has been some help and be sure to post your images as good CC can help you to end up with outstanding images.
More than happy to put my images up for CC, just remember that i am no expert either and started just as you have ;p
Regards
Chris
www.sinclairjonesphotography.com
Photomatrix is HDR software that will automatically(if you choose) line up images for you. I use to ALWAYS carry around a tripod for HDR shots and now I never have to. It is pretty much flawless alignment. In most cases, it will also take care of the issue of moving "things" in your shots. IT WORKS. I have done HDR images of a riverfront with barges moving down the river and they turned out great!
This shot is 3 hand held exposures and has PERFECT alignment as you can see.