PS Gradients vs.Graduated Filters

[Kirk Gittings]

I keep running across references by other photographers about their continuing use of graduated filters for either digital capture or film capture that is intended for scanning.

I quit using graduated filters when I started capturing for digital printing, because I found I had so much more creative control with gradients in PS. When capturing for digital presentation or printing, what does a graduated filter do that can't be done better with a gradient in PS? Am I missing something?

[Sheldon N]

I've found that sometimes a graduated filter can help reduce lens flare by holding back the brightness level reaching the internal lens optics. Shooting bracketed exposures I often see haze or flare from the bright part of the image creeping into the darker part of the images.

However, I'm still doing the blended exposure thing in PS for a lot of my digital images.

The first image on my Flickr page ("Crashing Cape", link below) is done with digital blending instead of a graduated filter. I had to darken up the top right rocks because of flare coming in from the sky on the foreground exposure.

[vinny]

I'm not that well versed in PS but lost detail in a transparency due to overexposure can't be created in a computer. That's why I use them. I like to spend the least amount of time at the computer as possible when it comes to photography.

[Joanna Carter]

If you are trying to make an image of a scene that holds more brightness range than the digital sensor can cope with (typically around 6 stops) then you still need to use a grad filter to ensure that the 10 or so stops gets captured. If it ain't on the image, Photoshop can't rescue it :D

[Kirk Gittings]

In terms of Dynamic Range issues, again I believe there are better (with more creative control) ways to compress it in PS by blending exposures (though with B&W I still rely on exposure/development controls) than using a graduated filter.

[Eric Leppanen]

Here is Hasselblad digital shooter Elizabeth Carmel's opinion on this general subject (some of her most recent posts re HDR may also be interesting):

http://ecarmel.typepad.com/elizabeth_carmels_photogr/2007/03/split_nd_filter.html

[dwhistance]

I think the answer to this question really depends upon whether you are using film or digital capture and if film whether it is a negative or positive film.

With digital capture I would always tend to use multiple captures and HDR/Photoshop techniques rather than a graduated filter. Similarly with negative film (either colour or B&W) providing the dynamic range of the scene can be captured on the film.

With positive film and negative film with scenes of very high dynamic range I tend to reach for my graduated filters. As I noted in one of the other threads I have occasionally resorted to using two exposures and merging them, however I find this process much more frustrating than the digital equivalent, mainly because there is always a slight movement between frames as a result of changing films which upsets the automated processing routines.

David Whistance

[Bill L.]

If you're trying to extend the dynamic range, blended images or HDR is probably better than using gradients in PS. If it is a close call, auto-blending (raw conversion for shadows and for highlights, then blend) can work well. The disadvantage to multiple exposures blended is for moving subjects (e.g. trees blowing in the wind) - then you get motion artifact in the blended image that can be very tedious to deal with. Under such circumstances, I still use GND filters.

Cheers!
Bill

[Daniel_Buck]

I've not read the rest of the replies, so this may have already been stated.

If you have a blown out highlight, a gradient in PS isn't going to recover any detail, you can make that highlight darker, but you won't pull any more detail from it, it'll still look flat and clipped (but darker). The best way I've come across (both digital capture, and film captured scanned), is to shoot the scene exposed for what you want the main part of the scene to be, and then shoot the scene exposed a few stops down to get your sky with full detail, and then gradient them together in photoshop. This *should* look pretty close to what an actual grad filter in front of the lens does, since you'll gain detail back, and you'll be able to adjust it both the length of the grad, the curve of the grad, and the intensity of your grad.

Personally, I don't like most of the "HDR tonemapped" images, they usually look way to wild, with halos and ringing around the highlights and shadows, plus the colors sometimes look like they go funky too. A simple gradient blending between two exposures (or maybe a little brushing in a few areas) usually looks way more natural to me :-)

[Joanna Carter]

In terms of Dynamic Range issues, again I believe there are better (with more creative control) ways to compress it in PS by blending exposures (though with B&W I still rely on exposure/development controls) than using a graduated filter.
Multiple exposures are all well and good, provided there is nothing on the image that is likely to move. However, if you take a shot like this :

http://grandes-images.com/en/Landscape/Pages/Yorkshire_Dales_files/Media/Ribblehead/Ribblehead.jpg

... then you really have no choice than to use a grad filter.

But then, in this shot :

http://grandes-images.com/en/Landscape/Pages/Lancashire_files/Media/ViewFromHornbyBridge/ViewFromHornbyBridge.jpg

... the white water in the centre of the weir and shadows under the trees were both out of range. So I took three shots, one average and one each exposed for the highlights and shadows. It was then a job of subtly blending small sections from the appropriate tranny to "cover" the offending areas.

I suppose you could call it HDR but, as others have said, most attempts at digital HDR images seem to be more art than photography, with that peculiar feeling that the shadows are just as bright as the highlights and those mysterious halos all over the place. When I am shooting LF, most of the time I don't need to resort to multiple exposures, it is simply a case of choosing the appropriate film for the lighting conditions.

As for B&W film, there should be much less need for grad filters or even HDR. This last shot encompasses over 12 stops range and yet, with judicious exposure and development, is perfectly rendered.

http://grandes-images.com/en/Heritage_%26_Restoration_files/Media/OakworthStationMastersOffice/OakworthStationMastersOffice.jpg

[Larry Menzin]

Joanna,

The clouds on the right side of your first shot have a magenta cast to them. Is this due to the grad filter? I'm finding that even with the best glass grads, I'm getting this sort of cast, even with 8x10 film.

[Joanna Carter]

The clouds on the right side of your first shot have a magenta cast to them. Is this due to the grad filter? I'm finding that even with the best glass grads, I'm getting this sort of cast, even with 8x10 film.
This is mostly due to the prevailing low light reflecting off the storm clouds. I used to use Formatt filters because they were very well balanced and much less expensive than Lee, but recently, I have noticed that Formatt seem to be drifting towards very poor colour balance, so I would now recommend Lee resin filters, despite their prices.

Magenta casts can also be caused by the pH of the colour developer being slightly off, check with your lab.

[Ed Richards]

Joanna,

The desk picture is great!

Kirk,

Fast moving clouds where you want to capture detail in the cloud and detail in a darkened foreground would be my only use. What I have found is that I almost never take a picture with a flat enough horizon to use a grad, there is always something important sticking up in the cloud space. I just stick with a zone system modified for scanning as you do for black and white. I have not used HDR in digital yet because I still relegate digital to stuff that moves.