Graduated ND Filter or ND Filter

[TheBigE]

Hello All,

My first (well second after Intro Post) here on the CiC forum

I am trying to decide whether to go with ND Graduated Filter (Lee) or with Regular ND Filter (Hoya). I understand the difference in both, but I really do not know which generally gets more use. It seems to me the Graduated filter allows more flexibility (one can filter only a portion of the image . clouds, sun, etc), however, this adds more complexity and one more thing to work on while taking photos.

Conversely, the regular lens ND Filter (Hoya) just screws on and ready to go. Certainly if I am taking pictures where the full image needs to have the light reduced a number of stops then this makes sense.

While my photography has yet to find a specific area of interest (indoor, outdoor, action, macro, etc), I would like to have something in my bag that gives me options and will be useable from some time to come.

Any thoughts or guidance are welcome. Thanks

[Kodiak]

I really do not know which generally gets more use.

Servus in De!

I got both and wouldn't go without them! The way I understand your dilemma,
the ND Graduated Filter would be your first acquisition. There are many suppliers
offering such solution just study the market before you buy:

The decision power is all yours as long as the money is still in YOUR pocket!

…the Graduated filter allows more flexibility, however, this adds more complexity and one more thing to work on while taking photos…

Na, not really…
Since you're gonna temper with the exposition on part of the take, just
do the reading on the other part! …is a simple recommendation. A better
one is: since you're gonna temper with the exposition on the part of the
take that was too bright, just do the light metering as if the filter was
not there!

Have a good time and viel Gluck!

[TheBigE]

Servus in De!

I got both and wouldn't go without them! The way I understand your dilemma,
the ND Graduated Filter would be your first acquisition. There are many suppliers
offering such solution just study the market before you buy:

The decision power is all yours as long as the money is still in YOUR pocket!



Na, not really…
Since you're gonna temper with the exposition on part of the take, just
do the reading on the other part! …is a simple recommendation. A better
one is: since you're gonna temper with the exposition on the part of the
take that was too bright, just do the light metering as if the filter was
not there!

Have a good time and viel Gluck!

Vielen Dank für die Antwort!

I am not sure what my first acquisition would be at this point. I felt the simple ND filter is a good option and minimal risk on choice. I have heard that Graduated Filters need a bit more care in choosing. Looking in Germany for the brand that I was interested in purchasing (Lee), I was not able to find this brand at my local online store. Perhaps it is somewhere to be found in Germany, and I just need to look more (well at least more past my normal online shop).

They have some other brands (Coklin) and would need to go back to the drawing board and see if this is worth my investment. I agree the power is all mine at the moment, just need to do a bit more research. I would prefer to be one and one with this purchase and have quality from the beginning.

So what situation do you use the graduated and what situation do you use the normal ND filter? Maybe this will also help me decide....thanks!

[Kodiak]

… So what situation do you use the graduated and what situation do you use the normal ND filter? Maybe this will also help me decide....thanks!

Graduated ND Filter: Plates offer better flexibility!
Typical usage is when shooting a scene with clearly defined zone of severe
exposition values differences, i.e. 1.5 to 2 stops and +
Exemple: scene with bright sky and lower key landscape.

ND Filter: Circular screw on type filters are better and cheaper!
Typical usage is when shooting a too bright scene that will force the ISO
setting down, the shutter speed high and the aperture should reflect a
desired narrow DoF.

Do I make sense or I am too obscure? …just tell me!

I think that in most situations, the first would be the one to get; and yes,
you're right, choose the better product… "es wird eine Lebenlange Investition!"

[TheBigE]

Graduated ND Filter: Plates offer better flexibility!
Typical usage is when shooting a scene with clearly defined zone of severe
exposition values differences, i.e. 1.5 to 2 stops and +
Exemple: scene with bright sky and lower key landscape.

ND Filter: Circular screw on type filters are better and cheaper!
Typical usage is when shooting a too bright scene that will force the ISO
setting down, the shutter speed high and the aperture should reflect a
desired narrow DoF.

Do I make sense or I am too obscure? …just tell me!

I think that in most situations, the first would be the one to get; and yes,
you're right, choose the better product… "es wird eine Lebenlange Investition!"

Thanks again, so let me ask yet another question...sorry but have not done all my research.

Can the Graduated ND Filter work in a pinch for the ND Filter? Recently I was shooting water going over a dyke along the Neckar River (see attached photo). The water is running to the west and the sun is setting behind me in the attached photo. I could not get my SS slow enough to ¨freeze¨ the action like I wanted...off I go to do some fact finding to understand why and realise this was where I needed an ND Filter. So this case a ND filter would have been perfect as I need to reduce the brightness a couple of stops to get the required SS, would a Graduated Filter work as well?

[dubaiphil]

Well I have both types and use them in different ways. If I'm shooting in a considered way on a tripod then I'll be using square and rectangular filters (Lee). By adjusting my 3 stop soft grad down I can get total coverage of the image circle and use it as a 3 stop ND filter. I then have a 10 stop which I can use for long exposures.

Circular filters I use more often than not for bright days when I want to use a wider aperture and I'd be close to my 1/8000th shutter speed limit. Using fast lenses for the separation and shallow DoF that they can produce in bright light really needs a 2-3 stop in bright light.

Initially I had a 10 stop circular filter as well which produces excellent results but the workflow is a lot slower when compared to square/rectangular filters.

Circular grad ND filters - I'd avoid them

[Loose Canon]

I could not get my SS slow enough to ¨freeze¨ the action like I wanted...off I go to do some fact finding to understand why and realise this was where I needed an ND Filter. So this case a ND filter would have been perfect as I need to reduce the brightness a couple of stops to get the required SS, would a Graduated Filter work as well?

Erik for "freezing" action you will need a faster shutter rather than slower. A filter would be counterproductive for this.

[Kodiak]

[QUOTE=TheBigE;442145]...sorry but have not done all my research.

Can the Graduated ND Filter work in a pinch for the ND Filter?

I do not understand "in a pinch"!

I could not get my SS slow enough to ¨freeze¨ the action like I wanted...off I go to do some fact finding to understand why and realise this was where I needed an ND Filter. So this case a ND filter would have been perfect as I need to reduce the brightness a couple of stops to get the required SS…

This statement tells me that there is something not understood here!
If you want to freeze an action, you do not need slow bat fast SS! No
ND filter will amplify the available light but reduce it thus forcing to
longer exposition times.

… would a Graduated Filter work as well?

IN NO WAY! I see in that there was enough light to get this shot. Would
you have cranked up the ISO, you would have shortened your SS by so
much that it could have frozen the water.

[TheBigE]

Erik for "freezing" action you will need a faster shutter rather than slower. A filter would be counterproductive for this.

Yeap, sorry I choose the wrong word...english is my native language so I cannot even blame it on that....what I was trying to get is slower shutter speed to imply motion - I was looking for that silky bridal veil type image on the water. Not freeze, sorry for the confusion.

[TheBigE]

[QUOTE=Kodiak;442155]

.
I do not understand "in a pinch"! .

In short, could I make a Graduated ND Filter work in a situation (as in the example) where the best choice (at least I think) would be a Circular Filter.

This statement tells me that there is something not understood here!
If you want to freeze an action, you do not need slow bat fast SS! No
ND filter will amplify the available light but reduce it thus forcing to
longer exposition times.



IN NO WAY! I see in that there was enough light to get this shot. Would
you have cranked up the ISO, you would have shortened your SS by so
much that it could have frozen the water.

Yes, in fact there is something not understood - mastery of the english language. Again, it is my native language so cannot blame it on that. In short with the photo above, I was trying to slow down the shutter speed to imply motion and see if I could get that silky, bridal veil type water flowing image.

Freezing was (and is) the wrong term. My apologises.

[DanK]

It depends on what you want to use it for.

Start with Kodiak's second post, which lists some of the reasons you would want one or the other. Graduated NDs are useful when you have a wide range of luminance with a clear break between them, such as a horizon. So, people will often use them to make it possible to expose both a sky and landscape below it properly. I don't even own one, because for shots of this sort, I would usually rather bracket exposures and blend in postprocessing. Moreover, you can impose a gradient in postprocessing as well. Also, I generally shoot where horizons are not even approximately straight. I also don't do a great deal of landscape work where one would be useful. However, many landscape photographers would not be without one.

Regular NDs are useful whenever you want to darken an entire image to allow the use of a SLOWER shutter speed. NDs are very commonly used for images such as the one you posted, in order to allow the use of a slower shutter speed. This smooths out the water. I'll post an example below. I do these sorts of shots, so I carry a few NDs of different levels.

If you want the second: buy a regular ND. If you want the first, buy a graduated ND.

[Loose Canon]

Got it Erik!

English is my second language! I have no first!

Then if that was the case I would have probably chosen a circular ND and not a grad. This to attenuate the light of entire scene instead of just part of it.

[Kodiak]

•
Hey Erik, no damage done!
I have my own difficulties in english and in german…
French is the only linguistic space I feel completely at ease in!

[Peeshan]

Sorry if this go slightly off-topic but couldn't the graduated ND be replaced by a double exposure?

[Wayland]

While a strong graduated filter is often the only way to achieve a long exposure to blur water for example, there are many ways to balance exposure in a frame.

Two different exposures taken in camera and then blended with software is the most flexible and often the simplest technique but if you have a strong ND filter you can also apply the magic glove method which I find far more flexible than costly and cumbersome graduated ND filters.

[Manfred M]

Sorry if this go slightly off-topic but couldn't the graduated ND be replaced by a double exposure?

Yes and no; it depends on the effect that you want and the conditions of your shot.

1. You can stack multiple shots (constant aperture) and either manually blend them or use HDR software; or

2. You can use a gradient in post-production to give that effect if you have no blown highlights (or they are of no consequence).

If on the other hand you can use a GND to bring down the highlights to a level where you don't blow them out.

I've used all three techniques (and combinations of them) to get the image I want.

Slowing down the water, when you are already at as low an ISO as your camera can handle and you are stopped down all the way and the resultant shutter speed is still too high to give you the motion blur you want; you have to use a suitable regular ND. By suitable I mean one that slows the shutter speed to be in the range that you need for that shot

[lukaswerth]

To quickly add my voice:

In difference to many, I think graduated ND filters have a very limited use indeed. With a decent camera, there is hardly need for them other than for rather cheap effects - in the best case their prime and pretty much only use is to darken skys. With regard to ND-filters I must confess that I have also been thinking lately to get one, for a quite specific purpose. However, they have become somewhat of a fashion - the water effect has been somewhat watered down by its abundant use in fitting and less fitting situations. I also don't think they are essential, even if they make up for the reciprocity failure of film. But if you want to experiment, I think they are the way to go as they offer a much broader range of applications.

Lukas

[Stagecoach]

To quickly add my voice:

In difference to many, I think graduated ND filters have a very limited use indeed. With a decent camera, there is hardly need for them other than for rather cheap effects - in the best case their prime and pretty much only use is to darken skys.

I assume you are not considering the ability to darken a sky to enable a better exposure of foreground to be a cheap effect?

With regard to ND-filters I must confess that I have also been thinking lately to get one, for a quite specific purpose. However, they have become somewhat of a fashion - the water effect has been somewhat watered down by its abundant use in fitting and less fitting situations. I also don't think they are essential, even if they make up for the reciprocity failure of film. But if you want to experiment, I think they are the way to go as they offer a much broader range of applications.

Absolutely essentially if you want to shoot race cars at panning speeds in extremely bright conditions.

Grahame

[lukaswerth]

I assume you are not considering the ability to darken a sky to enable a better exposure of foreground to be a cheap effect?

No, that's why I wrote "in the best case" - but I don't consider this essential. I have graduated ND filters, used them years back, think that generally they are not needed if you have a decent DSLR with, say, 12 stops of dynamic range. I would consider it a potentially cheap effect when they are used, for instance, on mountains when they not only darken the sky but also the upper part of the mountain - don't misunderstand me, I am not saying this is principally so, such a picture may look dramatic if the photographer knows what she/he is doing, but in most cases it just looks inept. To use them without problems you need a pretty straight horizon without mountain, tree, or building protruding into the sky area, and I'd say this is a limited application in the best case.

Absolutely essentially if you want to shoot race cars at panning speeds in extremely bright conditions.

Grahame

Certainly, but this is a play of words. You could also have written "absolutely essential if you want to get a smooth water and/or smooth sky effect in bright conditions" - the question is whether one considers this as an essential photographic technique. The panning of racing cars - or other subjects - I would call a rather specialized technique. But again, as I said, ND filters certainly have a wider application range than graduated ND filters. For instance, I am thinking of getting one for exposures in churches where a lot of visitors walk around all the time - long exposures don't register them if they do not linger too long at one place.

Lukas

[TheBigE]

Thanks everyone for the great input.

Looking through this a bit more and doing some more research, I have a much better understandingt of the power of the Grad ND Filter. BTW the video on LEE's website are very good and helpful.

So it is clear that using the GRAD ND filter for landscape is a must. Furthermore, it seems that most are using these with Triipod, to which I fully understand (and own a Manfrotto Tripod). So how convent are GRAD ND filters for just your average daily work? One of the reason I jumped into the DSLR region is we are planning on taking an extensive Northern European Cruise next year and I wanted to be able to capture this on film...well electronic film.

So I start to wonder, will I use the Filters? It is certainly a nice to have, but a pricey nice to have at that by the time you purchase all the parts needed to make it work. Are the filters really easy to pull out of the bag and use while Hand Holding? Should they go hand and hand with a Tripod. I do not plan on carrying my tripod through the vacation.

I know this is a bit of a magic eight ball question, but I am trying to see the use long term for these filters. If I was going out weekly or daily taking landscape photos than definitely, but a couple of months a year. I am not sure. I guess I am trying to see the value of these filters outside Landscape Photography. Where else could they be used?

A bit open ended and largely subjective in nature...but I would like to hear some thoughts.