Filter question - Graduated ND

[wilgk]

I am hoping for opinions.
I think I would like to add a graduated filter to my kit bag to take to NZ
As my folks get older, I am trying to pop back as often as I can for quick trips.

I usually only take the 24-105 ones for the 5D, when I'm there just for a few days, but the farmyards are often quite lovely to walk around and photograph.

Thank you in advance

[Manfred M]

Kay - those filters are almost exclusively used to darken the sky in landscape shots so as to reveal more detail in the sky.

With modern cameras, with their high dynamic range capabilities, many photographers have abandoned using them and get those effects in post-processing. I use both approaches and find that there is an advantage to using physical filters in certain shooting situations.

There are three types of GND filters; hard, soft and revers. Hard work well when the horizon line is flat as the transition from filtered area to the clear area is quite sharp. They work well for sea-scapse. Softs, which have a much more gradual and work well in situations where the horizon is less well defined.

Reverse grads are primarily used for shooting sunsets and the densest part of the filter runs through the middle and they are used to tone the bright sky at the horizon. I've never used one, so cannot comment on how well this type works

Grads usually come in 1, 2 and 3 stop densities. I use 3 stops around 80% of the time and a 2-stop for the rest. I can't recall having ever used my 1-stop.

Grads come in two types; round which screw onto the lens like any other filters and rectangular ones that require a holder, which allows the photographer to adjust the filter to wherever he or she wants to position it. In my experience the only advantage of the circular ones is the size and weight. From a usability standpoint the rectangular ones are far superior. I have a set of soft and hard grads, a couple of holders and adapter rings. The rings allow me to use them on lenses with a range of filter threads, so I only need one set of grads for all my lenses. I do take them along when I shoot landscapes.

Getting into grads is not an inexpensive thing to do, so before suggesting you go in that direction, you should figure out if you really need them.

1. Left to right - Polarizer for use with my filter holder, filter holder wiht GND and a round GND





2. Polarizer and filter holder with GND mounted on my camera

[rpcrowe]

I am not a dedicated landscape photographer. In fact, most of my landscapes are done as an adjunct to my general travel photography. On the other hand I do own the two classes of filters that Manfred mentioned in his excellent and instructive post above: round and square.

I don't use or even carry the square filters unless I am dedicating my day to landscape work because, they are (IMO) simply a PITA to carry and use for just a few shots here and there. Previously, another problem that I had was the difficulty in using a lens hood in combination with a square filter. This was solved for me by B&H when I purchased my Canon EF 100-400mm, f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens. They gave me several goodies as part of the package; including this Flex Lens Shade:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...shade_for.html

The Flex Shade is a great addition when I am shooting in bright conditions with my square filter setup. No more having to use my hat to shade the lens. To be honest, I don't think that I would ever have purchased the Flex Shade but, now that I have one; I am quite happy with it. It doesn't weigh much and can fold flat to be carried in a pocket of my photo vest...

I carry a limited number of round filters when I am out for general shooting: a protective filter for those times (like in blowing dust) when my front element might be in jeopardy, a CPL. a 3-stop neutral density filter and a round 3-stop soft GND. I am seriously considering getting a hard 3-stop GND since I live in the West Coast and my GND needs are often for seascapes. I carry the filters in a stack, protected by stack caps; so an additional filter in the stack is really not much extra weight.

As Manfred indicated above, the problem with round GND filters is that they split the scene in half and positioning the horizon straight along the center of the frame is usually results in a boring composition. I will most often crop some of the image so the horizon more closely conforms to the "Rule of Thirds". Actually, I most often forego the GND altogether and try to adjust the image in PP I only have 77mm ND and GND filters. I use a 67mm to 77mm adapter to fit these on my lenses (70-200mm f/4L IS and 35mm f/2 IS) that have 67mm filter threads...

Another problem with using square filters is that the filter holder is somewhat bulky and clumsy to carry in my photo vest as I often don't use a camera bag when shooting but, rather carry all my gear in a photo vest... Of course, I could just hold the filter in front of my lens and not use a filter holder. However, that is somewhat awkward.

Here's what I wish... I wish that some enterprising filter manufacturer would produce round GND filter sets with one filter having the ND portion covering 1/3 of the filter and the other having the ND portion covering 2/3 of the filter. That way I could place the demarcation line on the horizon and have the horizon at the top or bottom 1/3 of my frame. A LOT less cropping would be needed and carrying one extra filter in my stack would only amount to an ounce or two or extra weight in my bag. I suspect that these filters would get a lot more use than the present 50-50% GND, since I would always have them in my stack and hey would be easy to switch...

One type of GND that Manfred did not mention is the GND + color filter. This (usually an orange or tobacco color) gives extra color to sunsets and LOOKS ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE. You will often see this effect used in travel videos or films.

[Polar01]

Just to let you know, Lee now have GND filters that have soft, medium, hard, and very hard.

Cheers: Allan

[William W]

. . . I think I would like to add a graduated filter to my kit bag to take to NZ . . . I usually only take the 24-105 ones for the 5D, when I'm there just for a few days, but the farmyards are often quite lovely to walk around and photograph. . .

I wouldn't bother.

I just had 14 days driving around the South Island with a 5D Series and a 24 to 105/4L IS and a Fuji x100s and R76 Filter.

Manfred makes a point about Dynamic Range (applicable to your EOS 5D) - if you have concerns - for Daytime use Evaluative Metering then Bracket Exposure ±⅔ Stop.

The better extras to take are a Tripod and Head - but I didn't. Keep the Tv around 1/320s or faster to avoid leaf flutter and you'll be apples.

Do your 'darkening' (if you really need to) in Post Production by tweaking hue saturation, contrast, vibrance and the like.

BTW I also suggest you avoid a CPL (Circular Polarizing Filter) with that lens - unless you are really confident in its uses.

The one filter I would use on a 24 to 105/4L IS is a strong ND, for smoothing water and other long exposure techniques - BUT Tripod and Head are necessities for that job.

WW

[billtils]

... use Evaluative Metering then Bracket Exposure ±⅔ Stop. ...

Totally agree. Exposure bracketing seems to have become lost somewhere as "HDR" processing became synonymous with the garish over-saturation results of tone-mapping.

[William W]

I wouldn't bother.

I just had 14 days driving around the South Island with a 5D Series and a 24 to 105/4L IS . . .

. . . for example, quickly, a file straight out of the camera and "auto" processing, auto lens correction and a tad of sharpening



If I get serious about this one I'll probably crop it approximately 2:1, removing the bottom LH leaves and the crap in the water RH side. The mid-tones need some work. But the point of the example is that it was made with a 5D MkII, EF 24 to 105/4L IS: 24mm F/9 @ 1/500s @ ISO320 and was the middle of an Exposure Bracket of three - i.e. exactly what Canon's "Evaluative Metering" metered that scene.

Mind you, there was still enough headroom in the +⅔ Stop shot to use it and work better on the shadow detail and that's the one I will use if I get serious about this one: that one nice feature about Canon's Evaluative Metering, it is great for Landscape Photography in so far as it is typically, regularly and reliably 'conservative', so if you Bracket each shot, if there happens to be a large Dynamic Range, you can be 99% sure that the +⅔ Stop image will not blow the highlights. In fact with a an EOS 5D MkIII and MkIV I'll push +1stop with confidence. But for your EOS 5D, if you stick with ±⅔Stop that should serve you fine - a bracket of ±⅔Stop has worked for for me for all my 'travel' shots with my 5D, since 2005 - and my 5D is still my most used DSLR camera when I am traveling for pleasure.

WW

[William W]

Totally agree. Exposure bracketing seems to have become lost somewhere as "HDR" processing became synonymous with the garish over-saturation results of tone-mapping.

Bill,

this reads as if it is a "soap box" topic.

BTW - I concur with your sentiments.

regards,

(another) Bill

[William W]

for those interested - from the Fuji X100s and the R72 Filter (Hand Held) -



Lake Te Anau, New Zealand 2018


WW

[Manfred M]

Totally agree. Exposure bracketing seems to have become lost somewhere as "HDR" processing became synonymous with the garish over-saturation results of tone-mapping.

Let me also agree. HDR is an excellent tool when used by a knowledgeable user, but unfortunately the internet has been flooded by images created by users who are looking for a quick and easy shortcut to produce unusual images, especially when they head down the road of using one of the "grunge" filters. There are no shortcuts to good image making.

In difficult light, I will bracket and will then hand=blend two or more bracketed images in order to bring out hidden texture in the highlight and shadow areas of the image. The results tend to look more natural. The effect can be somewhat similar to what one can pull out with intensive dodging and burning, without some of the side effects of pushing those approaches too hard.

[Donald]

The professional landscape photographers (Joe Cornish, Paul Gallagher, etc), always have a full kit of Graduated ND filters with them (mind you, they don't always have to pay for them), and use them.

[William W]

and it is not only about whether they paid for their set of filters or not: it is about their intent and planning.

Arguably a Pro Landscape Photographer would not be "popping back for quick trips"; "walking around photographing", with a "5D and 24 to 104/4L" - there'd be a lot more to it than that - my point being if one is moving toward the goals similar to a professional effort, then there are several things on the "to do" and the "to get" lists before spending the dosh on one GND, (especially when one really does need a set).

WW

BTW, speaking of 'landscape photographers' when in NZ last week, I called in to visit Colin, he is well.
If I get to Scotland, then Donald is certainly on my list . . . fair warning of my intent and it will certainly be my shout,

[DanK]

In difficult light, I will bracket and will then hand=blend two or more bracketed images in order to bring out hidden texture in the highlight and shadow areas of the image. The results tend to look more natural. The effect can be somewhat similar to what one can pull out with intensive dodging and burning, without some of the side effects of pushing those approaches too hard.

This is essentially what exposure fusion does, although fusion, being automatic, gives you less control. I find it often works very well as a starting point, although there are some cases where the tonal balance is really off.

[Donald]

If I get to Scotland, then Donald is certainly on my list . . . fair warning of my intent and it will certainly be my shout,

You will certainly be most welcome, my friend

[wilgk]

Thank you everyone for your informative replies & robust discussion.
I find the challenge is I tend to blow highlights & seem to always be unhappy with the sky section in my images.
So thank you for those suggestions to try to improve or work around that issue.
Of course nothing can beat practice and experience, and buying new things is not the path to better pictures... but it really is so beautiful there & my eye can see a wider dynamic range then my skills, experience and ability can capture.
Hence the question & thank you for the answers, I will re-read the thread on the plane & during the wait and try the bracketing as suggested.

[rpcrowe]

A CPL filter will under certain conditions darken the sky and, therefore reduce the dynamic range of the scene...

[Manfred M]

I find the challenge is I tend to blow highlights & seem to always be unhappy with the sky section in my images.

In general, if this is an issue, then perhaps a change of photographic technique / approach might be a better approach. I find that I rarely blow out skies, given the very wide dynamic range of modern sensors, and if I do, I change my composition to avoid such a high dynamic range. If I really want the shot and I don't have the GND filters along, bracketing the shots and blending them in post-processing is a work around that can be used too.

[xpatUSA]

A CPL filter will under certain conditions darken the sky and, therefore reduce the dynamic range of the scene...

In my limited experience, I've found that a CPL* or a PL** darkens the blue but leaves clouds as-is, thereby increasing the sky contrast.

Unaided eyes hardly notice sky polarization but it is no secret to photographers who have long exploited it to increase contrast between sky and clouds. Light scattered by clouds is unpolarized and a polarizing filter selectively darkens the background blue sky.

https://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz1013.htm

* CPL is necessary for mirrored cameras.
** PL or CPL work on mirror-less cameras.

[Manfred M]

The important constraint on using a polarizer is that it will have no effect if you are shooting directly into the sun or if the sun is directly behind you. The strongest effect will be when the sun is at right angles to the camera.

One other issue with using a polarizer is that the variability the effects (no polarization to maximum polarization) can result in "banding" when shooting using a wide angle focal length as one is covering a large part of the sky. Banding tends to look terrible in images.

[William W]

. . .. I find the challenge is I tend to blow highlights & seem to always be unhappy with the sky section in my images.

If this is the case, then this is an issue of incorrect technique and/or lack of knowledge. It should be addressed independent of using Filters and also independent of any other factors in your photography.

My guess is you might not fully understand one or some of the following:
> the Metering Modes of your Camera
> the implication of the F/16 Rule in Landscape Photography
> the uses of the Blinkies and the Histogram in Canon EOS
> the headroom available on an EOS 5D

Those points stated: the fundamental issue (of you tending to blow highlights) needs to be confirmed, because I have seen many folk who think that they have blown highlights, but do not.

If you want to pursue this topic, then example (un edited) images with full EXIF data will be necessary.

WW