Filter question - Graduated ND

[xpatUSA]

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

Bill, re: the Canon, at some point, Canon changed their ISO calculation method from the older standard 'saturation-based' (1/2 stop headroom) to something similar to 'Standard Output Sensitivity', or maybe 'REI', neither of which promise much headroom, if any. So the "headroom" on a 5D could be next to nothing and photographers, accustomed to that little bit of extra headroom traditionally afforded by the older ISO method ISO = 78/Hsat, could take a while to become accustomed to the world of 'no headroom'.

Doug Kerr goes on about it at some length here:

http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/SOS_REI.pdf
.

[NorthernFocus]

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

I think what is included in previous replies but may be lost in the volume is that the dynamic range must be accounted for either with post processing(PP) or by use of a GND. If you are adept at PP then as long as highlights aren't truly blown many/most shots can simply be handled even with the basic tools in ACR/LR. If you're not that great with PP and not interested in becoming so, then adding a GND to the kit is probably a good idea. Keep in mind they are somewhat of a hassle to use. If you're like me even when I have it in the kit I often don't want to bother with the time/effort to use it for the average snap. But I tend to minimize effort in the field and am content to spend the necessary time in front of the computer to account for my laziness.

[rpcrowe]

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.

Absolutely true. However, I seldom use very wide focal lengths for landscapes because, you often end up with just too much sky in the image. When I use a UWA for landscape work, I will most often feature a prominent object (rock, plant, tree, stone, stream. etc.) in the foreground and therefore avoid a lot of uninteresting sky in my image. I am looking at some of my previous landscape images and I don't notice a great expanse of sky in any of them.

An advantage or disadvantage (depending on how you look at it) of shooting in the American West is the broad expanses of terrain you come across. In many cases, using a longer than a normally accepted wide focal length for landscapes provides compression and eliminates a narrow band of interest along the center of the frame with lots of foreground and sky intruding on the image...

This was shot at 121mm on a 1.6x crop camera...



This was done at 37mm on the 1.6x crop camera...



70mm...

[wilgk]

Thank you Richard, lovely images.
& good advice.

[wilgk]

I think what is included in previous replies but may be lost in the volume is that the dynamic range must be accounted for either with post processing(PP) or by use of a GND. If you are adept at PP then as long as highlights aren't truly blown many/most shots can simply be handled even with the basic tools in ACR/LR. If you're not that great with PP and not interested in becoming so, then adding a GND to the kit is probably a good idea. Keep in mind they are somewhat of a hassle to use. If you're like me even when I have it in the kit I often don't want to bother with the time/effort to use it for the average snap. But I tend to minimize effort in the field and am content to spend the necessary time in front of the computer to account for my laziness.

Wonderful advice & made me smile!
You, lazy?
I think not

[wilgk]

Thank you again everyone
The replies here remind me of the range of different subjects to learn about, in all forms of picture taking.
I was an expert in the field of obstetric ultrasound, with my soundwave pictures, yet would not attempt to scan a shoulder, (still ultrasound) but vastly different when attempting in-depth techniques & knowledge.

Going even further back, we used a wedge shaped filter strapped to the X-ray tube, when ‘shooting a foot’
The toes were less dense as compared with the forefoot, yet we needed to show them together on the 1 film with one exposure.
Toe bone connected to the foot bone & all that...
Pre digital days no post processing, & woe betide the student radiographer who didn’t attach the filter properly & it dropped off onto the patient!

[William W]

Bill, re: the Canon, at some point, Canon changed their ISO calculation method from the older standard 'saturation-based' (1/2 stop headroom) to something similar to 'Standard Output Sensitivity', or maybe 'REI', neither of which promise much headroom, if any. So the "headroom" on a 5D could be next to nothing and photographers, accustomed to that little bit of extra headroom traditionally afforded by the older ISO method ISO = 78/Hsat, could take a while to become accustomed to the world of 'no headroom'.
Doug Kerr goes on about it at some length here:
http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/SOS_REI.pdf.

Hi Ted

Thanks for that information re Canon’s ISO calculation method, though I don’t follow the intricate details of these things I was not aware that they adopted a new standard and now knowing that makes more sense of other things, that I do know.

The link is very informative, ta. I have added it to my Kerr’s Index (Doug Kerr is a real gem, IMO).

***

MORE IMPORTANTLY – My use of the word “HEADROOM” - Your comments highlighted that my previous was not precise (Post 20).

I note that Kerr, in his paper, adopted the “headroom” from the technical term as it is used in Audio Technology and it appears to me that he highlighted that adoption by placing the word in inverted commas. (I am quite familiar with both Analogue and Digital Audio Recording Techniques and Machines).

When I used the term “headroom” in Post #20, my meaning was not related to the sensor, per se, but was an in the field guide to how much one could overexpose a scene relative to the indicated exposure given by the Camera’s TTL Light Meter.

Please note my Post #5 where I wrote, my bold and underlined now, for emphasis: “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.”

I advised Kay to use Evaluative Metering on her EOS5D, for Daytime Landscape Scenes and to Exposure Bracket ±⅔, because I am very confident that the doing so will mean that 99% of the shots made by that method will not blow the highlights for the shot pulled at +⅔ when shooting Daylight Landscapes .

I am very keen to encourage folk to take the time to understand the METERING MODES on their Cameras. Mostly all Cameras provide a choice, yet few Photographers understand what those choices imply, hence, few Photographers fully appreciate what the meaning of the Camera’s TTL Light Meter’s suggested exposure: in fact I think that not many realize that the TTL Light Meter is only making “a suggestion”.

That should better explain what I meant by the term “headroom” and, obviously, my use implies that there will be (slightly) different “headroom” dependent upon variables, the most obvious of which are:
> Metering Mode (i.e. for Canon EOS 5D: Evaluative; CWA; Partial; Spot)
> Type of Lighting Scenario (i.e. particular Canon Metering Modes will interpret a “Landscape Daylight” scene differently to a “Follow Spot on Actor on Dark Stage” scene.

I trust that expansion makes my previous comments clearer.

WW

PS - Side note and additional titbits:

I think that a lot of “Digital terminology” is evolving and there are few standards for it (the terminology that is), this is why we get borrowed terms and I understand why Kerr borrowed “headroom” from Audio.

Independent of Kerr, I have spoken and written about what he terms “(ISO) headroom” as the “Sensors’ Exposure Latitude”, and that term (Exposure Latitude) I borrowed from the old “Films’ Exposure Latitude” – obviously likening the “Sensor” to the “Film”. Doing that allowed me to use the term “headroom” to refer to “how much space you’ve got left when you use the Camera’s TTL Meter for your exposure guidance”.

In Film days, there was no practical need to separate how much Exposure Latitude there was for a particular Film and how much you could swing the TTL Meter’s little needle to the “+” sign in the viewfinder: it was, for practical purposes one in the same and it didn’t matter much UNLESS one was shooting Transparency/Positive Film (especially Pro Film Trannies).

In the case of Ektachrome Professional (for one example), one would assume zero Exposure Latitude, but then also one would not use the Camera TTL for exposure guidance but rather take an Hand Held Incident Light Meter Reading or a Flash Meter Reading.

[Manfred M]

I think that not many realize that the TTL Light Meter is only making “a suggestion”.

Exactly! Nor do they understand the shooting conditions where the "suggestion" is likely to be wrong.

[xpatUSA]

Exactly! Nor do [not many] understand the shooting conditions where the "suggestion" is likely to be wrong.

Exactly, which is why we have 'Exposure 101' and variously colored cats against various backgrounds ...

[rpcrowe]

I don't believe that this was mentioned (I may have missed it) but, shooting in RAW will allow you to recover a lot of information that is lost when you shoot in JPEG and your camera does the transition from the original...

[rpcrowe]

I haven't tried this but, it does look interesting...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgbmrGwkYJs