Why ND grads are not always necessary for landscapes

[Shockey]

A graduated ND filter does not put a straight dark line on the photo. It provides a gradual darkening as it gets more into the sky, perfect for those uneven sky lines.

Your process is fine for you, and a perfectly valid method.
For people just starting out with landscape photography they should get the filters and learn how to do it that way first.
It takes no extra time to hold the filter in front of the camera, sometimes it takes a couple shots to get the filter in the correct position.
Of course just my opinion and I am sure we agree to disagree on this one.

 

[KmH]

.... but I have not seen anything about masks yet in the book.....

You don't mention which book, but true masking is one of the features in Photoshop that's never been included with Elements though I have not yet looked at PSE8.

You can always go to the Index in the back of the book and see if they include anything, though if the have 'Masking' as an entry, they could be refering to the masking slider in the Sharpening tools which is not what Steven is talking about.

 

[brianT]

I was thinking about getting an NDGrad filter but I knew it was pointless for me because like the OP, I'd rather use editing software to adjust my exposure. The biggest advantage to using photoshop is the ability to paint a unique mask for each photo, in order to blend multiple exposures. The unique mask can be any shape. This ability offers way more flexibility than using a linear filter that can only be adjusted in minimal ways.

For just about any photo I use masks to make adjustments. For example rarely do I adjust contrast on the entire image. Almost everything is masked.

 

[CraniumDesigns]

A graduated ND filter does not put a straight dark line on the photo. It provides a gradual darkening as it gets more into the sky, perfect for those uneven sky lines.

Your process is fine for you, and a perfectly valid method.
For people just starting out with landscape photography they should get the filters and learn how to do it that way first.
It takes no extra time to hold the filter in front of the camera, sometimes it takes a couple shots to get the filter in the correct position.
Of course just my opinion and I am sure we agree to disagree on this one.

it does make it straight, just depends on hard the transition is, but it will always make something dark that u dont want dark, like a mountain or rock that breaks the horizon line of the sky, and i dont want that happening. this is where masking in PS wins out.

and it does take more time, especially if ur taking many shots, u dont wanna hold that filter up all the time, especially for a really long exposure. so u get a filter holder, which i have, which takes even longer to setup, and then if u wanna turn ur CPOL, u gotta realign things, and really for me its just a huge pain in the butt. if i dont absolutely NEED to capture the image in one shot because of movement, im gonna do 2-3 exposures for different brightness levels in the image, and then do it in photoshop.

obviously we all have our preferences, and i dont really care what other people do, as long as theyre creating good images, but newbs to photography are often told they HAVE to get some nd grads, and im just here to say you dont if you know PS.

 

[Montana]

Hmmm, interesting. I personally prefer the fun and challenge of trying to do it in the camera. ( I should fun and challenging to me personally) I actually hate sitting in front of the computer.

 

[CraniumDesigns]

Hmmm, interesting. I personally prefer the fun and challenge of trying to do it in the camera. ( I should fun and challenging to me personally) I actually hate sitting in front of the computer.

cool whatever works for u. i find it it fun and challenging to get it right in PS and get better at it that way. im addicted to computers and the internet

i dont like doing all the work in camera, because thats ur only chance to get it all right. i prefer to have less things i cant control at the moment when im shooting, and focus on those things later when i have more time and am not blinded by the excitement of the shoot. haha.

 

[Gabriel]

I don't mean to put you down, as the image you posted does look mighty fine - and I'm sure you're a lot better at Photoshop than I am - but it sounds to me like you are much more into computers than into photography. And that's fine, but if you rely on Photoshop that much, I'm going to have trouble thinking of you as a photographer instead of a digital artist. Photography is all about the light, and having to merge a few different images to make one is a little too close to cheating for my taste.

You may be a fantastic photographer in your own right and, as you say, you only prefer to do it all digitally. But as I said before, you just seem much more enamored with the computer than the camera, and that just sounds odd to someone like me :mrgreen: I've been shooting digital for years, but if you take my laptop away I'll just switch to my Canon film body and keep shooting the same pictures.

Maybe I'm a purist, or I think like a caveman. Who knows. But check out Galen Rowell, though I doubt that you've never seen his work. He shot some amazing stuff, was known for his perfectionist approach to exposure (yes, he used ND grads), and as far as I know, only shot film.

Either way, to each their own, and I'll still respect your skills and your own approach to the work, even if it's not in line with my own. You wrote an interesting post.

 

[CraniumDesigns]

I don't mean to put you down, as the image you posted does look mighty fine - and I'm sure you're a lot better at Photoshop than I am - but it sounds to me like you are much more into computers than into photography. And that's fine, but if you rely on Photoshop that much, I'm going to have trouble thinking of you as a photographer instead of a digital artist. Photography is all about the light, and having to merge a few different images to make one is a little too close to cheating for my taste.

i love both, and digital photography is a blending of the two. what i do in photoshop is the same as using an ND grad in my opinion. anything can be considered cheating. shooting digital in itself can be considered cheating, since ur using a screen and a histogram. technology changes and there will always be purists, but i just see them as new tools to create the same end result. photoshop is just a more modern, faster way of doing the same things the greats like galen rowell (yes i know who he is) and ansel adams did manually for years. i just like to take a lot of comps when i'm in the field, so i have a lot options when i decide what to process and put in my portfolio, and handling more equipment when im in the field takes more time, and thus cuts down on the amount of pics i can take as the light is quickly changing.

You may be a fantastic photographer in your own right and, as you say, you only prefer to do it all digitally. But as I said before, you just seem much more enamored with the computer than the camera, and that just sounds odd to someone like me :mrgreen: I've been shooting digital for years, but if you take my laptop away I'll just switch to my Canon film body and keep shooting the same pictures.

Maybe I'm a purist, or I think like a caveman. Who knows. But check out Galen Rowell, though I doubt that you've never seen his work. He shot some amazing stuff, was known for his perfectionist approach to exposure (yes, he used ND grads), and as far as I know, only shot film.

Either way, to each their own, and I'll still respect your skills and your own approach to the work, even if it's not in line with my own. You wrote an interesting post.

yes, i differ there. i wouldnt do it if it wasnt digital. i am not patient enough to process in a dark room and deal with film. this is why digital photography is creating so many more photographers. it's much easier now. u r a purist, more traditional than me, and that's ok, but that's not me.

the bottom line is that photography is art, and there are different ways of producing that art, and im doing it for the love of creating beautiful images, and i dont really care how i make them, as long as i create everything, and i am not stealing someone else's work. i do this for the love of the hobby, and to sell the occasional print. i wouldnt fork out thousands of dollars in photography equipment every year if i didnt love it and wasnt serious about it.

and remember, im not saying it is THE way to do it, but its the way i prefer and what works for me. me shooting 2 images of the same comp, seconds apart, and blending them in photoshop, is the exact same thing as taking 1 comp using a filter. i would prefer to get more comps as the light is quickly changing, and do all the post work on the comp when i have the time and am not constrained by the light.

whether people think it's cheating or not, i still make beautiful images that people love and buy, so what do i care? thank u for expressing yourself in a humble, polite way though

 

[Gabriel]

I checked out your site and you do have some beautiful work, and I'd be proud to hang some of it on my own walls, but I'd always think of it as the picture that was Photoshopped. It's just how I am - I got out of fashion because it's too artificial for my taste, and have always loved journalism and documentary photography for their purity and honesty. So I'm the wrong guy to be in a discussion about using a lot of Photoshop, but your post got my attention.

I've cheated using a lot of filters - yes, that can be very similar to using PS - as experiments, but I was never happy with the results because they weren't real to me. I'll use an ND or a polarizer, though not often. Maybe that's just my tolerance level for it or something.

Either way, if it's working for you, then keep on keepin' on. I've put in my two cents and better stop now, before I run out of lunch money...

... thank u for expressing yourself in a humble, polite way though

Absolutely. There's never a need to be a keyboard cowboy, I don't think

 

[CraniumDesigns]

haha. yeah, different strokes... thanks for the compliments on my work though. if u think MY stuff is fake, u should check out trey ratcliff's stuff at Stuck In Customs HDR Photography. beautiful hdr work, but highly highly fake and processed.

 

[Gabriel]

haha. yeah, different strokes... thanks for the compliments on my work though. if u think MY stuff is fake, u should check out trey ratcliff's stuff at Stuck In Customs HDR Photography. beautiful hdr work, but highly highly fake and processed.

Well, even if you do use a lot of post, for whatever reason I would not use the word fake to describe your work. Ratcliff's, though, seems more like illustration than photography. Definitely not my bag.

 

[CraniumDesigns]

yeah, but his newly published book is sold out worldwide on amazon's websites, so he must be doing SOMETHING right. his fanbase is HUGE. he's like the king of HDR work.

 

[Gabriel]

I'm sure he's quite big, but as you can probably tell by now, I'm not one to go with the masses too often, hehe...

 

[Derrel]

yeah, but his newly published book is sold out worldwide on amazon's websites, so he must be doing SOMETHING right. his fanbase is HUGE. he's like the king of HDR work.

McDonald's is the WORLD'S number one restaurant. More meals served than ANY other restaurant in the world. Ever. So McDonald's must be doing SOMETHING right. Their fan base is HUGE (in more ways than one,I might add). McDonald's is like the King of Restaurants.

Jersey Shore is a popular new TV series. So was John & Kate + Eight.

There's no accounting for taste...

 

[CraniumDesigns]

haha. true, but to many people "taste < making money & fame".

and his work IS really good and nice. its just very far out there. not natural, but very cool looking sometime, so i dont feel its wrong. people have different tastes i like all kinds of stuff.