Throw away your ND grad filters

[Darren Wilson]

great video mate,think you should do somemore hint,hint

[jet_kit]

Sorry Paul,

I can't run with this one.

The blunt fact is that a digital sensor does not have the dynamic range of film, so the chances of blowing out the sky are far greater. Once it's blown, it's blown. If there's no data to recover no amount of PP in any software can fix it. If you're bracketing to overcome this problem, why not do so by a couple of stops and HDR the multiple images?

You have not convinced me to ditch one of the most important filters in my arsenal.

Cheers,

[jimmyosram]

Originally Posted by jet_kit

Sorry Paul,

I can't run with this one.

The blunt fact is that a digital sensor does not have the dynamic range of film, so the chances of blowing out the sky are far greater. Once it's blown, it's blown. If there's no data to recover no amount of PP in any software can fix it. If you're bracketing to overcome this problem, why not do so by a couple of stops and HDR the multiple images?

You have not convinced me to ditch one of the most important filters in my arsenal.

Cheers,

Yes but if you expose at I suggested you avoid getting the really bad blown areas in the first place.

It's really interesting how things are progressing in software though isn't it. Give it 5 years or so and because of this I bet you'll be able to pick up a full Lee kit for a fiver on eBay

[jet_kit]

Originally Posted by jimmyosram

Yes but if you expose at I suggested you avoid getting the really bad blown areas in the first place.

It's really interesting how things are progressing in software though isn't it. Give it 5 years or so and because of this I bet you'll be able to pick up a full Lee kit for a fiver on eBay

I doubt it. They'll have to increase the dynamic range of the sensor by a couple more stops before you can safely put your grads out to stud. And there's no sign of that happening any time soon.

[jimmyosram]

Originally Posted by jet_kit

I doubt it. They'll have to increase the dynamic range of the sensor by a couple more stops before you can safely put your grads out to stud. And there's no sign of that happening any time soon.

I agree about the dynamic range ..... guess only time will tell.

[mike e]

When it comes down to it, does it matter which process you use? It's the end images that important is it not.

[knifebox]

Originally Posted by mike e

When it comes down to it, does it matter which process you use? It's the end images that important is it not.

Well to me it does.

Getting the right exposure in post processing kinda takes away the fun out of the whole experience.

Not to bust anybody's mojo, but someone once told me that if you spend more time post processing than doing the actual shot, then there's something you have to look into.

[Cathus]

what about all the fun you get from processing the shot?

when I developed my own B&W stuff a large percentage of the enjoyment of getting a print in the end was the actual process it took to physically make the print, the development of the film, waiting to see it come out of the dev tank, all the work involved in getting the exposures right for the paper and then the fun of actually developing it and seeing it form before your eyes before pulling it out of the chemical trays.

The end result is a print or image, how you get there and how much time & enjoyment you spend on getting there is only important to the person making the image.

When you see a great print on the wall, not many people give a monkey's how it got there, but the photographer will know how much fun he had either taking it or processing it.

[wavemachine]

Originally Posted by mike e

When it comes down to it, does it matter which process you use? It's the end images that important is it not.

Absolutely but I think it is a healthy debate and great that Paul has shared what he has found works for him this I am sure is useful to photographers at all levels.

Getting the right exposure in post processing kinda takes away the fun out of the whole experience.

At the end of the day different photographers will choose to work differently, I do a lot more post processing than I used to not because I don't try to get it right in camera but because I know how to now and I think it is great the amount of control that you have especially with RAW, you can zoom, preview and use the histogram as much as you want but you won't fully understand what the shot is like until you see it on the big screen

Unlike Cathus I never got to develop my own prints primarily due to lack of funds and somewhere to do it, if I was doing film photography now then I would certainly be having go and would probably be experimenting with various techniques and chemicals as he did

Great videos by the way Paul and thanks for taking the time and trouble to make them.

[jools-elliott]

The unfortunate thing is that this is a debate that will go on forever and a day!

Personally, I would prefer to:

1) measure the ilght with my spot meter. Thus I place the tonality of the image where I want it.
2) put in the appropriate grad.

Time taken = 30 seconds or less.

Yes, you can blend images but you run the risk of having two images slightly off if the tripod moves. OK, you can auto-align in PS but again why bother if you get it right in camera.

Image manipulation is taking far too much away from the art and science of photography. All too often you see people saying "oh, you must have used PS to get that sky/ put that sky in".

Nope. I get up early and learn to use my camera to get the image.

*Edit.

Forgot to say. I would look VERY carefully at what effect those sliders are having on your images. I had to completely throw out my way of working in LR a few months ago because I hadn't looked closely at what each slider does.

Clarity. Yes. Lovely. Whack it up too much and you actually soften your image.
Watch those black and fill light sliders too.