Another Landscape for critique

Alistair, you might find this useful

http://www.john-hallett.co.uk/lightroom_4_bitesize/hdr.pdf

He has loads of other lightroom tutorials too

Indeed it could. I'd highly recommend Lightroom for anyone taking pictures that involve the land and the sky and want to optimise the exposure and contrast, and more, for each.

I've read that the introduction of Graduated ND filters (and other colours too) into ACR (was it 3 or so years ago) really made it easier for landscape photographers to balance their shots in software - previously you had to use the far more complicated 'Gradient' dialogues. I've tried these in Elements, and its not for the fainthearted!

But I've seen screenshots of the PS CS ACR Grads in use, and they are clearly very flexible, with full exposure control fine-tunable in 1% units, and the ability to precisely fade the grad line and also tilt the effect to match an angled horizon.

Sagelight 4 also implements similar functionality in a fairly simple filter dialogue - I probably should make more use of it instead of HDR at times!

Clearly these software Grad filters are hugely more flexible than on-camera glass filters. It raises the question of whether the physical items are really still needed (unless you're not into computer editing).

Yes they are Nigel. I use both hard grads on camera and digital grads in lightroom for my sunrise seascapes

Would it be fair to assume that might be because you find with the very large exposure difference that when the software filters are 'cranked up' then the quality suffers?

On my sunrises I'm shooting into/towards the sun. If the sky is completely burnt out, no amount of digital hocus pocus with grads is going to put detail there.

So use grads on camera to balance the exposure best you can, and then fine tune it digitally.

I agree fully with Alan. It's extremely difficult to shoot landscapes with the correct balance between sky and land, unless ND Grads are employed. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not spent much time seriously attempting to shoot landscapes IMO.

There are occasions where it is not necessary, but ND Grads are an essential tool in the box.

Regards
David

OK, thanks David and Alan. Its good to have such clear views on it. What I was wondering though, with digital capture and the ability to assess exposures on the LCD and using a histogram, is there a significant difference (in quality or output terms) between shooting a single frame with the glass ND in place, or shooting separate frames exposed individually for the sky & ground?

Obviously by this second method the blending and transition would have to be done in processing, whereas with the physical filter you would choose a suitable grad and precisely place it when shooting. I can see the advantage of being able to see the effect immediately though.

My take:

a) Both ways let you capture the full DR.
b) Multiple exposures imply greater post processing work. Potentialy have problems with movement in the scene between exposures and may introduce some nasty artificial tone mapping effects although this is of course dependent on how you actually do the processing.
c) Glass ND filter is more hassle/fun at shooting time depending on how you look at it. Is probably going to still want some post processing effort to blend and fine tune the results but that is much more natural process. Minor/insignificant quality loss due to the extra glass filter. Less flexible, unless you have a range of filters to choose from.

At the end of the day I think both ways are going to be capable of getting very similar results. I wouldn't myself bother taking a grad filter with me these days unless I was specifically going out for a landscape session but given the choice prefer the old fashioned filter approach.

Interesting thread! I've never got particularly good results from exposure blending or HDR, but I thought that's because I wasn't very good at it! However I had always assumed that for someone that knew what they were doing, if you took at least two exposures; correctly exposed for the sky and for the foreground you would be able use the digital hocus pocus to get the same result as with grads... perhaps not so then!

I seem to get reasonable results from single K5ii exposures tweaked in LR, but obviously they can be a little noisy. I generally prefer to carry the least amount of equipment with me, so hadn't really used the grads since getting the K5ii. Also I like to work a little faster when I'm out with other people, but I might have to put the grads back in the bag now!

LR grad filters not only allow Exposrue and contrast to be tweaked up or down but also

Temp
Tint
highlights
Shadows
Clarity
Saturation
Sharpness
Noise
Moire
Defringe
and a colour tint if required.


The same goes for local adjustment brush so if your horizontal grad filter to correctly expose the sky and deepen the blue makes that church spire look wrong then you can use the local adjustment brush to compensate.


Grad filters and adjustment brushes are cumulative so so you can use multiple instances on top of each other for more complex fades and dodge and burns

Wow, quite a list! As I said above ... 'Clearly these software Grad filters are hugely more flexible than on-camera glass filters.

I guess most of this type of software is able to apply its various effects to any selected area, but I listed the most significant features of a software Grad specifically - namely the strength of effect, angle of application, and the fade distance (the grad bit).

But there's still strong support here for on-camera ND glass. People are saying is best to balance the components when shooting.

By the way, Sagelight 4 has an 'undo brush' feature, allowing you to erase any previously applied adjustment from any part of the shot, and apply the strength of erasure in 1% increments.....

Real grads are absolutely an essential for me. You still have the pp tweaking potential, but with much greater flexibility from a properly balanced exposure to work with. Blending exposures is difficult with things that move; sea, clouds, vegetation, etc.

Lightroom also has an erase tool :thumb:

Are you sure that 'Erase', at least in Adobe terms, is really the same as 'Undo Brush' in Sagelight? As we all know, I'm not a Lightroom user and you're not a Sagelight user, so its good to share this knowledge.

AFAIK 'Erase' in Adobe terms refers to the process of 'rubbing out' pixels, for example on an upper layer to reveal whats on a layer underneath.

The Sagelight 'Undo Brush' is not 'rubbing out' pixels, it is 'rolling back' the previously applied adjustment, but precisely under the control of the brush movements with a specific sized brush, and with an exact strength of 'rolling back' in percentage units.

Hey, if you're able to say that LR's Erase tool is exactly like this, well then we've both learnt something!