Landscape Filters

[ScubaX]

As for you can do everything in Photoshop etc. if that was the case then why do professional landscape photographers such as Joe Cornish, Jeremy Walker, Mark Denton, David Ward, Charlie Waite, David Noton, John Gravett, Tom Mackie, David Clapp (he has made videos for Canon on the 6d) etc. carry them in their kit bags adding weight & bulk?. I would suggest looking at Xposure the free new download magazine on the Lee Filters web-site this highlights professional photographers using filters in many situations and why.

The reason you cannot simulate what a solid ND does in post is because it allows you to expose over a duration of time within which motion is occurring. You can take a photo of water, but if you take it with a high shutter speed, your not going to be able to replicate the effect that flowing water produces over a longer duration with an ND filter. Same goes for clouds, or anything else with motion. ND filters reduce the rate of light entering the lens, and therefor allow longer exposure times. There is no way to simulate a longer exposure time in post.

The reason you cannot simulate what a GND filter does in post is because it reduces the dynamic range OF THE SCENE. If you are actually clipping your highlights without a GND, then those pixels are pure white. There is no recovery, and there is no simulating a GND filter...all you could do is make those pixels gray, you could not actually recover the detail that was lost by not using a GND filter. With GND filters, you pull down highlights in ANALOG space, before the light ever even reaches the sensor, thereby reducing the dynamic range of the world around you AS it enters the lens.

These are real-world physical effects. They cannot be simulated. Hence the reason photographers who know what they are doing invest the money on a good multi-filter holder (like the Lee Filter system) and a bunch of good 4x6" filters. Because they are quite literally ESSENTIAL to achieve the effects they support.

I agree with most of what you said, but I think there are situations where GND can be simulated in post. Just like using a filter, it takes some forethought by taking multiple exposures of that scene and then in post compositing and masking. As long as it doesn't include motion such as clouds or water it will be a pretty good substitution for a GND filter.

I have a pretty complete set of Lee filters and bought them because I want longer exposures, particularly of water scenes. And even for landscapes that don't include motion, I would prefer to get it right in the camera.

Then of course there is HDR and long exposures combining both filters and masking in post. I haven't tried this yet, but I've been giving it some thought and want to find the right situation to give it a try.

 

[jrista]

As for you can do everything in Photoshop etc. if that was the case then why do professional landscape photographers such as Joe Cornish, Jeremy Walker, Mark Denton, David Ward, Charlie Waite, David Noton, John Gravett, Tom Mackie, David Clapp (he has made videos for Canon on the 6d) etc. carry them in their kit bags adding weight & bulk?. I would suggest looking at Xposure the free new download magazine on the Lee Filters web-site this highlights professional photographers using filters in many situations and why.

The reason you cannot simulate what a solid ND does in post is because it allows you to expose over a duration of time within which motion is occurring. You can take a photo of water, but if you take it with a high shutter speed, your not going to be able to replicate the effect that flowing water produces over a longer duration with an ND filter. Same goes for clouds, or anything else with motion. ND filters reduce the rate of light entering the lens, and therefor allow longer exposure times. There is no way to simulate a longer exposure time in post.

The reason you cannot simulate what a GND filter does in post is because it reduces the dynamic range OF THE SCENE. If you are actually clipping your highlights without a GND, then those pixels are pure white. There is no recovery, and there is no simulating a GND filter...all you could do is make those pixels gray, you could not actually recover the detail that was lost by not using a GND filter. With GND filters, you pull down highlights in ANALOG space, before the light ever even reaches the sensor, thereby reducing the dynamic range of the world around you AS it enters the lens.

These are real-world physical effects. They cannot be simulated. Hence the reason photographers who know what they are doing invest the money on a good multi-filter holder (like the Lee Filter system) and a bunch of good 4x6" filters. Because they are quite literally ESSENTIAL to achieve the effects they support.

I agree with most of what you said, but I think there are situations where GND can be simulated in post. Just like using a filter, it takes some forethought by taking multiple exposures of that scene and then in post compositing and masking. As long as it doesn't include motion such as clouds or water it will be a pretty good substitution for a GND filter.

The whole entire point of GND filters is to AVOID having to take multiple shots, which is where you get into HDR. HDR is really a misnomer...doesn't matter if you do an HDR blend and convert down to 16-bit, use Enfuse, or manually tonemapp, all three approaches achieve the same thing, and all three require more than one shot. HDR is certainly a viable option, however HDR is different than using a GND and it's not the same as single-shot photography. The purpose of a GND is to balance contrast and reduce dynamic range so you can take one single shot of your scene and not have to worry about clipped highlights.

 

[ScubaX]

As for you can do everything in Photoshop etc. if that was the case then why do professional landscape photographers such as Joe Cornish, Jeremy Walker, Mark Denton, David Ward, Charlie Waite, David Noton, John Gravett, Tom Mackie, David Clapp (he has made videos for Canon on the 6d) etc. carry them in their kit bags adding weight & bulk?. I would suggest looking at Xposure the free new download magazine on the Lee Filters web-site this highlights professional photographers using filters in many situations and why.

The reason you cannot simulate what a solid ND does in post is because it allows you to expose over a duration of time within which motion is occurring. You can take a photo of water, but if you take it with a high shutter speed, your not going to be able to replicate the effect that flowing water produces over a longer duration with an ND filter. Same goes for clouds, or anything else with motion. ND filters reduce the rate of light entering the lens, and therefor allow longer exposure times. There is no way to simulate a longer exposure time in post.

The reason you cannot simulate what a GND filter does in post is because it reduces the dynamic range OF THE SCENE. If you are actually clipping your highlights without a GND, then those pixels are pure white. There is no recovery, and there is no simulating a GND filter...all you could do is make those pixels gray, you could not actually recover the detail that was lost by not using a GND filter. With GND filters, you pull down highlights in ANALOG space, before the light ever even reaches the sensor, thereby reducing the dynamic range of the world around you AS it enters the lens.

These are real-world physical effects. They cannot be simulated. Hence the reason photographers who know what they are doing invest the money on a good multi-filter holder (like the Lee Filter system) and a bunch of good 4x6" filters. Because they are quite literally ESSENTIAL to achieve the effects they support.

I agree with most of what you said, but I think there are situations where GND can be simulated in post. Just like using a filter, it takes some forethought by taking multiple exposures of that scene and then in post compositing and masking. As long as it doesn't include motion such as clouds or water it will be a pretty good substitution for a GND filter.

The whole entire point of GND filters is to AVOID having to take multiple shots, which is where you get into HDR. HDR is really a misnomer...doesn't matter if you do an HDR blend and convert down to 16-bit, use Enfuse, or manually tonemapp, all three approaches achieve the same thing, and all three require more than one shot. HDR is certainly a viable option, however HDR is different than using a GND and it's not the same as single-shot photography. The purpose of a GND is to balance contrast and reduce dynamic range so you can take one single shot of your scene and not have to worry about clipped highlights.

I agree 100%, but that doesn't mean there are not photographers that would prefer using multiple exposures to obtain the same effect as GND in some instances. They save on the cost and don't have to carry the equipment. My preference is to use the filter and skip the post process of doing the same thing. But since I also prefer shooting movement, that is only done with a filter or in very low light.