Skip to main content

Neutral Density (ND) graduated filters and alternatives














One of the most popular and useful filters for the landscape photographer is the graduated neutral density filter. These come in varying strengths. Their purpose is to even out exposure values in the sky and the land.

Technically perfect use will render sky and land at the correct values mimicking what we see with our eyes. A more artistic interpretation, much favoured by landscape photographers, is to darken the sky even more, creating a sense of drama.

The same effect can be achieved by taking two exposures of the same scene, using a tripod to keep everything in the same place and then overlapping the images. Digital capture and editing have made this option easy and convenient. The technical side of how to do this is elaborated on below.

But first let's look at the pros and cons of both methods.

The pros for ND grads are:
> you get the exposure right in a single shot which saves space on your memory card
> if anything is moving across the frame then it will register correctly whereas a double exposure will leave you with problems in the overlapping areas
> you don't need a tripod, which means you can work faster

The pros for multiple exposures in RAW are:
> you get the full benefit of the quality of the lens with no filter in front
> more control over the end result
> very precise control over the amount of graduation and exactly where it falls
> no messing about with lining the filter up
> no problems with vignetting on super-wide angle lenses

Now here's a good tip. One of the 'mistakes' that photographers make when using the combined RAW files method is that they try to divide the two different exposures between the sky and land using precise selections in Photoshop. They then complain that it does not look natural and not as good as when using a ND Grad. Of course they're missing the all important graduated transition part from the equation.

The way I work it is to mimick the effect of an ND Grad by applying a transparent graduated filter in Photoshop across the top of the second exposure's layer mask. This, to my eye looks far more natural and allows precise control over the transition area.

Try and guess how my shot of Yorkshire above was created. Ultimatley it doesn't matter how you get there so long as the end print is stunning. I use both methods. My favourite is probably the Photoshop route but it all depends on the subject.

Cheers,
Paul Posted by Picasa

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hi Paul, thanks for this clear explanations (my use of my ND filter has been a hit and miss so far).

Marleen
Hi Marleen, I'm delighted that you found my explanation useful.
All the best,
Paul
Anonymous said…
I hear rumours in certain camera clubs you can be burned at the stake for using the photoshop method but I'd have to confess to using both methods myself.

Popular posts from this blog

Approach to taking a portrait

Portrait of Amitabh Bachchan. Click on the image to see larger version. Every portrait is different but there are also elements which are the same, whether you’re shooting the famous or the locally famous. Fame is of course all relative. It depends on profession, accomplishments or media celebrity status. Whoever the ‘famous’ individual is there are millions of people in the world who will never have heard them. For example I photographed the legendary Indian Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan, who amongst his many accolades was awarded the Legion d'Honneur, the highest civilian award of France. But I’m positive that many people in North America will not have heard of him – although he has more fans than Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson and Robert De Niro put together. I find that however well known a person is cracking through egos and insecurities is really important when it comes to getting authentic strong portraits. However I hasten to add that when it came to photographing Amitabh th

The portrait photographer's motivation

Easy access to the Internet and digital photography has resulted in an ever growing number of photographers uploading their images for comments and ratings from peers. Online communities evolve and these mini-societies each have their pecking order, internal groups and communal preferences. Photographers learn from each other. On sites that have a rating system there is often pressure to conform to certain styles, techniques and even subject matter. Although I participate in numerous sites (it's great fun), I recognise the danger of becoming a herd animal and losing the edge of individual creativity. There will always be the creatives that lead the way and the imitators that can only try to follow in their footsteps. This lead me to think about classifying photographers according their inner motivation. So as a bit of fun here are a few different types: The innovator Driven to always find something new, different and creative. Wants to be leading edge. Motivated by creative satisfa

Is professional photography still a viable career?

I am not against amateurs and semi-professionals selling their photography. It's a great way to earn some extra cash. However I am concerned about the level of high quality published work and the standards that clients and the public accept these days. It seems that just about everyone is a photographer. The line between amateur enthusiast and professional is fuzzy to say the least. Photography enthusiasts are selling their images through stock libraries and microstock websites, directly to magazines or through their own and third party sites. They're accepting commissions to shoot weddings, being hired to shoot for magazines and selling fine art prints from their websites. They're teaching photography on the weekend and guiding photographic holidays and safaris. Photography became accessible to the masses with the first non-expert cameras and the famous Kodak slogan"You press the button, we do the rest." The digital camera age has taken the whole thing to a ne