neutral density graduated filters
I thought I'd take on one of the most commonly heard assumption since the advent of the SLR digital camera. You no longer need ND grads when shooting digital. Since I've been in both camps, I find this a very interesting subject. I also find that depending on the point of view, people strongly believe one or the other.
When the I began the digital transition from film, one of the first suggestions after what type of storage media was best and the need for a second battery, was the absolute pronouncement that you could also throw away the ND filters!
Since my world of landscape photography was changed, or more precisely, rocked by the discovery and use of graduated ND filters, this was more earth shaking than any thought going into digital. I had spent a lot of time learning, using and perfecting methods of my own for their use. It was a long and slow road with many missteps and mishaps. The ND was simply the most important tool in my kit. I could not do my photography without them, but the situation was changing. Or, so I was told. Most were sure of it, some still are.
Do you need or want graduated ND Filters? These are two very different questions. The second usually answers the first but the first can be a matter of preference making the second a moot point.
Notice how the top image of Red Rock Crossing in Sedona is evenly balanced between the reflection and the Cathedral Rocks formation that is the focal point. The effect was achieved with stacked Singh-Ray 5-stop and 2-stop graduated ND filters. The image just above is a exposure made for both the highlights and shadow without the filters. Although it was a good starting place, is not the image I saw in the viewfinder. In the Mt Dana reflection from Yosemite, a 5-stop ND filter was used to balance the reflection and allow detail into the shadowed area. The two bottom images from Death Valley were taken with a 3-stop hard edge ND. Notice the natural hues of Zebriski Point in the first, and the detail of the rising moon in the bottom image, both made possible by the use of the graduated ND filters.
I don't argue with success. If it ain't broken, I don't try and fix it. If you are doing what you like, and making what pleases, you then all the talk, analyzing and hypothesis is mental madness.
Also, I have never argued that you can or can't do (fill in your favorite here) a certain task in Photoshop. If you can and do, and you enjoy it, then the conversation ends there for me. However, I'm not a graphic arts designer. While I have learned and do, and at times enjoy many aspects of Photoshop, I cannot imagine being without Photoshop now. I think there is more on both the creative and artistic side to be said.
I see with every new release of Photoshop, and many other digital manipulation programs, a way to work different exposures and frames together to do pretty much what we all did in our darkrooms, that being making the dark areas brighter and the light ones darker. In other words, to put detail in places where the media does not effetely show it. To make use of what and all information there is and bring it to a piece of paper known as a print.
Like most I began in the darkroom with dodging and burning. In the darkroom, working with the highlights seemed easy, while the shadows were always a problem. Masks soon became the obsession and things really began to get a lot better. The workload and the time soon became a major obstacle along with it however. Working on a particular print for days if not weeks became the norm, but it was worth it!
The introduction of the Graduated ND filter changed what was needed in the darkroom drastically. Now one could see a clearly better balanced contrast image from the start. The zones were closer together and the shadows not nearly so unworkable as before. In short, you started with an image that looked a lot more the way you saw it to begin with. Masks became almost unnecessary and the time in the darkroom dropped considerably.
The thought that you didn't need any of this in digital was alluring to say the least! Just shoot a frame that held the highlights and one that had detail in the shadows and be done with it! There were many ways that all would be made right later. I liked that .... a lot! I began to do this and my time in Photoshop jumped three fold. As we know the leaning curve is steep to begin with and adding new methods can and is a full time job in itself. But I was making progress and the images were good.
However my photography in the field was changing as a result. With only having to make a couple of what seemed easy exposures, I was free to do other things, A lot of other things! I had time now, maybe way to much time. I didn't really see light the way I had when I was forced to slow down and judge every frame. I was still seeing but seeing very differently and different things as well. I was shooting many more setups and moving a lot quicker. This had it benefits and drawbacks.
While there is no disagreement that most anything can be accomplished digitally and we are all doing things that were unheard and unthinkable before, I'm not so sure that the old rule about "doing something just because you can, does not necessarily mean that you should", doesn't apply here. I think it often does for me. Is the desired effect to have no contrast? Is that the way we see? A lot of what I was doing just did not look natural. What I came to find out was that the exposure that had equal amounts of both highlight and shadow information was usually the one I ended up working with. Yes I did realize that I was working with a less than the brightest pixel and there was a need to adjust, but most composite images just left me cold. I was back to using contrast masks and dodging and burning as before, but digital is quicker, right? Most important to me, I had the benefit of seeing as I had before in film transparency, what the scene actually looked like that I had captured and now wanted to present. What I had was an actuate record, and as was so important for so many years, what gave that then was the use of the graduated ND filter! Why not try them again was the thought.
I'll admit that my use of the split ND came to an abrupt end and I was in the camp that didn't need them any longer. I had used them briefly and hurriedly a few times after the jump to digital and like so many preconceived ideas, I saw pretty much what I wanted to see. Yep ...... didn't need 'em! This made the transition back very slow and just a little more difficult than it should have been. I'm not just sure why but the idea of making the image as I saw it in the field, or wanted to capture it was now a new concept. The notion of getting it right in the camera was now a novel idea!
For me, landscape photography has always been about the landscape. Using the tools that enable the photography brings what I like to call the ballet and poetry of the moment. The use of the equipment in the field while witnessing what nature has to offer in a specific moment in time is difficult to translate both in words or images and is the real challenge. It plays best between the ears! Filling the memory card of the mind is always better than the one in the camera!
Using the graduated ND's once again has given me a new way to see and a balance both creativity and photographically. It's also brought a new look to some of the things I'm able to do and a renewed joy to doing it.
So which filters? When and how to use them? ... all coming next.
Check all the current workshops
Want to contribute to our website?
Your comments are always welcome. f8andbethere@cableone.net