[dod]

Originally Posted by Steve

But if you do it that way how do know what stop grad to use to get correct exposure?

It's a two stop filter (I've only got one )and like you say you're normally looking at about a two stop difference. I've never stacked filters so don't need to worry about that.

The times it's wrong it's usually fixable in PS. If it isn't I just accept I'll have to try again.

The other benefit, from my point of view, is I know I'm going to have one part correctly exposed and a pretty good chance the rest will be there or thereabouts. (assuming of course I've allowed for any deep shadow or highlight in the foreground) I'd rather have that than have to correct something where part might be under and part might be over because I've been faffing about with averaging readings. Being a lazy git has it's benefits

Edit: of course purists would say get it right in camera and PS work is minimised. True, but even in the darkroom there was a lot of dodging and burning carried out to tweak in camera mistakes.

[Dave]

I think I can put Steves instructions forward in another manner that may help.

Take exposure (A) for Landscape
Take Exposure (B) for Sky
Deduct (A) from (B) to give you "stop"(C) difference
Apply ND Grad with (C) stops

Eg. For a 3 stop difference between Land & Sky, apply a 3 stop Filter.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Dave

I think I can put Steves instructions forward in another manner that may help.

Take exposure (A) for Landscape
Take Exposure (B) for Sky
Deduct (A) from (B) to give you "stop"(C) difference
Apply ND Grad with (C) stops

Eg. For a 3 stop difference between Land & Sky, apply a 3 stop Filter.

If you want the sky and landscape to be exposed identically and make your picture look un-natural

As I said irrespective of the difference between the sky and landscape in your meter readings, it is generally accepted that even when using filter to hold back the sky you should still allow approximately 1 to two stops more light from the sky to get a 'normal' looking result...so you need to factor that in or ignore it completely if you are after a specific effect.

[Dave]

OK, so now it should read :-

Take exposure (A) for Landscape
Take Exposure (B) for Sky
Deduct (A) from (B) to give you "stop"(C) difference
Apply ND Grad with (C)-2 stops

Eg. For a 3 stop difference between Land & Sky, apply a 1 stop Filter. ......ish

Can you tell I don't use filters

[Dave]

Thinking on this again Steve, the majority of tutorials I've seen on using 2 images to merge together, have you expose 1 image correectly for the sky. From your comments this would give an unatural look to the shot ?

[Steve]

The majority of tutorials will guide you through the techniques required to do the 'merge', very few will tell you what you should be aiming for.

Hey this is all rule of thumb and you are taking it too scientifically for my liking, photography is one of the arts in my opinion and it may be about capturing moments in time and conveying those to your audience, but you do that in whatever manor you require. If you think it looks better with the sky and foreground exposed exactly the same then you have done your bit correctly...there should be no absolutes in photography otherwise all our pictures would look the same

[P-E]

Originally Posted by Dave

OK, so now it should read :-

Take exposure (A) for Landscape
Take Exposure (B) for Sky
Deduct (A) from (B) to give you "stop"(C) difference
Apply ND Grad with (C)-2 stops

Eg. For a 3 stop difference between Land & Sky, apply a 1 stop Filter. ......ish

Can you tell I don't use filters

Wouldn't you still run the risk of blowing the sky?

Who started all this

[Dave]

I think Steve is right in terms of it's personal taste, so best to suck it & see

[Steve]

Ok lets try this a different way

When taking a landscape shot you would like it to look natural with the foreground well exposed and retaining any detail that is visible to the naked eye. We also want the sky well exposed and retaining detail as well but in most cases its difficult to achieve as the sky is usually brighter and without compensating for that it will end up being blown out. That much we all know without it getting scientific.

So as a camera doesn’t see anything but the different light levels we have to help it by being the brain. Logic tells us that we need to allow more light into the camera to expose the foreground correctly and less for the sky. One way is to take two shots, one of the foreground and one of the sky and then combine them together later to get a well balanced picture.

The other way and the one that’s causing a very interesting debate is using ND graduated filters to hold back the light from the sky while allowing the light from the foreground to give us a correctly exposed shot. basically we are balancing the differences to get a good photo.

In method one you would set your camera up and shoot according to the readings of the foreground for the first exposure and then do the same again only for the sky. The work then happens in PS or whatever other image software is your choice.

In method two you do exactly the same as method one but take note of the difference in the settings between what would be the foreground shot and the sky shot. You then select a ND graduated filter which is strong enough to restrict the difference in the amount of light that the sky is brighter than the foreground. The ‘art’ to all this is how much difference you would also like to leave between the foreground and the sky… as I said in a well exposed and balanced picture the sky is typically 1 to 2 stops brighter than the foreground, so you as the photographer make a decision as to how much brighter you would want the sky to appear in your end result…its called being creative

You will then have exposed the sky correctly (as we don’t want any blown highlights or lost details) and that combined with your choice of ND filter will give you your end result (which may well have the foreground underexposed slightly) but it will give you the result that you where after and the one that hopefully matches the scene that you are photographing.

Does that help at all?

[P-E]

Cheers Steve.

Hopefully I will be out this weekend so we will see how things go

[Dabhand16]

Steve has a good point about what strenghth of ND to use. However, I think tha you can have too much choice, and can end up spending more time in wondering what one to use. I think you are best off sticking to one strength, probably 2x, and then you will get to know what the end result will be, near as dammit. As you get more familier with the results, you could then expand to (say) a 1x and a 2x, you will then be better able to judge what one to use.

In Britain/Northern Europe, the 1x and 2x would be the logical choice. If you then went on holiday to the Med or somewhere equally bright, a 2x and 3x might be the better choice.

What do I do? Most of the time no filter, occasionally a 2x and work round it. All depends on how much time I've got to indulge myself. I'm more likely to use them when I'm out on my own (not often) than when I've got the circus in tow!

With regard to the natural look of the end product, if you want a natural look, you must take this into account. One of my hobbyhorses is that how many pictures do we see where the sky and cloud details have been emphasied to the extent they often dominate the photograph? I think that we are all guilty to some extent of sometimes doing this, and whilst I accept that this detail can put a completely different aspect onto any shot, and I have to say I really enjoy seeing them, and appreciate the skill invoved in producing them, when the balance tips to the sky, and takes the eye from the overall effect, I think it has gone too far. (Unless you are doing it for a specific reason, of course). These pics are not natural, they are almost impressionist.

I'd be interested in other opinions on this. Maybe the subject of a new thread? I'll start one up using some of the points here.

[P-E]

Went out with the filters again yesterday and again not a very good end result.

Wether I was trying them with skies that were too extreme or not I'm not sure......on occasion even a 3 stop and 2 stop (together) were not enough

Here is a little diagram that may explain things a little better;

(1) Metered (SPOT) for the foreground shown by the yellow square in (Fig 1);


(Fig 1)

(2) Meter for the sky...now this can often go right off the top of the exposure indicator (Fig 2)


(Fig 2)

(3) Return the exposure indicator to the centre as metered for the foreground (fig 1).

(4) Slide the selected ND Grad into position.
Now this is where most of the time the exposure indicator will start to show underxposure as in (Fig 3)


(Fig 3)

Now