[P-E]

I read different ways to meter when using ND Grad filters so I wondered what others do?

Some say meter with the filter on and others say meter with it off

I have metered both ways and achieved inconsistent results..........more often than not you can tell a filter was used plus the more annoying one is I suffer with blown foregrounds

One thing that has puzzled me after metering for the foreground with the filter off is that when the filter is fitted the meter then shows things to be slightly underexposed So do I expose again or ignore what the meter is showing?

I do check my Histogram but it is not always easy to see.

Have I made any sense

[Dabhand16]

I've always metered with no filter first (or my trusty Western Master v) if using a graduated filter. If you meter with the filter on, surely it would not underexpose the sky (if you are using it that way up) and at the same time it would overexpose the foreground. (unless you had a really demon matrix exposure system that would cancel out the effect of the filter). The idea here is to correctly expose the foreground, but reduce the exposure the sky gets, thus bringing out more detail, or reducing the burn out.

ND's are a different kettle of fish. (not graduated ND's). If you meter with them off, the exposure will be under exposed. I thought tha idea with ND's was to allow you to use larger apatures/slower shutter speeds in bright conditions. You are effectively fooling the meter into 'thinking' there is less light than there actually is. The meter will correctly expose the scene which has had the dimmer applied to the sun!

[Dabhand16]

P-E, if you thought your post may not have made sense, what did you think of that one?

[Dabhand16]

The real question is, what if you are using a 'whole' ND AND a grad? I'd go for meter with the 'whole' one on, then add the grad.

[P-E]

Originally Posted by Dabhand16

P-E, if you thought your post may not have made sense, what did you think of that one?

I use mainly Grad ND Hard and Soft.

[Dabhand16]

I'd meter both with no filter or use a seperate meter. A grad is a way of applying a burn to the sky in the camera.

QED

[Dave]

slightly , but you can always recreate a ND grad effect within PS using a graduated layer mask between an exposed shot for sky & exposed shot for land

[P-E]

Originally Posted by Dabhand16

I'd meter both with no filter or use a seperate meter. A grad is a way of applying a burn to the sky in the camera.

QED

Will give it a go next time.

I often stick an ND Grad on, take a shot then check for any highlight warnings along with the histogram.

[Steve]

The way I meter when using ND graduated filters is to take two readings, one from the sky and one from the foreground, then the differences is what level of graduated filter I require to balance the picture. I set the camera manually to the reading I attained from the foreground reading, use the filter and nearly always get a good exposure.

I also shoot in raw so that it also leaves me with a +/- 2 stop safety net on occasions where the scene has been particularly difficult to meter correctly.

The other thing to remember when you are using graduated ND filters to hold back the sky is that 9 times out of 10 in a well exposed photo the sky is approximately 1 to 2 stops brighter than the foreground, so when calculating the filter strength allow for that too, unless you are after a special effect.

HTH

[Steve]

Re-reading the last bit of my post above I thought I should clarify...

Even with the graduated filter your result should leave the sky approximately +1 to2 stops brighter than the foreground to make the picture appear natural.

This is obviously a rule of thumb though and rules are meant to be broken in the name of creativity.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Steve

The other thing to remember when you are using graduated ND filters to hold back the sky is that 9 times out of 10 in a well exposed photo the sky is approximately 1 to 2 stops brighter than the foreground, so when calculating the filter strength allow for that too, unless you are after a special effect.

If a RAW image holds 5 stop worth of exposure, if you expose for the land you have 2.5 stops worth of exposure left for say the sky. This means from a RAW image you can open a perfectly exposed shot for the land, plus one for the sky. Using a grad layer mask you can then achieve exactly what the grad filter does, but with a lot more control plus no hassle of using filters ?

I would even go as far to say if the sky was more than 2 stops difference from land, you could underexpose original capture, to give more stops data in RAW to play with on the lighter side of the exposure ?

What do you think ?

[Dave]

Playing devils advocate to my own statement now, I remember reading a normal landscape shot can have the equivalent of 10 stops worth of dynamic range, so maybe the filter does it have it's place after all

[P-E]

Originally Posted by Dave

What do you think ?

[Dabhand16]

You will probably find a tool to assist in the decision making in your pocket!!

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Dave

If a RAW image holds 5 stop worth of exposure, if you expose for the land you have 2.5 stops worth of exposure left for say the sky. This means from a RAW image you can open a perfectly exposed shot for the land, plus one for the sky. Using a grad layer mask you can then achieve exactly what the grad filter does, but with a lot more control plus no hassle of using filters ?

I would even go as far to say if the sky was more than 2 stops difference from land, you could underexpose original capture, to give more stops data in RAW to play with on the lighter side of the exposure ?

What do you think ?

You are right in that the dynamic range of the shot can and usually does far exceed the +/- 2 stops of latitude that you can typically recover when using a raw image. What that doesn’t take into account is that every little bit of underexposed image that you have to drag back introduces more noise, obviously at small amounts the noise is also very small and for most of us it is unnoticeable, however you are still degrading the shot. Learning to meter correctly and set up the equipment to capture the detail without over exposing and blowing out the highlights will always result is a better shot than one which has to be manipulated at a later stage. That is why to get the absolute best results you should expose to the right to capture the most amount of data.

The other point is that noise is often much more noticeable in one specific colour channel, as a mono fanatic you will appreciate how important it is for the best quality conversions that you have noise free colour channels to work with as a base for your conversions. Black and white images are not the most forgiving when it comes to noise.