• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Gradient Filters

Mike Nogle

New member
I am really liking a lot of the landscape photos I am seeing shot using gradient filters. Web searching has resulted in a mixed bag as to whether the photoshop cs 4 gradient tool has rendered them obsolete, or if the physical filter is far superior. So I am here to ask you seasoned photographers your opinion. Thanks for your time and input!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I am really liking a lot of the landscape photos I am seeing shot using gradient filters. Web searching has resulted in a mixed bag as to whether the photoshop cs 4 gradient tool has rendered them obsolete, or if the physical filter is far superior. So I am here to ask you seasoned photographers your opinion.

Mike,

It's also a matter of mathematics. When a filter is use, one actually increases the fraction of total photons of the allowed frequencies. Thus more of the wanted] light that can get it through the glass filter to fill the wells of the sensor or reacts with the emulsion of film. With post processing software filters, one degrades the quality of the file.

Asher
 

Mike Nogle

New member
Thanks to you both for great insight. I have been thinking more about it, and have been looking at more photos shot with gradients. I totally understand, "get it right in the camera," my first photographic love was culture photography where I whould set up a shot and wait for the perfect element, ie. person, animal, cart etc.. to enter the frame. And I also understand the preservation of the data when it comes to digital photography. Now I am wondering this, how much does a straight horizon on the gradient filter actually take away from the "reality" of the photo, versus the ability to follow angles in PS? Data loss versus having some mountain tops and treetops darkened. Maybe I just do not know how well a gradient filter can behave. Anothethought, is HDR the way go? HDR is capturing 3 to 5 times the data, so the data loss with the ps gradient filter would not be so severe. I am not well versed in HDR either, but it seems like a lot of the goals are the same.

Thanks,

Mike
 
Now I am wondering this, how much does a straight horizon on the gradient filter actually take away from the "reality" of the photo, versus the ability to follow angles in PS? Data loss versus having some mountain tops and treetops darkened.

Hi Mike,

I find those straight edge gradients horrible in most cases. They stick out like a sore thumb.

Anothethought, is HDR the way go? HDR is capturing 3 to 5 times the data, so the data loss with the ps gradient filter would not be so severe. I am not well versed in HDR either, but it seems like a lot of the goals are the same.

While HDR capture isn't without difficulties (multiple exposures cause issues with moving objects), the tonemapping that follows is where the benefits of HDR can be reaped. There are several approaches that can be taken for tonemapping, but I like the natural look where it's hard to see at first glance that it was processed at all.

The latest incarnation of Photoshop (CS5) has a so-called HDR Pro function which can do a very decent natural looking tonemapping, but my current preference for the tonemapping results is SNS-HDR Pro. It's still in its early stages of development, and colormanagement is not exactly as it should be, but it's constantly being updated with improved results and features.

Cheers,
Bart
 
Top