Homepage › Forums › General Photography › General Photography Discussions › YOUR input: ND Filters vs HDR
- This topic is empty.
YOUR input: ND Filters vs HDR
-
MadeleineCalaidoWeberParticipant
Well i am pretty used to old good photomatix by now and i never used any filters (just my polfilter of course) . I would like to know what you think about using ND filters or HDR. What is the better tool…or lets say it different: when to use HDR, when to use ND. It would be great to get some points together so that everybody can make up his/her mind and see what will fit. I start with my small list:
HDR NEGATIVE
– HDR is a pain for moving objects like water and clouds. Clouds loose its sharp form, water becomes unrelaxed
– HDR is a pain because you deal minimum with three images…loads of processing time in without considering the photoshop adjustments. entering the panorama world means 6-9 images /8
– HDR is unspontanous….you need your tripod
– HDR NEEDS photoshop skills…otherwise it looks like an image from marsHDR POSITIVE
– HDR ensures that you have ALL infos in shadows and light. The final image is very close to human eyes nature
– HDR doesn’t need expensiv filters … i would find it hard to take care of them because usually i am full with sand…
– HDR is a gift of software….in connection to loads of experience how to handle itND Filters
– as i said, i never tried them but i was always wondering about those shadows of the top of mountains…based on a single image
– ND Filters is not so timeconsuming but doesn’t record details in shadows (with extrem light situations)
– ND Filters is perfect for images where you just can take on shot
…more i can’t say by now… i will defently give it a try.I hope we have some ND Filter freaks here ( :
Cheers Madeleinejb7ParticipantMadeleineCalaidoWeber wrote:
The final image is very close to human eyes nature
That’s an argument I hear often,
but most HDR pictures that I see are anything but,
instead they tend to be super saturated subjective enhancements and interpretations.The technique can be used to bring out detail otherwise lost to exceeding the subject brightness range,
but photography can be about shade as much as light,
and all too often HDR is seen as an end in itself, in my opinion-I’m not saying it can’t be done well,
but there was a time here, not so long ago, when every second picture had ‘HDR’ in the title…There are other alternatives to the two you mentioned-
Some colour negative film can capture up to 11 stops SBR,
black and white films can capture considerably more, depending on development-Larger digital backs are capable of capturing a similar range,
but a sheet of film is a little bit cheaper-Use of a gradual nd filter can work,
but as you mentioned, unless the division is made to match the scene,
they can draw unwelcome attention to themselves by darkening anything that crosses their transition-joseph
MadeleineCalaidoWeberParticipantThanks Joseph, let me say it differently: “hdr – used in a special way – can bring the image close to human eyes experience.” ( ;
jb7 wrote:
.. and all too often HDR is seen as an end in itself, in my opinion
Well the titles make sense because it answers the question how to archive this. But i get your point. Photomatix is like photoshop. at the beginning you are overexcited about all those strange filters and you are in love with gloomy images or “painted filter images”….later it will become your tool to make “reality” appear in your image. HDR options are exciting at the beginning, talking about all these buttons and this “cementry mood” in most of the HDRs….later you learn to balance everything which will bring it closer to “reality” or you artistical goal.
I think a combination of ND and HDR will bring the best results. I said good byu to all film cameras i had, yes digital world can’T compare with the sensitivity of few films but i welcome all those other fantastic advantages much more. cheers
RaVMemberThere is definitely a large learning curve when using programs like photomatix. After about a year of not using it, my every attempt looks terrible.
Which i am actually happy for because it has forced me to try other methods in photoshop. Like using Gradient Masks, which is my technique of
choice at the moment. Since i am unable to give my photomatix hdr’s a more natural look. http://www.flickr.com/photos/conalt/3301782830/I can understand why it became so popular, since it didnt require people to ‘buy’ expensive equipment, apart from software. And like Madeleine said,
its the same when someone gets photoshop for the 1st time, they go over board with all the settings.Personally I see using filters as a way to slow you down, in a good way though. forcing you to take your time with each photo, to pay attention to the
overall photo more. As a posed to being more trigger happy (one of my bad habits). If ive just been ‘bracketing’ I come home with more photos which have weaker parts,
but if ive been using filters of any kind I always take less photos overall (lazy?? ;) ) but the overall images are normally better composed ect.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.