Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: GND Vs HDR(Multiple Images)

  1. #1

    Default GND Vs HDR(Multiple Images)

    I've been into landscape photography for awhile now, and I've been using the LEE series filters, specifically - the GNDs. But I've seen more and more people moving towards what we generally call HDR and all the related photo-stitching, tonal mapping, whatever.

    Question is, what are the advantages and disadvantages of each, and if you shoot landscapes, which is your preffered?

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMUELS
    I've been into landscape photography for awhile now, and I've been using the LEE series filters, specifically - the GNDs. But I've seen more and more people moving towards what we generally call HDR and all the related photo-stitching, tonal mapping, whatever.

    Question is, what are the advantages and disadvantages of each, and if you shoot landscapes, which is your preffered?
    While GND seems to work in some cases, they seems very restrictive in my opinion. If the horizon is more or less linear, it seems ok to use GND. But if your landscape has extreme DR that can't easily fit into the GND. Then PS works easier.

    It seems HDRI has often been used in not recovering extreme DR but rather a form of post processing that gives off a totally different feel of the scene. Unlike GND, very often it produce a surreal effect that doesn't look like the original scene at all.

    But of course, with proper control the original scene can be replicated. But I find it pretty hard due to the way how tonal mapping works. For me, I choose between what I want and what I can get from a scene.

    It an expression after all, so be free about it.
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95
    www.flickr.com/photos/davidktw

  3. #3

    Default Re: GND Vs HDR(Multiple Images)

    Actually you can achieve HDR with multiple GNDs/ Reverse GNDs if you have the patience, just that taking 3/5/7 different exposures and merging them in Photoshop seems so much easier...

    I personally prefer using GNDs as HDR tend to produce pretty "fake" results.
    Fujifilm X-Pro2 Graphite, X-Pro1
    XF 14/2.8, 18/2, 23/2, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 60/2.4, 55-200/3.5-4.8

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,786

    Default Re: GND Vs HDR(Multiple Images)

    Had anyone tried shooting in GND with HDR? I had tried before and the results looks more natural and HDR alone. It would still look less natural than just using GND but it reveals more shadows in the lower half of the picture (where shadow tends to come from there).
    Equipment: D800|D700|11-16|28-75|105 Micro VR|50 F1.4G|85 F1.8G
    Through the Lens of Cowseye

  5. #5
    Senior Member edutilos-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The Universe
    Posts
    5,991

    Default Re: GND Vs HDR(Multiple Images)

    Quote Originally Posted by SAMUELS View Post
    I've been into landscape photography for awhile now, and I've been using the LEE series filters, specifically - the GNDs. But I've seen more and more people moving towards what we generally call HDR and all the related photo-stitching, tonal mapping, whatever.

    Question is, what are the advantages and disadvantages of each, and if you shoot landscapes, which is your preffered?
    I hate HDR. Even if a GND is not suitable in certain situations (such as when you want details on elements above the horizon, e.g. building, or rock: see here - 138302909 photo - Edutilos photos at pbase.com ), I'd rather blend, unless it is way too tedious, then sometimes I just cheat, HDR , and layer it over the most optimal exposure to achieve some amount of detail where I want it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •