I'd really like to stop blowing out the sky and/or underexposing the ground in my pictures. The traditional solution would be to use graduated ND filters, but taking multiple exposures and applying HDR postprocessing would also work (and some point-and-shoot cameras can even do that in-camera).
When should I use graduated ND filters, and when would HDR be a better bet? Or is it just a matter of personal preference?
Answer
ND filters
Advantages
- No extra post-processing required.
- You can see the result in the viewfinder.
Disadvantages
- Making the exposure is more complicated because you have to select a filter and place the transition appropriately for the scene.
- You probably need several filters (of different density and transition abruptness) to cover a sufficiently wide variety of scenes.
- The straight transition between dark and light needs to more or less match the needs of the scene (for example, a large mountain with sunlit clouds behind probably won't work).
- ND filters are more fragile than other filters because they are placed in a frame so you can shift around the transition.
- Good ND filters aren't cheap, and you may need multiple sets to fit different lenses.
HDR
Advantages
- No mucking around at exposure time (just make the exposures).
- Can deal with arbitrarily shaped transition between light and dark areas.
- A variety of HDR software is available for free (though there are pay options as well).
Disadvantages
- Lots of mucking around in post.
- If your camera doesn't support bracketing with a sufficient number of frames, a tripod will be required and you'll have to adjust exposure manually.
- Scenes with moving objects will lead to difficult or impossible editing in post.
- Significant practice is required for good results, particularly if you don't want the "HDR look".
No comments:
Post a Comment