What about this type of GND

[richardpcrowe]

GND filters are nice for imagery but, IMO, they are a PITA to use. The standard round GND has the ND portion divided from the clear position straight through the center-line of the filter. I don't know how many photographers compose their shots with the horizon dividing the image in the direct center but, this is not normally my way of composing an image.

So, I am left with two options; both of them not great.

I could place the center-line cut of along the horizon and crop the image to give me approximately the "Rule of Thirds". This is not the way I shoot either. One reason I consider myself fairly successful using 1.6x cameras is that I do minimum cropping. I compose my imagery in-camera. I guess that if I shot with a 21mp full-frame camera, I would have more leeway to crop but, I don't use full frame equipment. However, if I were using full-frame gear, I would be negating the advantage of the full-frame format by extensive cropping.

The second way to use a GND filter and observe the "Rule of Thirds" is to use square Cokin type filter. That way I can adjust the cut-off line up or down to conform to better composition. However, I also consider the Cokin type filter a PITA because I either need to bring additional gear, in the form of a filter holder, an adapter ring, and a specialized lens hood or I have to hand hold the filter in front of my lens after I Have removed the standard lens hood I always shoot with. I don't own a round GND filter and won't be bringing my Cokin GND to China this spring. I am traveling with the least encumbrances possible considering that I shoot with a pair of cameras and lenses.

I will instead use a CPL and further correct my imagery whenever possible in Photoshop.

Graduated ND effect in Photoshop
http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/tutorials/75691-graduated-nd-filter-effect-photoshop.html

SOLUTION

My idea would be to have a round GND filter with the cutoff line 1/3 of the way into the filter. The round filter would fit easily into my filter wallet (since I have switched to digital, that wallet is practically empty) and I wouldn't have to shoot with the horizon across the middle of my frame, do extensive cropping or use a square filter. I could use the standard lens hood I always use and not worry about carrying extra equipment.

How does that idea sound to you?

Come to think of it, can anyone state one single advantage to having the GND with the cutoff line directly through the middle of the round filter? I certainly cannot!

[brian.austin]

If this stuff was all easy, everyone would do it.

Seriously, I don't see the trouble with a Cokin rig and square GND (I use Singh-Ray but whatever works for you). You're already setting up a tripod most likely so what's another few seconds?

[Ben_V]

About everybody using GNDs is using the square holders, not necessarily Cokin, though. It is the easiest route to go and allows for exact placement of the filter. Unless you buy the really big modells (100mm square and larger), the nuissance to bring the kit along is not too big - at least not for me.

Ben

[Gna]

Originally Posted by richardpcrowe

SOLUTION

My idea would be to have a round GND filter with the cutoff line 1/3 of the way into the filter. The round filter would fit easily into my filter wallet (since I have switched to digital, that wallet is practically empty) and I wouldn't have to shoot with the horizon across the middle of my frame, do extensive cropping or use a square filter. I could use the standard lens hood I always use and not worry about carrying extra equipment.

How does that idea sound to you?

Come to think of it, can anyone state one single advantage to having the GND with the cutoff line directly through the middle of the round filter? I certainly cannot!

In all your scenarios ther is that cut-off line. Which you want at the level of the horizon. And which consequently always causes problems with any object in the frame that crosses it: trees, buildings, people, etc. etc. The top part of those objects is always 1 or 2 stops darker than the bottom. As if it was cut in half. That of cours looks totally wrong in the final image.

So I don't use physical GND filters anymore. We are in the digital age now. So I edit brightness problems in parts of the image in post production. Shoot RAW to increase your editing latitude. Shoot a sequence of RAWs with a stop difference so that you can HDR/tonemap to manage contrast, detail, and colors.

And it saves me a lot of time and nervous fumbling wit filters and filter holders on location too!

[Ben_V]

Originally Posted by Gna

In all your scenarios ther is that cut-off line. Which you want at the level of the horizon. And which consequently always causes problems with any object in the frame that crosses it: trees, buildings, people, etc. etc. The top part of those objects is always 1 or 2 stops darker than the bottom. As if it was cut in half. That of cours looks totally wrong in the final image.

So I don't use physical GND filters anymore. We are in the digital age now. So I edit brightness problems in parts of the image in post production. Shoot RAW to increase your editing latitude. Shoot a sequence of RAWs with a stop difference so that you can HDR/tonemap to manage contrast, detail, and colors.

And it saves me a lot of time and nervous fumbling wit filters and filter holders on location too!

I can see your point and apply a graduated effect in pp myself sometimes. Nevertheless, that is no substitute for a real filter at the taking stage, which you use to bring contrast down. Even with RAWs, the latitude goes down considerably, if you need to shoot at higher ISO settings, on all APS-C sized sensors. Only full-format sensors do not break down in exposure latitude at higher ISO settings.

Also I personally find, getting exposure and contrast right at the scene saves tons of time at the pp-stage, which I can basically automate, if the original images are of unifomely high technically quality.

[Gna]

And what do you do to avoid/repair those "cut in half" objects in your image?

[LibertyHeir]

I use the Cokin A series and leave the adapter mounted on the lense. It's got a Cokin lense cap that fits as tightly as the original lense cap. I've also got a couple of the inexpensive lens hoods for the system that simply snap on.

Using it this way, the only time the Cokin has been a PITA is if I want/need to move it to a different lense (which is very rare). The alternative for me would be to obtain another Cokin adapter.

[Gna]

Originally Posted by LibertyHeir

I use the Cokin A series and leave the adapter mounted on the lense. It's got a Cokin lense cap that fits as tightly as the original lense cap. I've also got a couple of the inexpensive lens hoods for the system that simply snap on.

Using it this way, the only time the Cokin has been a PITA is if I want/need to move it to a different lense (which is very rare). The alternative for me would be to obtain another Cokin adapter.

And – since this thread is about GND filters – what do you do to avoid/repair those "cut in half" objects in your image?

[Ben_V]

Originally Posted by Gna

And what do you do to avoid/repair those "cut in half" objects in your image?

There are only few subjects (though these are indeed annoying), where the "cutting effect" is visible. In mane situations you use a GND, where objects on the hoizon line (like trees) are more or less silhouettes anyway. Whether the black silhoutte gets blacker or not is of no consequence.

As with other photographic decisions, there is a trade-off, when using a filter in front of the lens. But I find the compromise in many situations one, that suites me much better, than the compromises, which I are forced upon me, when applying the GND in post-processing. Especially the simple fact, that any detail lost in a washed out sky or foreground (beach scenes) cannot be brough back in pp, is much less acceptable to me, than the problems caused by the graduated filter. Especially with soft grads, there is no sharpish border, where the image gets darker or brighter. And you still can rotate and shift the filter in the holder to optimize the fit.

I do not say, that this is a must-be. It is just my personal photographic decision, to reduce pp-time and optimize the image to start with.

Ben

[Gna]

Originally Posted by Ben_V

Especially the simple fact, that any detail lost in a washed out sky or foreground (beach scenes) cannot be brough back in pp

You cannot bring them back after the fact, but you can prevent it: avoid washed out skies by stoppin down, and avoid underexposed foregrounds by opening up! In separate exposures! Then merg them in PP: i.e. HDR/tonemapping.