Lightroom 2 Graduated Filter

[Mr. Pickles]

Not the best example, but an example nonetheless. Below is a color image I messed with, all in Lightroom 2, showing the new Graduated Filter feature. I set the Saturation to -100, clicked and drug out an area for the transitional effect. You can edit the edges and middle of the transition after wards also. You can also make the graduation effect varying levels of Exposure, Brightness, Contrast, Clarity and Sharpness. Again, all done in Lightroom 2...

P7261172_800_grad.jpg

And the Brush tool to "paint" in the same "options" as above is very handy too. Hover mouse over the "edit dot" and you see a red quick mask (like PS shows),and the holding down the ALT key swaps the brush to a brush eraser.

[aam1234]

Looks cool.

[Jacco]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

Not the best example, but an example nonetheless. Below is a color image I messed with, all in Lightroom 2, showing the new Graduated Filter feature. I set the Saturation to -100, clicked and drug out an area for the transitional effect.

"Drug out"...?

You can edit the edges and middle of the transition after wards also. You can also make the graduation effect varying levels of Exposure, Brightness, Contrast, Clarity and Sharpness.

So, with that kind of adjustability to finetune, still more reason to not use physical/optical filters (Cokin a.o.) anymore.

[jfrancho]

Dragged out, and I disagree that optical filters are obsolete.

[Jacco]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

I disagree that optical filters are obsolete.

Because?

[jfrancho]

Because, you cannot do this in a photo editor:

[Jacco]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

Because, you cannot do this in a photo editor:

Agreed. Two points, though:
1) that is an ND filter, not a graduated ND filter. Big difference, imo. I'm betting LR's 'graduated ND filter' runs rings around physical ND grads in terms of precision and adjustability.
2) And I didn't say physical/optical filters are now obsolete. I said: "still more reason to not use physical/optical filters (Cokin a.o.) anymore".
Yes, there are still exceptions – like the 'heavier' ND filters – but the applicability of physical/optical filters has dwindled to almost nothing compared to the 35mm film days.

[jfrancho]

You weren't specific when you damned optical filters, and I still don't see a reason not to get it right in the camera. ND, ND Grads, and Polarizers are still must haves in my book.

[Mr. Pickles]

Optical filters still have a place in photography. Programs that attempt to replace them are changing the old mindset, and a LOT more people are doing without real filters. But that doesn't mean that filtering your work while shooting still isn't a better idea.

Always best to get the digital negative close to perfect as possible. Makes for even wider adjustment possibilities if one wanted to push it wildly.

But this new feature in Lightroom is pretty cool to play with, and it doesn't trash the original, which is important in digital work.

[Jacco]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

Optical filters still have a place in photography. Programs that attempt to replace them are changing the old mindset, and a LOT more people are doing without real filters. But that doesn't mean that filtering your work while shooting still isn't a better idea.

It also doesn't mean that filtering your work while shooting still is a better idea either.

Always best to get the digital negative close to perfect as possible. Makes for even wider adjustment possibilities if one wanted to push it wildly.

"Always best"? No. Preferable? Yes.

But this new feature in Lightroom is pretty cool to play with, and it doesn't trash the original, which is important in digital work.

Have fun with it.

[Mr. Pickles]

You read into it what you want, okay. You want to add all your "filtering" in post, go ahead. I could care less. You don't like Aperture or Lightroom or Photoshop or whatever, then don't use them. Use what you want. Do it how you want. Nobody is telling you what to do, and the opposite is also true.