amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Graduated ND filters are a pain in the arse, bulky, expensive and are completely unnecessary for digital photography. With multi-image, post-processing techniques you can get better results than were ever possible with the filters.

With film the most common use of Grad NDs was to balance an overly bright sky with the rest of the scene in a landscape shot. Filter strengths of one or two stops was typical... more rarely three stops. I can't recall ever using stronger than that. There are also soft, hard and medium transitions, largely depending upon the type of lens being used. A wide angle lens usually required a soft or medium gradation, while a telephoto might need a hard transition. Of course, it also depended upon the scene. Sometimes a soft transition was better... sometimes a more abrupt one was needed. I only ever carried soft and medium transition filters. (There also are reverse Grad NDs, Center Spot ND and some other specialized types. I never really had any need for those, except for a Center Spot that was matched to a particular wide angle lens that had a lot of optical vignetting... the filter corrected that.)

While there are round, screw-in Grad ND filters, those were particularly limiting. They position the transition from clear to ND right across the middle of the image, pretty much forcing you to place the horizon line in exactly the same place in every shot you took!

Better were the rectangular, oversize filters.... which are fitted to a holder that's in turn attached to the lens with an adapter (that allows them to be used with various lenses that have different diameter filter threads). The rectangular filters can be rotated as needed and slid up or down to best match the horizon line. A Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 lens has an 82mm filter thread, so probably at least 100mm x 150mm ND Grads would be needed to avoid problems with vignetting.

The problem is, even with the rectangular ones the transition zone from clear to ND is always a straight line across the filter... but horizons rarely are perfectly straight. Or, perhaps it's that the more interesting horizons we might want to photograph aren't typically straight. As a result of this mis-match either part of the scene that shouldn't be held back by the ND section of the filter ends up covered by it, or part of the brighter sky you wanted to hold back by the filter isn't covered.

In addition, quality Grad ND filters ain't cheap. Sure, there are cheap ones made of optical plastic. But those scratch easily, are difficult to clean and usually aren't multi-coated. Better optical glass filters that are multi-coated tend to cost around $150 or more each. There are even some more expensive that combine features like warming or color enhancements with ND (also unnecessary with digital, since individual color channels can be adjusted independently and white balance is so easily tweaked... in fact, if using auto WB, it will usually cancel out a filter's warming effect).

My recommendation for a landscape photographer instead is to simply take two shots: one exposed for the sky, the other exposed for the rest of the scene. Later in post-processing you can combine the "correct" portions from each into a single image that's better than was ever possible with the actual filters. There are also Grad NDs built into most image editing software that can be quickly and easily applied directly to a single image, though this may have the same "problems" as the actual filters unless some additional tweaking is done. Yet another method is to double process a single image... adjusting the exposure for the sky in one version and adjusting it for the rest of the scene in the second version, then combining the correct parts from each in the same way as is done with two actual exposures, described above. These post-processing "tweaks" are always best done with RAW files, which if necessary allow for greater range of adjustment than JPEGs. Also, RAW files are worked in 16-bit mode that's more tolerant of adjustment than the 8-bit of JPEGs.

Below is an example where I used the single image, double processed to partially recover a blown out background in an image. This was a moving subject, so there was little opportunity to take multiple images. Obviously, this would have been impossible to do with a filter. While it's not a scenic shot, the exact same techniques can be used with those, too (in fact, with landscape shots it's usually much easier than this image).



Customer liked this pose and wanted a print made from it, but as you can see when the exposure is correct for the indoor, shaded subject, the outdoor, sunlit background is strongly overexposed.



So I created the second version of the image above and adjusted the exposure to recover some of the background detail. I also adjusted the color balance for the difference between the cool indoor shade and the warmer outdoor sunshine.

Then I used layers & masks in Photoshop to combine those two version of the image, with this being the result:



The above final image may appear a little saturated on some monitors. This was deliberate because of the printing process that was going to be used. Also, if you look closely you can see I ended up not using all the "recovered" background version. When I combined the two versions I felt the background was starting to overpower the subject. It was a very simple matter of making that background layer slightly transparent to reduce its strength.

Exactly the same process can be used with landscapes and many other situations. In fact, it's easier because it's usually just the sky that needs tweaking (though if there's a reflection in water, that can require it's own separate adjustments). In the above example I adjusted both exposure and color balance. In other images I've used similar process to selectively sharpen or blur down parts of images.

There are some other ways to do this with a digital image.... All at least as good as using Grad ND filters and a few that give results better than was possible with the filters.

Another thing, the oversize, rectangular filters are difficult to shade effectively with a lens hood. There were some modular and "accordion" style hoods made, but those were only partially successful. Some people just use their hat or carry a piece of cardboard or something to shade the filters.

I still have a several of my Grad NDs from when I was shooting film 20 years ago. I keep them along with some of my film cameras, just in case I want to shoot some. But since learning the post-processing technique described above and since I almost exclusively shoot digital now, those filters are gathering dust in a closet.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I use a 0.5 GND quite a lot. It gives very nice results when shooting outdoors because generally the sky is brighter than the subject be it landscape, seascape, trains, boats etc. The GND helps even out the exposure. For snow scenes or bright sunny beach you can flip it. ;)

As you can see from the comments, there are two types of filters round and rectangular and lots of strong opinions on which is better. Both have pros and cons. Round is easier to install, cheaper, lighter, but it is limited to having the graduation line in the center (in my experience this is less of a problem than it might seem) and round only fits one size lens.

Watch for color casts on cheap filters. It should not change the colors. I had a Tiffen that imparted a green cast to the photos 😡. I sent it back and Tiffen agreed to replace it then it took them almost a year to get the new one in spite of regular emails to them. I will not buy another Tiffen product because of that. I don’t know if the replacement Tiffen was any better, because by the time they finally sent it I had moved on to another brand. No color cast! 😀. I gave the Tiffen away.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

You don't use Graduated ND filters for this. They serve a different purpose.

In order to use slower shutter speeds than normally possible (or larger lens apertures), you will need fairly strong, "standard" ND filters. It is not possible to replicate this in post-processing.

For photographs (as opposed to video), you probably just need one or two quality ND filters. A good starting point is a 6-stop filter. Some prefer as much as 9 or 10 stop. Another approach is to get two, such as a 3-stop and a 6-stop, which can be combined for 9 stops when wanted.

This type of filter can be round, screw-in type (also available in square type to fit the same holders as oversize, rectangular Grad NDs use, if already using those).

One problem when using these strong ND filters is that a DSLR's autofocus may not be able to work. It's also difficult to see to focus manually (might try using Live View with Exposure Simulation). One possible solution is magnetically mounted filters, which can be removed temporarily to allow for focusing, then reinstalled easily without disturbing your settings.

Some people try using Variable ND filters instead... dial it to the weakest setting to focus, then dial it to the strong setting for the exposure. But Variable ND have their own problems. They tend to give uneven effects, particularly at stronger settings. They also tend to cause color shifts or ugly tints in images.

Mirrorless cameras usually don't have the same problems, partly because their AF systems often can work in lower light levels than DSLRs. Plus most mirrorless can automatically display Exposure Simulated image previews in their electronic viewfinders or on their LCD screens, to help with manual focus, if needed.

A videographer tends to need a lot more different strengths of ND than a photographer, so a budget alternative for them is a Variable ND (cheaper than buying a whole bunch of ND in different fixed strengths). A photographer usually just need one or two fixed strength NDs. A videographer may need eight or ten or more different strengths ranging from very weak to very strong. This is because photography offers significantly more flexibility adjusting exposure than video does. So for a videographer it may make sense to get a Variable ND. Note: There have recently been some Variable ND offered that largely avoid some of the problems. But these are usually of limited range. One brand that claims none of the usual problems offers two Variable NDs, each only covering a three or four stop range, rather than the more common eight to ten stops in a single filter.

Photopharma Loc: Mountainside, NJ

If you have never used a ND, then go with the variable Tiffen or B&W vario filter.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I'm not sure of a filter on a 10mm lens. What will happen on the edges if it that wide. If it is not a full fram camera the 10mm will be 15 or 16mm and not that bad.

mwilson315

A great option for your intended use is a combination Circular polarizer and in the filter. This would be screwed on, and would be far easier to use than a square filter with a filter holder. I’ve used this filter and am very happy.
https://singh-ray.com/shop/bryan-hansel-waterfall-polarizer/

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

mwilson315

One other comment on t be Singh-Ray filter. Use the code “hansel10”, and save 10%

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I said that GNDs are obsolete, not NDs

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

One very significant reason for videographers to use variable NDs is the ability to smoothly change the exposure while shooting. Unless one has a dedicated lens with clickless aperture ring, that is otherwise impossible.

And even if one has such a lens, a VND allows the exposure to be varied while keeping the lens wide open to achieve the highest background defocus and subject isolation while filming in situations of changing light.

anotherview Loc: California

Adobe has introduced a "select sky" filter in Photoshop. The user can then adjust this selection on a layer.

This filter does not replace an ND graduated filter. Instead, the Photoshop digital filter detects and selects the sky area as distinct from other areas.

Boone Loc: Groundhog Town USA

I use this filter a lot. There is "NO X shadow" in this filter! If you do get this filter, buy the one that fits your "LARGEST LENS", and buy a "STEP DOWN RING" for your other lenses. That way it will fit "ALL OF YOUR LENSES".

Give this a look, because it is very good!!!

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07FQG6TYR/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_image?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Thanks,
Boone.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

What ever happened to try and get it right in camera and fix in post if you must?

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I agree with you and you made me laugh with the advice about being mindful of the orientation of the GND. I have NEVER done that. And it is all but impossible to fix.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Royce asked about a graduated neutral density filter, not a variable.
And you cannot mount a larger filter on a smaller lens with a step-down ring. A step-up ring is required.