Does HDR remove the need for grad filters ?
Discussion
Yes and No 
I reckon (and this is all just my opinion) That done really well an HDR blend of multiple images can look just as good and realistic as shots taken with grad filters. BUT you will need to put a lot of time and effort into manipulating the image afterwards. This is usually done badly.
People seem to think that HDR is an easy way to make a poor image look much better. In reality its a difficult way to improve an image thats already got a lot going for it. Its probably easier to invest in some grad filters!
I reckon (and this is all just my opinion) That done really well an HDR blend of multiple images can look just as good and realistic as shots taken with grad filters. BUT you will need to put a lot of time and effort into manipulating the image afterwards. This is usually done badly.
People seem to think that HDR is an easy way to make a poor image look much better. In reality its a difficult way to improve an image thats already got a lot going for it. Its probably easier to invest in some grad filters!
I generally add highlight and shadow, so find my own dynamic range. HDR is a blunt tool. When used well, it's a spanner, when used badly, it's a sledge hammer with piss poor crow bar tendencies. Many people seem to go for the latter. (And win awards for their efforts).
There are many ways of post processing photos to gain 'added value'. Some on here produce fab results (and I mean FAB), but I'm one to do far less, as my pics are more 'this is what it was', not 'this is how I saw it'.
HDR is a quick fix that will produce dramatic results. Grad filters will help produce dramatic results.
Subject, light and composition will always win. Everything else can only add, or screw.
There are many ways of post processing photos to gain 'added value'. Some on here produce fab results (and I mean FAB), but I'm one to do far less, as my pics are more 'this is what it was', not 'this is how I saw it'.
HDR is a quick fix that will produce dramatic results. Grad filters will help produce dramatic results.
Subject, light and composition will always win. Everything else can only add, or screw.
It's personal preference, some people turn out amazing HDR work which you can't tell is HDR, others turn out HDR hell which makes me want to gouge out my eyes with spoons.
I prefer to work with grads wherever possible, there are times however where a grad wouldn't work and where HDR or exposure blending is a better option, then I will go down that route. I sometimes use a hybrid of the two, physical grads, and highlights and shadows in PP, as Steve.
At the end of the day they're both tools, both have their strengths and weaknesses and both have their place in a photographers toolbox.
I prefer to work with grads wherever possible, there are times however where a grad wouldn't work and where HDR or exposure blending is a better option, then I will go down that route. I sometimes use a hybrid of the two, physical grads, and highlights and shadows in PP, as Steve.
At the end of the day they're both tools, both have their strengths and weaknesses and both have their place in a photographers toolbox.
The 'HDR look' is really tone-mapping 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_mapping
An image that has a large dynamic range can be achieved (as Simpo said) with a couple of exposures and layer masks to blend them together.
HDR can replace grad filters but I can imagine photographers still wanting to use them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_mappingAn image that has a large dynamic range can be achieved (as Simpo said) with a couple of exposures and layer masks to blend them together.
HDR can replace grad filters but I can imagine photographers still wanting to use them
DibblyDobbler said:
I put that up for a laugh but a serious point - that would be a tricky shot for a grad due to the monument breaking the line of the horizon. As Simpo says it's horses for courses
At least a grad would help to cover up half of it! As for the rest, a padlocked light-proof box and a mineshaft. And some concrete.
ExPat2B said:
As per title, does HDR ( multiple shots taken at different exposures and combined in in photoshop with a graduated mask ) remove the need for graduated filters ?
Ok, we've all done HDR, even if some won't admit it. Get it out of your system, oo and ahh over the results, and move on. The world of photograph awaits your return. 
I should have been more clear. What I mean by HDR is taking two exposures, exposing one for the sky and one for the landscape and then using a horizontal graduated mask in Photoshop to blend the two together. Effectively using software as the graduated filter to split the exposure of land and sky. You might even say this gets a better result as there is no extra glass.
Not HDR tone mapping to make some horrible gauche image.
Background to the question is that I am upgrading my filters to Cokin Z pro, a set of grad ND's is expensive and I am not sure I can really justify them...my other line of thought is that if I only going to get a few filters ( ND and UV and polarised ) I should just get all out and get the Lee filters.
Not HDR tone mapping to make some horrible gauche image.
Background to the question is that I am upgrading my filters to Cokin Z pro, a set of grad ND's is expensive and I am not sure I can really justify them...my other line of thought is that if I only going to get a few filters ( ND and UV and polarised ) I should just get all out and get the Lee filters.
ExPat2B said:
I should have been more clear. What I mean by HDR is taking two exposures, exposing one for the sky and one for the landscape and then using a horizontal graduated mask in Photoshop to blend the two together. Effectively using software as the graduated filter to split the exposure of land and sky.
Yes, and much more flexible as the join doesn't have to be a straight line. But only if nothing moves! If it does, you're back to RAW (one shot) and double processing.You don't need a full set TBH, on my 35mm dslrs systems I rarely use the soft grads, and rarely if ever a 1 stop, so a 2 and 3 stop hard edged and you're sorted IMO. Avoid UV filters unless you're in very very hazardous situations (rallying is the only time I use one) and a 3 stop solid ND, possibly a 10 stop if you're into that kind of thing, plus a CPL and you're laughing.
ExPat2B said:
I should have been more clear. What I mean by HDR is taking two exposures, exposing one for the sky and one for the landscape and then using a horizontal graduated mask in Photoshop to blend the two together. Effectively using software as the graduated filter to split the exposure of land and sky. You might even say this gets a better result as there is no extra glass.
Not HDR tone mapping to make some horrible gauche image.
Background to the question is that I am upgrading my filters to Cokin Z pro, a set of grad ND's is expensive and I am not sure I can really justify them...my other line of thought is that if I only going to get a few filters ( ND and UV and polarised ) I should just get all out and get the Lee filters.
So... that's generally referred to as 'digital blending' not HDR. I used to do it a lot, but IQ on cameras has improved a lot (and I have filters if there is a real difference in luminosity), so I guess it's one in a hundred that I do that now.Not HDR tone mapping to make some horrible gauche image.
Background to the question is that I am upgrading my filters to Cokin Z pro, a set of grad ND's is expensive and I am not sure I can really justify them...my other line of thought is that if I only going to get a few filters ( ND and UV and polarised ) I should just get all out and get the Lee filters.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff