NEUTRAL DENSITY FILTERS AND SETTING THE CAMERA UP

[micrud]

I have been given three sets of Lee resin filters as a birthday present,including 1 2 and 3 stop Neutral Density filters, (HARD) problem is i really am not sure of the best way to set the camera settings (nikon d 80). Can i just set the aperture to say f16 or f22 for suitable dof and with filter on camera let it sort shutter speed out, or should i be doing something more suitable to get the best results,could anyone talk me through the proper way of doing this, as enthusiast i am, mathematitian i am not,also are there any decent how to websites which explain the process in more detail, thank you in anticipation, regards mick.

[Tom Perkins]

Using the filters won't affect your cameras ability to calculate exposure, because it's metering through the lens. I would set the aperture to around f11 to f16, iso at 100, then let the camera calculate the speed. take a shot, check the histogram, then use the exposure compensation to adjust exposure if necessary, so that the highlights are not, but are close to being, burned out (expose to right method).

[howiesmith]

I have been given three sets of Lee resin filters as a birthday present,including 1 2 and 3 stop Neutral Density filters, (HARD) problem is i really am not sure of the best way to set the camera settings (nikon d 80). Can i just set the aperture to say f16 or f22 for suitable dof and with filter on camera let it sort shutter speed out, or should i be doing something more suitable to get the best results,could anyone talk me through the proper way of doing this, as enthusiast i am, mathematitian i am not,also are there any decent how to websites which explain the process in more detail, thank you in anticipation, regards mick.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116129\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

First thing to do is figure out what you have.  You say neutral density filters, which are one thing, and the HARD, which implies something else.

Next figure out why you want to use one.  "What it is" affects "why you want to use it" and that affects how to use it.

DoF involves simple arithmatic, not math.  If you can add, subtract, multiply and didvide, you can master DoF.  Ansel Adams described DoF using 3 equations with 4 variables.  If you need more math, you haven't made enough or the proper simplifying assumptions.  And, those have been done for you in most practicle articles and books.  DoF is more complicated that just setting the camera to f/16 or f/22 and forget it, but you do not have to be a mathematician to properly determine the DoF you want than you do to balance your check book.  Add, subtract, multiply and divide.

For study, I recommend skipping home grown definitions and all DoF calculators found on line.  You want to learn DoF, not what someone else thinks it is.  DoF calculators may be OK (I don't think so), but they usually make some very basic assumptions without telling you what they are.  And they usually work for a very narrow set of circumstances (a prarticual camera, print size, viewing distance, etc.) which you may not meet (or want to).

[micrud]

Using the filters won't affect your cameras ability to calculate exposure, because it's metering through the lens. I would set the aperture to around f11 to f16, iso at 100, then let the camera calculate the speed. take a shot, check the histogram, then use the exposure compensation to adjust exposure if necessary, so that the highlights are not, but are close to being, burned out (expose to right method).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116134\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks so much for your info Tom,must admit i never thought of the histogram or exposure comp, not really used them on the camera as yet, but will now incorporate these methods religiously, and Tom the images on your site are amazing, thanks again.

[wolfnowl]

First thing to do is figure out what you have. You say neutral density filters, which are one thing, and the HARD, which implies something else.

Unless someone's making something I don't know about, which is entirely possible, there are hard edge and soft edge neutral density filters.  The hard edge filters are, say 3-0, with one half of the filter darkened to a degree and the other half clear.  Soft edge filters use a gradient from top to half way down with the bottom clear.  Let's not confuse the poor person!

Mike.

[howiesmith]

Unless someone's making something I don't know about, which is entirely possible, there are hard edge and soft edge neutral density filters.  The hard edge filters are, say 3-0, with one half of the filter darkened to a degree and the other half clear.  Soft edge filters use a gradient from top to half way down with the bottom clear.  Let's not confuse the poor person!

Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116208\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There are neutral density filters and split neutral density filters.  They are not the same thing.  Hard and soft is in reference to the edge of split neutral density filters.

I believe soft edge refers to a longer distance (hard is short distance) between the ND and clear portions of the filter, and are not gradated from top to bottom evenly.

I agree. Let's not confuse the person!

[howiesmith]

I am not sure the thru-the-lens meter will do the trick repeatably,

Say you are using the spot option and the spot sees no ND of the split because of the position of the split ND.  The exposure setting is unchanged, but the ND covered section of the photo will be darker by the amount of ND.  Move the split down and the ND part will be unchanged and the non-ND will be brighter by the amount of the ND.

Using the "average" option will work about the same way but less dramatically.

Always best to know and understand what you are telling your camera to do.  Cameras are actually pretty dumb and usually do just as they are told.

[micrud]

Unless someone's making something I don't know about, which is entirely possible, there are hard edge and soft edge neutral density filters.  The hard edge filters are, say 3-0, with one half of the filter darkened to a degree and the other half clear.  Soft edge filters use a gradient from top to half way down with the bottom clear.  Let's not confuse the poor person!

Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116208\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

They are the Lee neutral density hard grad filter set 0.3  0.6  0.9

[howiesmith]

They are the Lee neutral density hard grad filter set 0.3  0.6  0.9
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116241\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK.  Now you know what you have.  What do you expect to do with them?

Do you want to just darken the ND portion?  Do you want to keep the ND part unchanged and just lighten the non-ND portion?  Or something in between?

[wolfnowl]

There are neutral density filters and split neutral density filters. They are not the same thing.

You are correct.  I wasn't thinking about filters that are consistently coated.  Never used them.  Of course we could throw in the Singh-Ray Variable ND and really confuse things.

Mike.

[micrud]

OK.  Now you know what you have.  What do you expect to do with them?

Do you want to just darken the ND portion?  Do you want to keep the ND part unchanged and just lighten the non-ND portion?  Or something in between?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116245\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Neutral Density Filters---- these are neutral in colour, so therefore reduce the ammount of light entering the camera without affecting the colour of the image, nd grad filters, (half clear half neutral) are used to correct any contrast imbalance, lee filters have either a hard or a soft graduation, the hard grads have a sudden transition from hard to clear, whereas the softs have a more subtle transition, so yes i already knew why i have them, but then again that was not my question, i think that tom has more than suitably answered my question, for which i am truly grateful, thanks anyway guys.

[howiesmith]

I have been given three sets of Lee resin filters as a birthday present,including 1 2 and 3 stop Neutral Density filters, (HARD) problem is i really am not sure of the best way to set the camera settings (nikon d 80). Can i just set the aperture to say f16 or f22 for suitable dof and with filter on camera let it sort shutter speed out, or should i be doing something more suitable to get the best results,could anyone talk me through the proper way of doing this, as enthusiast i am, mathematitian i am not,also are there any decent how to websites which explain the process in more detail, thank you in anticipation, regards mick.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116129\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Based on your original post above, the reason you have the filters is they were a birthday gift.  No clue that I could see whether you asked for this particular set of filters or they just showed up.

The answer to to your question is: of course you can just put them i=on your camera and get what you get - let the camera do the thinking.

But the truth is more complicated than that, as you will probably find out.  Look at some images by Galen Rowell, arguably he was a competent photographer.  He used split ND filters and on many images, it is obvious.  Trees cross the ND edge and get darker as they go.

A second major problrm is relections.  Unless the photographer id careful and knows what he is doing, reflections can appear lidhter than than the thing reflected - no possible excpet with poorly used split ND.

A lot of photographers have tried them and tossed them.  They are simply hard to use correctly to get good results.  How do you place the edge?  FYI, hard edge filters are harder to use than soft.

How noticible the edge is is affected ,uch the same as DoF.  Longer lens, less moticible.  Wideer f/stop, less noticible.  

You may find that simply fitting the filter to the camera, stopping way down to get the desired DoF, and then letting the camera figure out the exposure may give you both bad unwanted results and unrepeatable results.

As an aside, I watching CSI: Miami last night and it looked like the cameraman got a split tobacco filter set for his birthday.  Tobacco shy and clouds with normall lit folk on a normally lit beach.  The results were simply crumby.

Good luck.

[micrud]

Based on your original post above, the reason you have the filters is they were a birthday gift.  No clue that I could see whether you asked for this particular set of filters or they just showed up.

The answer to to your question is: of course you can just put them i=on your camera and get what you get - let the camera do the thinking.

But the truth is more complicated than that, as you will probably find out.  Look at some images by Galen Rowell, arguably he was a competent photographer.  He used split ND filters and on many images, it is obvious.  Trees cross the ND edge and get darker as they go.

A second major problrm is relections.  Unless the photographer id careful and knows what he is doing, reflections can appear lidhter than than the thing reflected - no possible excpet with poorly used split ND.

A lot of photographers have tried them and tossed them.  They are simply hard to use correctly to get good results.  How do you place the edge?  FYI, hard edge filters are harder to use than soft.

How noticible the edge is is affected ,uch the same as DoF.  Longer lens, less moticible.  Wideer f/stop, less noticible. 

You may find that simply fitting the filter to the camera, stopping way down to get the desired DoF, and then letting the camera figure out the exposure may give you both bad unwanted results and unrepeatable results.

As an aside, I watching CSI: Miami last night and it looked like the cameraman got a split tobacco filter set for his birthday.  Tobacco shy and clouds with normall lit folk on a normally lit beach.  The results were simply crumby.

Good luck.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes there probably are a load of photographers who have tossed them ,however there are an awful lot that have persevered with them and have indeed achieved stunning results, i never give up, i will go all the way and through practice, get it right, yes i agree the wrong filter can have a terrible effect, but i dont think that nd s are toys, and will only be used if and when the scene neccesitates their use, kind regards mic.

[micrud]

Based on your original post above, the reason you have the filters is they were a birthday gift.  No clue that I could see whether you asked for this particular set of filters or they just showed up.

The answer to to your question is: of course you can just put them i=on your camera and get what you get - let the camera do the thinking.

But the truth is more complicated than that, as you will probably find out.  Look at some images by Galen Rowell, arguably he was a competent photographer.  He used split ND filters and on many images, it is obvious.  Trees cross the ND edge and get darker as they go.

A second major problrm is relections.  Unless the photographer id careful and knows what he is doing, reflections can appear lidhter than than the thing reflected - no possible excpet with poorly used split ND.

A lot of photographers have tried them and tossed them.  They are simply hard to use correctly to get good results.  How do you place the edge?  FYI, hard edge filters are harder to use than soft.

How noticible the edge is is affected ,uch the same as DoF.  Longer lens, less moticible.  Wideer f/stop, less noticible. 

You may find that simply fitting the filter to the camera, stopping way down to get the desired DoF, and then letting the camera figure out the exposure may give you both bad unwanted results and unrepeatable results.

As an aside, I watching CSI: Miami last night and it looked like the cameraman got a split tobacco filter set for his birthday.  Tobacco shy and clouds with normall lit folk on a normally lit beach.  The results were simply crumby.

Good luck.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[micrud]

Yes there probably are a load of photographers who have tossed them ,however there are an awful lot that have persevered with them and have indeed achieved stunning results, i never give up, i will go all the way and through practice, get it right, yes i agree the wrong filter can have a terrible effect, but i dont think that nd s are toys, and will only be used if and when the scene neccesitates their use, kind regards mic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116400\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If what you say about galen rowell is true then argueably he is not prolific in the use of nd grads, i suggest you look at the works of joe cornish, david noton, and tom mackie, all of which are prolific in the use of nd grads, regards mic.

[howiesmith]

If what you say about galen rowell is true then argueably he is not prolific in the use of nd grads, i suggest you look at the works of joe cornish, david noton, and tom mackie, all of which are prolific in the use of nd grads, regards mic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I looked at the websites of rhe photographers you mentioned.  In deed, there are many stunning images.  I was able to pick out several that to me appeared to be taken with split ND.  Others I could not either because none was used or they were excellant.  A better trained eye than mine might see more, but I don't know.

Galen Rowell is dead and not prolific at all any more.  I know much of his work was done with hand held 35mm.  Most likely he did not use these filters then.  However, on some images (landscapes mostly), it is very obvious even to me that such a filter was used and perhaps not very well.

If you know how to use them, good for you.  If you can learn, good for you.  Sometimes, instead of beating a dead horse, just get off.

There are some instructions on the Singh-Ray website.  I understand you have Lee, but I think they work about the same way.  The instructions were written by John Shaw, not Singh-Ray.  The instructions are a bit more complicated than simply putting the filter on the camera. stopping down to f/16 and set the camera free.

Jim Croce sang a song that reminds me of this exhange.  Some words were; "I learned the hard way everytime."

Good luck and goodbye.

[micrud]

I looked at the websites of rhe photographers you mentioned.  In deed, there are many stunning images.  I was able to pick out several that to me appeared to be taken with split ND.  Others I could not either because none was used or they were excellant.  A better trained eye than mine might see more, but I don't know.

Galen Rowell is dead and not prolific at all any more.  I know much of his work was done with hand held 35mm.  Most likely he did not use these filters then.  However, on some images (landscapes mostly), it is very obvious even to me that such a filter was used and perhaps not very well.

If you know how to use them, good for you.  If you can learn, good for you.  Sometimes, instead of beating a dead horse, just get off.

There are some instructions on the Singh-Ray website.  I understand you have Lee, but I think they work about the same way.  The instructions were written by John Shaw, not Singh-Ray.  The instructions are a bit more complicated than simply putting the filter on the camera. stopping down to f/16 and set the camera free.

Jim Croce sang a song that reminds me of this exhange.  Some words were; "I learned the hard way everytime."

Good luck and goodbye.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116446\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Cheers all the best, mic.

[southmine]

I too think there's more to getting correct exposure than letting the camera meter for you.
Along with the article already mentioned from Singh-Rays web site, I've also found this one to be helpful (just got my Lee system today  )
Cheers.