Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: ChuckZ on January 21, 2010, 05:44:54 pm
-
I received an Amazon gift certificate and I figure to use it to buy a neutral density filter so I can obtain shots of waterfalls with the flow blurred to get the silky effect. The selection on Amazon is limited and I've narrowed down the choice to either a Heliopan ND 0.6 4x (2 stop) or a Hoya 8X 0.9 (3 stop). Until now, I've been able to get the effect most of the time by using my circular polarizer, but sometimes I cannot get the shutter speed slow enough if it is bright. Any thoughts? Thanks
-
I don't think a 2 stop or 3 stop ND filter will be enough. I'd recommend you a 10 stop or a 9 stop filter. The Hoya ND400 (9 stops) or the B+W 1000 (10 stops) are good examples.
An alternative if you already have a circular polarizer is to buy a linear polarizer of the same size and use both stacked. Turning the linear polarizer over the circular one you can get the scene as dark as you want. The only drawback is that the stacked combo may vignette with some camera+lens combinations.
Luigi
-
I don't think a 2 stop or 3 stop ND filter will be enough. I'd recommend you a 10 stop or a 9 stop filter. The Hoya ND400 (9 stops) or the B+W 1000 (10 stops) are good examples.
An alternative if you already have a circular polarizer is to buy a linear polarizer of the same size and use both stacked. Turning the linear polarizer over the circular one you can get the scene as dark as you want. The only drawback is that the stacked combo may vignette with some camera+lens combinations.
Luigi
Thanks for the reply. I did see a B+W 64X ND on the Amazon site. However, their website says use of the filter results in a warm color cast in the image. I'm uncertain if this is something I can rectify in Lightroom or not, so I did not consider it further.
-
I find a 6 stop filter more useful, the 10 stop puts your exposure times WAY out there if the light starts to fade. I use the B+W 6 stop ND, which is a filter factor of 1.8.
-
There is another discussion, which I started, running in this section at the moment called '9 and 10 stop ND filters'. You may find some interesting thoughts there. It all depends on how much blurring you want, and your budget. It does appear that 9 and 10 stop filters can give a color cast which is thought to possibly be an infrared issue. Certainly such filters are not easy to use as they are so dark, but they do produce the desired effect. There is also a variable Singh-Ray filter mentioned in that discussion. One other consideration which goes with the budget question (you pay for what you get) is that I presume you want a genuine neutral density filter, not just a grey filter.
Jonathan
-
What do you think stacking two 3-stop ND filters in good light conditions ?!
In lower light you can use only one !
Thierry
-
I've narrowed down the choice to either a Heliopan ND 0.6 4x (2 stop) or a Hoya 8X 0.9 (3 stop). Until now, I've been able to get the effect most of the time by using my circular polarizer, but sometimes I cannot get the shutter speed slow enough if it is bright.
If you find the polarizer enough, then get a 0.9/8x = 3 stops filter. you could stack both if vignetting doesn't kick in...
ND64 is a bit of a different beast : the viewfinder is obscured, AF works painly if at all... and foremost the effect is quite different, between "just long" exposures in the (barely hand-holdable with IS) 1/20s-1/3s range, which imho might convey more of the sense of motion on a not-too-roaring stream, and the "artistic blur" kind of the 1s-15s exposure range.
Experiment between different kind of flows and different speeds.
An example of the first exposure range, shot with a polarizer (very probably stacked with a ND8) @ 1/8s and f/16. Manual IS using a tree as monopod.
-
My preference would be to use the gift certificate on something else and buy a Singh-Ray variable density filter. I have used a couple of these over the past 2 years or so and find them really necessary. You just spin the filter which dials in the amount of ND you want. Extremely useful.
-
I find a 6 stop filter more useful, the 10 stop puts your exposure times WAY out there if the light starts to fade. I use the B+W 6 stop ND, which is a filter factor of 1.8.
Sheldon,
Does the B+W 6 stop ND add a color cast to your shots? If so, how do you deal with it? Thanks.
-
My preference would be to use the gift certificate on something else and buy a Singh-Ray variable density filter. I have used a couple of these over the past 2 years or so and find them really necessary. You just spin the filter which dials in the amount of ND you want. Extremely useful.
It sounds like the Singh-Ray variable density filter is the ideal way to go to get a quality filter and the exact amount of neutral density desired. However, at over $350 for the Singh-Ray filter and step up ring, I need to settle for something less expensive.
-
I haven't noticed any color cast issues with my 6 stop ND, at least none that have jumped out at me.
The Singh Ray filter is really nice, except if you plan to shoot wide angle. It is think and will cause significant vingetting. I can't use an ND plus a polarizer on my 17-40 or 24-70 at the wide end without vignetting and the Singh Ray Vari-ND filter alone is thicker.
-
I haven't noticed any color cast issues with my 6 stop ND, at least none that have jumped out at me.
The Singh Ray filter is really nice, except if you plan to shoot wide angle. It is think and will cause significant vingetting. I can't use an ND plus a polarizer on my 17-40 or 24-70 at the wide end without vignetting and the Singh Ray Vari-ND filter alone is thicker.
After taking the comments I've received here and my budget into account, I decided to order the B+W 64X (6 stop). I'll post a review after I have a chance to use it.
-
After taking the comments I've received here and my budget into account, I decided to order the B+W 64X (6 stop). I'll post a review after I have a chance to use it.
I'm happy with the results I am getting with the 64X ND filter, as I am getting nice silky waterfalls. At the same time, I can see the advantage of the variable ND filter of being easy to adjust the amount of blur in the waterfall. For my budget, the 64X is fine.
-
I'm happy with the results I am getting with the 64X ND filter, as I am getting nice silky waterfalls. At the same time, I can see the advantage of the variable ND filter of being easy to adjust the amount of blur in the waterfall. For my budget, the 64X is fine.
Nice results, like the details on rock formation. What were your settings & did you use sand bags on your tripod?
-
Nice results, like the details on rock formation. What were your settings & did you use sand bags on your tripod?
I used apeture priority mode at f11 to get the depth of field I needed, which resulted in a shutter speed of 6 sec for the shot on the left and 20 sec for the shot on the right (it was darker at that location). No sand bags on the tripod.
-
I used apeture priority mode at f11 to get the depth of field I needed, which resulted in a shutter speed of 6 sec for the shot on the left and 20 sec for the shot on the right (it was darker at that location). No sand bags on the tripod.
Thanks. The results are quite good. Good luck.
Sean
-
Does anyone know if the Singh-Ray VariND filter is just a circular and linear polarizer put together? Can you get the same darkening effect with the circular/linear stacking combo?
I need to know this because I want the variable effect but for wide angle lenses. I would take a 95mm circular with front threads and then stack a linear "thin ring" on top to minimize height, and then use step-up rings for different lenses in the hope that it would eliminate most vignetting issues at least down to about 20mm or so. Singh-Ray does not offer the VariND larger than 82mm.
Thanks
Guy
-
I've never quite understood the need for ND filters when shooting waterfalls. Probably 50% of the shots I take are waterfalls, and I've yet to use an ND filter on any of them. Granted, I'm usually f16-f20 depending on the scene and almost always ISO 50 and sometimes ISO 100. It only takes 1-1.5 sec. of exposure time to get a nice blue action and sometimes that is too much depending on the amount of water flow. Still, there are times when I expose for as much as 15 seconds depending on the scene.
1. I ALWAYS shoot with a CPL, whether I'm using it to it's full effect on the scene or not... typically always have some dialed in however.
2. Maybe the falls are just different here, being typically in a heavily wooded area without much light even in mid day.
I have used soft-edge GND's at times, but only when part of the scene is significantly brighter than the rest resulting in too much range.
I know people use them, but personally I fight the exposure times being too long as opposed to not long enough.
(http://cothronphotography.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Waterfalls-of-North-Georgia/Raper-Creek-Falls/IMG8659/490747865_Bf3vJ-S-3.jpg)
(http://cothronphotography.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Waterfalls-of-North-Georgia/Minnehaha-Falls/IMG1585-100207/783397209_w6v5L-S.jpg)
-
Does anyone know if the Singh-Ray VariND filter is just a circular and linear polarizer put together? Can you get the same darkening effect with the circular/linear stacking combo?
Apparently so, so the same effect should be possible; beware of colour casts with cheap filters.
-
What do you think stacking two 3-stop ND filters in good light conditions ?!
In lower light you can use only one !
Thierry
The other evening as the sun was setting - just over the horizon - I stacked a 3 and two 4 stop filters and managed to auto focus and get a pleasing image. The exposure had to be raised by two stops however. The 3 stop was a cheap Cokin filter which gives a colour cast which added nicely to the scene. I will process the image and post it. Not the best image in the world but it proves what the set up can do. The hump is an ancient castle which is over ten centuries old.
-
I've never quite understood the need for ND filters when shooting waterfalls. Probably 50% of the shots I take are waterfalls, and I've yet to use an ND filter on any of them. Granted, I'm usually f16-f20 depending on the scene and almost always ISO 50 and sometimes ISO 100. It only takes 1-1.5 sec. of exposure time to get a nice blue action and sometimes that is too much depending on the amount of water flow. Still, there are times when I expose for as much as 15 seconds depending on the scene.
1. I ALWAYS shoot with a CPL, whether I'm using it to it's full effect on the scene or not... typically always have some dialed in however.
2. Maybe the falls are just different here, being typically in a heavily wooded area without much light even in mid day.
I have used soft-edge GND's at times, but only when part of the scene is significantly brighter than the rest resulting in too much range.
I know people use them, but personally I fight the exposure times being too long as opposed to not long enough.
(http://cothronphotography.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Waterfalls-of-North-Georgia/Raper-Creek-Falls/IMG8659/490747865_Bf3vJ-S-3.jpg)
(http://cothronphotography.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Waterfalls-of-North-Georgia/Minnehaha-Falls/IMG1585-100207/783397209_w6v5L-S.jpg)
Your images are excellent, and at the same time examples of why you might need a ND filter. How would you shoot the same image and get the same effect in full sunlight?
-
I've never quite understood the need for ND filters when shooting waterfalls. Probably 50% of the shots I take are waterfalls, and I've yet to use an ND filter on any of them. Granted, I'm usually f16-f20 depending on the scene and almost always ISO 50 and sometimes ISO 100. It only takes 1-1.5 sec. of exposure time to get a nice blue action and sometimes that is too much depending on the amount of water flow. Still, there are times when I expose for as much as 15 seconds depending on the scene.
1. I ALWAYS shoot with a CPL, whether I'm using it to it's full effect on the scene or not... typically always have some dialed in however.
2. Maybe the falls are just different here, being typically in a heavily wooded area without much light even in mid day.
I have used soft-edge GND's at times, but only when part of the scene is significantly brighter than the rest resulting in too much range.
I know people use them, but personally I fight the exposure times being too long as opposed to not long enough.
(http://cothronphotography.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Waterfalls-of-North-Georgia/Raper-Creek-Falls/IMG8659/490747865_Bf3vJ-S-3.jpg)
(http://cothronphotography.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Waterfalls-of-North-Georgia/Minnehaha-Falls/IMG1585-100207/783397209_w6v5L-S.jpg)
I went back to the waterfall I shot with the 6 stop ND a couple weeks ago (shown in earlier post) and this time shot it with only a polarizer. I like this one better as the shorter shutter speed (1/2sec vs 6sec) has resulted in a shot with more detail in the water yet still has the blur effect. At this point I'm guessing that the ND filter is probably going to work better for those waterfalls that are in the sun and a ploarizer for those in the shade. The speed and volume of the water, distance to the falls, etc probably play a part too. For that matter, I'll take two shots in the future, one with the polarizer and one with the ND filter, and see which one I like best when I view them on my monitor.
-
Is it just me that thinks the "milky water" effect is one of the most toe-curling cliches in contemporary landscape photography?
A friend recently showed me a copy of a (UK) book entitled "Landscape Photographer of the Year". It comprises various categories (age groups, subjects) but basically, I think, displays the work of talented amateurs; certainly the hardware specs listed in an index are often fairly modest - a lot of kit lenses etc. Some very nice work though.
The book is absolutely full of shots utilising this over-used effect. And people moan about HDR!
Roy
-
Is it just me that thinks the "milky water" effect is one of the most toe-curling cliches in contemporary landscape photography?
A friend recently showed me a copy of a (UK) book entitled "Landscape Photographer of the Year". It comprises various categories (age groups, subjects) but basically, I think, displays the work of talented amateurs; certainly the hardware specs listed in an index are often fairly modest - a lot of kit lenses etc. Some very nice work though.
The book is absolutely full of shots utilising this over-used effect. And people moan about HDR!
Roy
Probably a lot of photographers would agree with you about the clichés. It happens in all varieties of photography. You either like them or you don't? My photography was in a rut after doing all the "usual things" and I decided to buy some ND filters which led me to buying a new tripod. I am enjoying getting that effect at the moment but no doubt in the future I will get bored and move on to something"new". Meanwhile it is a worthwhile learning experience. Now could someone convince me to buy a dedicated flashgun and learn flash photography? I would need however to find some indoor locations where permission allows this, which I believe is getting harder?
-
Probably a lot of photographers would agree with you about the clichés. It happens in all varieties of photography.
Yep. Narrow depth of field, ultra-wide angle, high-speed flash, panning during exposure, crinkly old faces, golden-hour landscapes, motion blur, foregound "interest", HDR, panoramas etc. The clichés just go on and on. This doesn't mean you can't enjoy an individual picture for what it is. It also doesn't mean that everyone can make a great picture just by applying one or more of the "cliché" techniques.
-
Your images are excellent, and at the same time examples of why you might need a ND filter. How would you shoot the same image and get the same effect in full sunlight?
Thank you, and I have no doubt you're correct about full sunlight. That's sort of my point, I've never actually seen a waterfall in direct enough sunlight to use an actual ND. I have of course used soft edge GND's in waterfall shots to balance the scene as many times you have very dark areas/shadows.
I went back to the waterfall I shot with the 6 stop ND a couple weeks ago (shown in earlier post) and this time shot it with only a polarizer. I like this one better as the shorter shutter speed (1/2sec vs 6sec) has resulted in a shot with more detail in the water yet still has the blur effect. At this point I'm guessing that the ND filter is probably going to work better for those waterfalls that are in the sun and a ploarizer for those in the shade. The speed and volume of the water, distance to the falls, etc probably play a part too. For that matter, I'll take two shots in the future, one with the polarizer and one with the ND filter, and see which one I like best when I view them on my monitor.
Yeah there are a lot of variables, but somewhere in the .50 to 2 sec. range seems to be the sweet spot for getting good water texture. Actually the waterflow in north GA is so heavy right now that water texture is very difficult to control and "needs" to be on the faster end of that shutter speed. I've found myself shooting ISO 100 or even 200 this year due to the flow. 6 stops is a lot of light to cut however, but I may run into that situation yet we'll see.
Is it just me that thinks the "milky water" effect is one of the most toe-curling cliches in contemporary landscape photography?
A friend recently showed me a copy of a (UK) book entitled "Landscape Photographer of the Year". It comprises various categories (age groups, subjects) but basically, I think, displays the work of talented amateurs; certainly the hardware specs listed in an index are often fairly modest - a lot of kit lenses etc. Some very nice work though.
The book is absolutely full of shots utilising this over-used effect. And people moan about HDR!
Roy
It's a matter of opinion, I take stop action shots as well... guess which ones end up being more popular? It's those cliche` shots you're talking about with the smoother textures in the water. Granted it's not about being more popular, it's also my personal preference. Given the same shot with frozen action vs. a smoother texture.... I tend to print and hang the smoother one.