I've been wanting to purchase an ND filter for awhile now and every time I attempt to look on the internet for one I'm flooded with so many different variety and opinions on which one to get. I would be using the filter for waterfall/landcsape/beach shots. I found these 2 on eBay and I'm not sure whats the difference between the multi coated & HMC and if ND4 would be a good all rounder or should I get the ND2 or ND8 etc. Would someone be so kind to give me some sort of direction? Much appreciated.
Hi Marie I can hopefully speak from experience on this as I have done quite a lot of work recently using ND filters. I have a mixture from ND4 to ND400 and to cut a long story short...the bigger the number the bigger the level of filtration and the lighting at the time together with the effect you want will affect which one you use. If the lighting at the time of shooting is very bright the ND4 you are considering wont allow you to achieve a low enough shutter speed for the milky water affect. I recently tried to do river shots using the ND400 but found tthat it was far too dark and switched back to the ND8 and was more than happy with the results. If you take a look at my album there are a large number of my recent work that has been taken using the ND filters on the lens. I have learned through experimenting as to which filter is best for the surrounding lighting and it is very difficult to give a definitive answer but hope this helps. Once again take a look at my albums and you will see some examples.
@marieooi@amyamoeba Thought I might give you a little of what I know as I used ND's a lot as its one of my favorite ways to perform long exposures.
I would steer clear of screw on filters in the low 2 (1 stop), 4 (2 stop) and 8 (3 stop) ND range and invest in a cokin filter system, you will find purchasing a cokin set a lot more versatile and cheaper in the long run as the system fits a range of lens threads by changing the cheaper adapter look at something like the Z pro from cokin. If you buy the Cokin set you can also use the ND grads to stop down the bright sky
If you want to purchase a screw in buy either a Hoya ND400( 9 stop) or the B+W 110 (10 stop) for true loooong exposes even during bright daylight.
http://www.cokin.co.uk/
Also check out http://nd-magazine.com/ great source for ND enthusiast lost of interviews and links to some of the masters of ND work
Links not linking for some reason :S
Also check out @jonesp Paul has some beautiful long exposures examples :)
Example below taken in bright sunshine with stacked filters :P
Thanks for asking this question @marieooi I have been having the same dilemma myself.. trying to capture water movement in bright light is tricky the answers from @andysg & @flagged are both great .. Thank you both
@andysg@flagged@monika64@stanners72 Thank you all for sharing your experiences with these filters. I'll have to slowly digest all your inputs. Would any of you be able to shed some light on the multi coating and HMC?
@flagged Thanks Flagged its a great link. Can you see what you are doing through a 9 stop filter. Do you have focus before fitting the filter, then put the nd filter on?
@monika64 I was actually thinking of getting a generic brand one to get a feel of the density of each filter/stops before I invest in a good one. I've never played around with one so I don't even know how dark the ND4 is compared to the ND100! Since you have tried this and are pretty pleased with the results, I might get one set to muck around with first. Thanks so much!
@marieooi Marie these are Proprietary term for their coatings
HOYA (Hoya Mulit Coat) These popular filters are renowned for their ability to minimise reflection at the filter surfaces which reduces flare and ghosting. The result is an average light transmission of over 97%, giving sharp contrast and well balanced color. HOYA HMC filters are recommended for enhancing the performance of today's multicoated lenses. < from Hoya website
@simon0128 Simon the 9 and 10 stop filters are virtually black glass, you have to compose and focus your shots before you screw it on, auto focus will not work. I tend to compose my shot do a few test shots at say 25-30 seconds @ f 11 and make adjustments from there.
This Scott Kelby you tube video has great explanation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_dKH2mLt0c&feature=related
@marieooi I bought a relatively cheap one of the adjustable ND filters (ND2-400), http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0059B3YUS/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00 and I am finding it really helpful to play around with. I'm sure it's not the highest of quality and so forth, but it was great being able to get a variety of shots of waterfalls and geysers, and when I look to get a "real" one I'll know better what I'm looking for.
I just took this shot in daylight with my ND4 yesterday. You really don't have to slow a shot down much to get the desired effect, and you can focus through an ND4. If you are going to start with something, I recommend ND4.
Basically, I agree with everything @flagged said (thanks btw) Marie. I know you follow me so you've seen my long exposure seascapes. I did all these with a Lightcraft Workshop ND500 (9 stops). Its not that expensive (I think I paid €60) and the quality is pretty good, causing only a slight loss in sharpness. It causes a slight blue cast but this is easy to correct, especially if you shoot in RAW, but to be honest I kinda like the blue and use it to my advantage. As for which ND to get, it all depends on what you want to do. I seem to have settled on exposures of between 30 seconds and 4 minutes as this gives me the effect in the water and clouds that I want. An ND2/4/8 (1/2/3 stops) would be useless to me but if you are looking for exposures of 2-5 seconds they would do fine. I tend to shoot at dawn or dusk as well so this has an impact as well. I will get into some long exposure shots during daylight hours (much like what @flagged does) but I'll need to add another ND filter for that. I hope to move up to full frame soon and I'll get a Lee Big Stopper (10 stops) as it means I can use it with various lenses. Also screwing the filter on/off gets old real fast especially when time is tight (as it normally is at dawn/dusk. Stay clear of the cheap ones Marie, its tempting I know but the quality is just not there and I think it will put you off the whole thing entirely.
@simon0128 Just to confirm what @flagged said, I set everything up without the filter on, lock the focus and then put the filter on. Unless it still bright, you wont see anything through the viewfinder. Sometimes my D300 will get the correct exposure in Aperture Priority mode but I normally go straight to Manual (f/11 - 30 seconds works for me as well) and then adjust as needed.
Aaron's @grizzlysghost shot is a good example of exactly the opposite of my style which should give you some idea of the difference between ND and ND500.
@simon0128 The reason I went with the ND500 and not the fader by LCW was there is no exact scale so you are not sure how many stops you are getting. The B+W and Hoya are more expensive than the LCW one but from reviews the quality is better. As far as ND filters are concerned, you pay for what you get seems to be true. That being said, my LCW ND500 has produced some nice things...
@simon0128 The 10 stop filter is like welding glass and you can barely see through it so you have 2 options re focussing, one option is to focus then screw the filter in, the other is to attach the filter then use live view if this in an option on your camera, this is the method is use and its never let me down
Not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but you can also stack two polarizers which would give you an incredible ND range; from light to almost completely dark.
@flagged I'm with Flagged, the B+W 10 stop is great. The 9 stop @jonesp mentions sounds good too. I've got an ND8 (i.e. 3 stops) and it does very little, not really worth using for anything given the dynamic range of the camera.
Just taken today in full sun, 30-second exposure, double-stacked Polarizing filters. I had to align them until the finder was almost black. The only thing I did post-process was crop.
Thank you all for your feedbacks and opinions but to be honest, I thought I had narrowed it down to 2 but now it's back to the drawing board lol. Wish it was as easy as someone just telling me straight which one I should get but I do understand that everyone has different usage and preferences.
I'll update everyone once I come to a decision. Again, thank you all!
Here is a shot where I used my new (cheap) neutral density fader. This was about 2/3rds towards the maximum ND effect. I would love feedback from those 'in the know' about what might give this away as having used a cheap filter and what I could do to improve in the future.
@archaeofrog The problem with variable ND filters, other than the patterning they sometimes introduce, is that because they are effectively two polarising sheets, the resultant image is always polarised, and brings with it the side-effects (good or bad) that causes.
In your photo this is very clear because the blue of the sky is much darker on the left of the image than it is on the right. That's the typical result of using a polariser incorrectly on a wide-angle lens -- which is effectively exactly what you've done here, even though it wasn't what you intended to do.
Also, the polarisation is having the effect of seeing through the water rather than capturing the detail on the surface of the water. Note how clearly you can see the rocks in the river, and how there's almost no sign of this being a long water exposure anywhere except where there is significant disturbance. While this ability to 'see through the water' can be a useful effect, it's pretty much exactly what you don't want to happen when doing a long exposure with water.
Variable ND filters are almost always used to shoot long exposure water scenes, but because of the effect of a polariser on water, it also makes them significantly affect these scenes in undesirable ways.
You can try and avoid the weird sky gradation by adjusting the filter to the darkness level you want, and then unscrewing it slightly to rotate the whole thing (not just the bit that twists) away from the lens until the effect is reduced (if it's not improved after 90 degrees rotation, it won't improve). You will likely not be able to remove both the sky gradation and the loss of detail in the water at the same time with a variable ND filter, though.
On an unrelated note, you also have quite a few dust or oil spots on your sensor -- these are typically visible at small apertures such as you are using here (f/22). The good thing about a variable ND filter is that you can darken the image using the filter rather than by using a tiny aperture, and use a sharper, larger aperture such as f/8-f/11.
Overall, this is a strong shot and the composition is nice. Neither of the effects of the variable ND filter will be spotted by many viewers, and it's up to you as to how important it is. In this case, my biggest problem with it is how flat and boring it's made most of the water look, compared to how I think this shot would have looked with a fixed ND filter of the same darkness.
Edit: Answering the general question, personally I carry an ND8 and an ND1000 filter -- the ND8 gives me the ability to slow my shutter speed slightly (e.g. for a waterfall in a wooded area, or for the sea at dusk), and the ND1000 gives me the ability to create long-exposure water photos even in direct sunlight at mid-day. Yes, they don't have the flexibility of a variable ND filter, but I find that I can usually get the shot I want with one or the other of these.
@abirkill Huge thank you for taking the time to put all that together. I can certainly see the uneven sky impact, and you've hi on what was bugging me about the water too. I think I'll keep playing with it, with an eye to upgrade in the future.
As for the sensor, yikes! Most recommendations I've seen only suggest professional cleaning , right? Sigh ...
@archaeofrog Don't worry about the sensor, the issue isn't severe. Pretty much anyone who doesn't regularly clean their sensor (i.e. almost everyone) will have an equivalent level of dust and spots.
It was more a suggestion to avoid using small apertures like f/22 for landscape photography where possible -- dust spots become more and more visible at smaller apertures, and are particularly obvious against a blue sky. The spots you have probably wouldn't even be detectable at f/8-f/11, and because you have the variable filter, you could probably have achieved an equivalent shutter speed with a wider aperture like f/8 by darkening the filter a bit more.
If you do need to shoot landscapes at f/22 or similar, either for the extended depth of field or because your filter won't go as dark as you want, they are also very easy to edit out in post-processing software -- the issue is so common that most software has a spot healing tool or similar.
@archaeofrog Katie, great comment. You probably don't remember but you commented on your cheaper ND filter for experimentation. I am going to order one of these for exactly the same reason you stated. Start cheap and figure it out, then know what you are looking for in the future. I am still shooting on my digital Rebel XT - and I know I have outgrown it, and now I am ready to know why whereas 2 years ago I had no idea. And, anyone who reads this should consider that today's aged equipment was yesterday's top shelf high quality equipment. The difference in price though can be ten fold. My approach is this: your first car shouldn't be a formula one racer.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I would steer clear of screw on filters in the low 2 (1 stop), 4 (2 stop) and 8 (3 stop) ND range and invest in a cokin filter system, you will find purchasing a cokin set a lot more versatile and cheaper in the long run as the system fits a range of lens threads by changing the cheaper adapter look at something like the Z pro from cokin. If you buy the Cokin set you can also use the ND grads to stop down the bright sky
If you want to purchase a screw in buy either a Hoya ND400( 9 stop) or the B+W 110 (10 stop) for true loooong exposes even during bright daylight.
http://www.cokin.co.uk/
Also check out http://nd-magazine.com/ great source for ND enthusiast lost of interviews and links to some of the masters of ND work
Links not linking for some reason :S
Also check out @jonesp Paul has some beautiful long exposures examples :)
Example below taken in bright sunshine with stacked filters :P
Also check out http://nd-magazine.com/ great source for ND enthusiast lost of interviews and links to some of the masters of ND work
(mine were a little cheaper because they were 52mm, these are 72mm)
Hi all what do you think of the variable nd2-400. Are these any good?
@marieooi Great discussion Marie
http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/hardware/an-in-depth-comparison-of-two-variable-neutral-density-filters/
HOYA (Hoya Mulit Coat) These popular filters are renowned for their ability to minimise reflection at the filter surfaces which reduces flare and ghosting. The result is an average light transmission of over 97%, giving sharp contrast and well balanced color. HOYA HMC filters are recommended for enhancing the performance of today's multicoated lenses. < from Hoya website
http://www.hoyafilter.com/products/hoya/coatings.html
Hope this helps.
This Scott Kelby you tube video has great explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_dKH2mLt0c&feature=related
A few links you might find useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_density_filter#ND_filter_types - Explanation of ND filter ratings
http://365project.org/discuss/themes-competitions/11851/long-exposures-water - A discussion I started a few months ago with some good info/feedback in it.
@simon0128 Just to confirm what @flagged said, I set everything up without the filter on, lock the focus and then put the filter on. Unless it still bright, you wont see anything through the viewfinder. Sometimes my D300 will get the correct exposure in Aperture Priority mode but I normally go straight to Manual (f/11 - 30 seconds works for me as well) and then adjust as needed.
A few recent examples (30 and 360 seconds):
I am looking into the following at the moment
Light craft nd500
b+w 110 10 stop
Hoya nd400
This was my first shot with the 10-stop B+W:
I'll update everyone once I come to a decision. Again, thank you all!
Here is a shot where I used my new (cheap) neutral density fader. This was about 2/3rds towards the maximum ND effect. I would love feedback from those 'in the know' about what might give this away as having used a cheap filter and what I could do to improve in the future.
In your photo this is very clear because the blue of the sky is much darker on the left of the image than it is on the right. That's the typical result of using a polariser incorrectly on a wide-angle lens -- which is effectively exactly what you've done here, even though it wasn't what you intended to do.
Also, the polarisation is having the effect of seeing through the water rather than capturing the detail on the surface of the water. Note how clearly you can see the rocks in the river, and how there's almost no sign of this being a long water exposure anywhere except where there is significant disturbance. While this ability to 'see through the water' can be a useful effect, it's pretty much exactly what you don't want to happen when doing a long exposure with water.
Variable ND filters are almost always used to shoot long exposure water scenes, but because of the effect of a polariser on water, it also makes them significantly affect these scenes in undesirable ways.
You can try and avoid the weird sky gradation by adjusting the filter to the darkness level you want, and then unscrewing it slightly to rotate the whole thing (not just the bit that twists) away from the lens until the effect is reduced (if it's not improved after 90 degrees rotation, it won't improve). You will likely not be able to remove both the sky gradation and the loss of detail in the water at the same time with a variable ND filter, though.
On an unrelated note, you also have quite a few dust or oil spots on your sensor -- these are typically visible at small apertures such as you are using here (f/22). The good thing about a variable ND filter is that you can darken the image using the filter rather than by using a tiny aperture, and use a sharper, larger aperture such as f/8-f/11.
Overall, this is a strong shot and the composition is nice. Neither of the effects of the variable ND filter will be spotted by many viewers, and it's up to you as to how important it is. In this case, my biggest problem with it is how flat and boring it's made most of the water look, compared to how I think this shot would have looked with a fixed ND filter of the same darkness.
Edit: Answering the general question, personally I carry an ND8 and an ND1000 filter -- the ND8 gives me the ability to slow my shutter speed slightly (e.g. for a waterfall in a wooded area, or for the sea at dusk), and the ND1000 gives me the ability to create long-exposure water photos even in direct sunlight at mid-day. Yes, they don't have the flexibility of a variable ND filter, but I find that I can usually get the shot I want with one or the other of these.
ND1000:
ND1000:
ND8:
As for the sensor, yikes! Most recommendations I've seen only suggest professional cleaning , right? Sigh ...
It was more a suggestion to avoid using small apertures like f/22 for landscape photography where possible -- dust spots become more and more visible at smaller apertures, and are particularly obvious against a blue sky. The spots you have probably wouldn't even be detectable at f/8-f/11, and because you have the variable filter, you could probably have achieved an equivalent shutter speed with a wider aperture like f/8 by darkening the filter a bit more.
If you do need to shoot landscapes at f/22 or similar, either for the extended depth of field or because your filter won't go as dark as you want, they are also very easy to edit out in post-processing software -- the issue is so common that most software has a spot healing tool or similar.