Discussion in 'General Gallery' started by cosmonaut, Mar 15, 2007.
I got me a new ND Gard filter and was trying it out here.
LOoks good! I would like to see a comparison pic if possible, ND filter vs. no filter, as I am unsure of the difference the two make.
I like the image and think the sky is a beautiful blue (benefits of filter use perhaps). I have never used many filters but do think they add to an image.
I don't have one with and then without, but next time I am out I will do both and then post it. But I can tell you that it makes a big difference in the detail in the sky. The skies here would have blown out without it. They are not really that expensive compared to some filters. Mine is a Heliopan (x4). I look back at some of my photos and kick myself in the rear for not buying one sooner.LOL. I'll never buy another lens without buying a grad to go with it.
Ah, you say it is a graduated filter. Now that makes sense!
I mean I have a skylight filter on my lens all the time. And only the other day did I take one photo with and one without, and that filter hardly makes any difference at all. But then that filter is not a graduated filter... so it does not filter the light from the sky and leaves the light from the ground untouched. I think I should really think towards more filters ... but even after over a year of having lost that polariser of mine have I not had the chance to replace that one (and polarisers are a bit more on the costly side ... uh-oh!)...
As to your photo here, yes, I guess your filter sure worked and saved you from having to create an elaborate HDR .
The one I bought is a (x4) strenght. It's the most popular sold. It won't fix all skies but it really helped here. They are not that expensive compared to most filters. I am to lazy for HDR.
Would there be an advantage to using a polarising filter with the Graduated filter to bring out the clours more?
I tried that and the pictured turned out very bad.
Thanks Cosmo! Me thinks I may have to invest in one of those.
Separate names with a comma.