After getting a couple of ND filters

[71M]

Hoya are ok.

 

[Gavjenks]

Here we go!

20 stops.

What appears to be "call us for a price" translates to "yes, way the hell more expensive than two 10 stop filters stacked" ... >.>

 

[D-B-J]

An ND8 wont cut it down by 8 stops. ND2, ND4 and ND8 reduce by 1, 2 and three stops respectivley. A 10 stop ND filter could be numbered ND1024 but is often referred to as a ND3.0 online which is where a lot of the confusion can happen.

Neutral density filter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To the OP, I find an GND8 (3 stop GND) good for sunsets in my part of the worldand it's the one I use most but I've also got a 10 stop ND filter for those times I want to really slow the shutter down. You can also stack ND filters though the cheaper ones can cause a colour cast. The cheaper ones tend to be made of plastic and the more expensive ones glass. Personally I use the square Colkin P type with the holder and a set of step up rings for different lenses, because it's a lot cheaper and less to carry than having a selection of filters for each lens.

But my GND is a 0.9, and a three stop...?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robbins.photo]

Good lord that's impressive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

20 stops? Is it just me or is anyone else just thinking buy one of those 10 dollar zeikos uv filters and a can of black spray paint?

Probably just me again. Lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

Sunny 16 scene at f/1.4, ISO 100 + a 20 stop filter = only like 40 seconds.
Closing the aperture down changes the final image and may not be what you artistically want.

Gav, I could be way off base here - but you know I'm starting to get the impression that your just not a ton of fun at parties. Lol

 

[480sparky42 42]

Sunny 16 scene at f/1.4, ISO 100 + a 20 stop filter = only like 40 seconds.
Closing the aperture down changes the final image and may not be what you artistically want.

And how many of us own f/1.4 glass? :meh:

I've stacked my B+W 10-stop on top my my Singh-Ray VND and taken 30 minutes exposures in daylight at f/8.

 

[Seventen]

An ND8 wont cut it down by 8 stops. ND2, ND4 and ND8 reduce by 1, 2 and three stops respectivley. A 10 stop ND filter could be numbered ND1024 but is often referred to as a ND3.0 online which is where a lot of the confusion can happen.

Neutral density filter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To the OP, I find an GND8 (3 stop GND) good for sunsets in my part of the worldand it's the one I use most but I've also got a 10 stop ND filter for those times I want to really slow the shutter down. You can also stack ND filters though the cheaper ones can cause a colour cast. The cheaper ones tend to be made of plastic and the more expensive ones glass. Personally I use the square Colkin P type with the holder and a set of step up rings for different lenses, because it's a lot cheaper and less to carry than having a selection of filters for each lens.

Thanks that made things a bit clearer one what to get now.

 

[Gavjenks]

And how many of us own f/1.4 glass? :no smile:

Well it's not like I'm suggesting that a 20 stop filter should be in every new photographer's starting kit or anything

 

[weepete]

An ND8 wont cut it down by 8 stops. ND2, ND4 and ND8 reduce by 1, 2 and three stops respectivley. A 10 stop ND filter could be numbered ND1024 but is often referred to as a ND3.0 online which is where a lot of the confusion can happen.

Neutral density filter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To the OP, I find an GND8 (3 stop GND) good for sunsets in my part of the worldand it's the one I use most but I've also got a 10 stop ND filter for those times I want to really slow the shutter down. You can also stack ND filters though the cheaper ones can cause a colour cast. The cheaper ones tend to be made of plastic and the more expensive ones glass. Personally I use the square Colkin P type with the holder and a set of step up rings for different lenses, because it's a lot cheaper and less to carry than having a selection of filters for each lens.

But my GND is a 0.9, and a three stop...?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, so is mine. The 0.9 refers to the optical density apparrently. So ND2 is a 0.3 and one stop, an ND4 is a 0.6 and a two stop. ND8 is a 0.9 and 3 stops...

Ach, it's all in the link mate.

 

[Gavjenks]

Sunny 16 scene at f/1.4, ISO 100 + a 20 stop filter = only like 40 seconds.
Closing the aperture down changes the final image and may not be what you artistically want.

Gav, I could be way off base here - but you know I'm starting to get the impression that your just not a ton of fun at parties. Lol

Somewhat surprisingly, people are actually pretty damn impressed and interested if you tell them you took a given photo metered by eye and instinct. Not in the math, of course, but the concept yes. The few times this has come up in conversation, people tend to act like I'm some sort of wizard. Presumably because they are very cell phone camera-spoiled (and used to it struggling and taking forever, at that). I mean it's just remembering a few numbers and telltale indicators, not any more actually difficult than learning multiplication tables, but for some reason it blows minds.

 

[agp]

Why do people use regular ND filters when there are variable ND filters?

 

[480sparky42 42]

Why do people use regular ND filters when there are variable ND filters?

Regular NDs are much cheaper. And add only one layer of glass.

 

[agp]

I remember reading somewhere that VND filters are just stacked polarized filters... does this mean that they can just be used as polarized filters on the 'lightest setting'?

 

[Gavjenks]

Why do people use regular ND filters when there are variable ND filters?

As mentioned above, two pieces of glass = more flaring, less sharpness, etc. than 1 piece of glass. Dunno about cheapness.. VNDs are actually significantly cheaper in my experience.

Additionally:
1) They have more color cast than flat single density ND filters.
2) They ALL show an "X" pattern in your image. Even $400 sing ray filters, under the right conditions. The X gets stronger at higher densities, and wider angle lenses, and it's worst in scenes with lots of polarized light, like sunlight through a clear sky. The $400 one might only show an X at 8-10 stops, and 14mm lenses, whereas a cheaper one might show an X at 5 stops and 35mm lenses.
Here's an extreme example:
Why are my results with a variable neutral density filter poor? - Photography Stack Exchange
and a comparison of the interference "X" between cheap and expensive brands, part way down this page:
An In-Depth Comparison of Two Variable Neutral Density Filters - Tuts+ Photography Article
3) Also due to polarization with wide angles, your sky will show undulating brightness. To see it, you have to have a lens with an angle of significantly more than 90 degrees. Like a fisheye or an UWA. Here is an example from a single polarizer:
http://i.stack.imgur.com/eceIU.jpg


I'm not 100% sure what the cause of the "X" is, but I believe it has something to do with the gap between the two pieces of glass (and also just their thickness) in a VND, and the fact that light from the slightly different corresponding angles is polarized differently. In other words, the spot on the glass that light passes through the first filter is a little off from the spot where it passes through the second one. Since polarizers affect light non-uniformly across their surface, this means that you'll get extra lightening or darkening there, depending on the angle in the scene. So you get interference patterns. The difference in angle over the gap gets stronger with wide angles (which pack more degrees of angle into the frame), and with cheaper filters that have wider manufacturing tolerances. But never goes away.

It might also have to do with the same effect as in #3 above, but twice, at 90 degrees to each other, making complicated patterns.

In any case, this is not an issue with single glass, since it is uniformly tinted all the way across, has nothing to do with polarization, and angle doesn't matter.

I remember reading somewhere that VND filters are just stacked polarized filters... does this mean that they can just be used as polarized filters on the 'lightest setting'?

Yup. HOWEVER, in all the VNDs I've ever used, one of the two rings didn't move. So you would only be able to use it like a polarizing filter at that one angle... which isn't super useful.

 

[480sparky42 42]

..... VNDs are actually significantly cheaper in my experience...........

Well, yeah. Sure. If you buy a cheap offshore no-name VND off ebay and compare it to a name brand ND at the local camera store.

 

[Gavjenks]

Well okay, fair enough, but the companies that make the cheap variable ones don't actually offer flat NDs at all always, so you don't always have the choice of either. And the VNDs they sell are cheaper than the NDs sold by the other companies that offer both

So it's like:
Company A VND up to 10 stops = $25
Company B ND 10 stop = $50
Company B VND up to 10 stops = $75

So in one sense, they are cheaper (least money able to be spent to get 10 stops), in another sense they are more expensive (for a given company's standard held constant)