ND Filter

[tirediron]

Yeahbut... no one said Cokin was crap (I've got a boat-load of 'em and use them all the time!), they're not Lee or Singh-Ray, but they're definitely NOT crap. "Crap" are those $10-20 sets on flea-bay from Hong Kong.

 

[cgipson1]

Although I kind of agree with tirediron, in this particular case I would buy the cheapest I could get. IMHO, it makes no sense spending big bucks in a good filter to use with that kind of lens. The "bottleneck" here won't be the filter, but the lens itself. This doesn't mean he's wrong, though

I disagree! Kit lens + bad filter = crap!

Let's test that "theory".

Kit lens + cheap Cokin filters (4 of them!!!) STACKED, including cheap Cokin ND filter, on a 5mp camera about 10 years ago:


Oh yeah, that's just horrible!!! :er:

I don't consider Cokin's to be "Bad Filters"! Are they Singh Ray or B&W, NO! But they beat the hell out of a lot of the cheap screw on filters...

So I don't think you disproved my theory at all!

 

[Buckster]

Yeahbut... no one said Cokin was crap (I've got a boat-load of 'em and use them all the time!), they're not Lee or Singh-Ray, but they're definitely NOT crap. "Crap" are those $10-20 sets on flea-bay from Hong Kong.

Those Cokins I used in those example shots all cost between $15 to $25 each. By any measure, they're common, cheap filters. They have a bit of a magenta color cast that needs corrected in camera or in post even. But that doesn't make them useless crap, the way some folks around here would have people believe.

And by the way - based on WHAT exactly??? They don't seem to own nor to have used them, so what are they basing their "advice" on? Not experience, I guess. Or maybe that's what they had when they were noobs without a clue, shot clueless noob-crap photos, blamed it on the gear, and are still blaming it on the gear. Don't know and don't care. All I care about is cutting through all the CRAP and getting to the truth.

Every time this subject comes up around here, some "know-it-all" makes claims that you've got to have $100 or better filters, or - better yet - $400 filters, or you'll have CRAP for photos in the end, and I'm sorry, but it's just not true. Same thing goes for kit lenses and, again, sorry but it's just not true. Same thing happens for lots of gear around here, and it's usually not true.

Are kit lenses and inexpensive filters just as good as the top of the line gear? No, of course not. But neither are they usually CRAP. Crazily enough, they often get the job done, get it done well, don't cost a beginner an arm and a leg to try out a technique, and are very valuable to learn with, and cheap enough for someone who doesn't have a lot of money to spend to be able to play and STILL get good results.

I think it's just plain wrong to lay those CRAP OPINIONS on newer folks who come here looking for accurate information, so I like to give the other side of that opinion and advice, complete with actual examples of what kind of crap one can actually expect by using the actual gear in question.

But maybe that's just me...

 

[Buckster]

I disagree! Kit lens + bad filter = crap!

Let's test that "theory".

Kit lens + cheap Cokin filters (4 of them!!!) STACKED, including cheap Cokin ND filter, on a 5mp camera about 10 years ago:


Oh yeah, that's just horrible!!! :er:

I don't consider Cokin's to be "Bad Filters"! Are they Singh Ray or B&W, NO! But they beat the hell out of a lot of the cheap screw on filters...

So I don't think you disproved my theory at all!

Yeah, actually, I did.

The P sized ND filters in those shots come to $17.50 each in a bundle set of 3 strengths and includes the filter holder. That makes them, quite literally, some of the cheapest ND filters available which, according to you and others who like to weigh in on these topics, are therefore CRAP - OR you'd recommend them to new folks who come here looking for info on what to get without spending an arm and a leg but still able to play and make decent photos while you're pontificating about the subject and using words like CRAP to describe things inaccurately.

 

[prodigy2k7]

This is the reason I didn't buy any filters period for my kit lens...

 

[cgipson1]

Sure, Buckster.. if it makes you feel better, then you are right! Always! I'm wrong... John's wrong... etc... etc...

Here is a CHEAP FILTER, by my standards! 52mm ND Fader Neutral Density Adjustable ND2 to ND400 Variable Filter WOW.. a Variable ND for only $8.85.... wanna bet that won't affect image quality ( a LOT worse then the Cokins you are dissin! Right?) This filter is CRAP.. don't you agree? (probably not... just to be contrary, right?)

A $40 Hoya or Tiffen is going to be a LOT better than junk like this filter.... Or yes, even "Cheap" Cokins are going to be better....

Whatever.....

 

[Buckster]

Sure, Buckster.. if it makes you feel better, then you are right! Always! I'm wrong... John's wrong... etc... etc...

Here is a CHEAP FILTER, by my standards! 52mm ND Fader Neutral Density Adjustable ND2 to ND400 Variable Filter WOW.. a Variable ND for only $8.85.... wanna bet that won't affect image quality ( a LOT worse then the Cokins you are dissin! Right?) This filter is CRAP.. don't you agree? (probably not... just to be contrary, right?)

A $40 Hoya or Tiffen is going to be a LOT better than junk like this filter.... Or yes, even "Cheap" Cokins are going to be better....

Whatever.....

PROVE IT. SHOW the tests YOU'VE performed. All you have is an uninformed opinion, since you've not done what it takes to become informed with real empirical testing and data and actual evidence. I presented actual photos produced with the actual gear. Where's yours?

You took Tirediron's post of "cheaper filters", and through the quoted comment of joaopsr equated them to "bad filters" that WILL render CRAP photos as though there is simply no question or doubt about that at all. In doing so, you decided to come off as an expert and state that "cheap"="bad"="crap" and you emphasized it with an exclamation point, as if you cannot possibly be mistaken and what you said has no way to be refuted. You did that, not me.

When I point out that Cokins are indeed some of the cheapest filters that can be found, but AREN'T bad filters and WON'T necessarily render CRAP photos, using real-world examples, suddenly cheap ISN'T crap in your world and now you're backpedaling on that, while trying to save face of course for what you actually said.

I really don't care, as long as we get to the truth of it: The folks coming in here for information on ND filters don't need and don't deserve to get the IMPRESSION, let alone the outright GOSPEL you'd like to pretend it is, from you or anyone else that they need to buy VERY EXPENSIVE ND filters or they'll get CRAP PHOTOS.

 

[Buckster]

Sure, Buckster.. if it makes you feel better, then you are right! Always! I'm wrong... John's wrong... etc... etc...

Here is a CHEAP FILTER, by my standards! 52mm ND Fader Neutral Density Adjustable ND2 to ND400 Variable Filter WOW.. a Variable ND for only $8.85.... wanna bet that won't affect image quality ( a LOT worse then the Cokins you are dissin! Right?) This filter is CRAP.. don't you agree? (probably not... just to be contrary, right?)

A $40 Hoya or Tiffen is going to be a LOT better than junk like this filter.... Or yes, even "Cheap" Cokins are going to be better....

Whatever.....

BTW, that's a 52mm. Who would buy a 52mm? Oh, you might. Well, look up the 77mm or the 82mm, which are much more common sizes to be getting, and then see if you can find them cheaper than a $17.50 Cokin.

By the way, in addition to more expensive ND filters, I have one of those VERY cheap variable density ND filters like you just posted (because I actually DO like to test out stuff and KNOW what I'm talking about), but I have the 77mm size, and I'm ready to start pwning you on IQ with that as well, and I'll even use a kit lens to do it, if you'd like to REALLY get pwned.

Just let me know when you're ready.

 

[batmura]

Although I kind of agree with tirediron, in this particular case I would buy the cheapest I could get. IMHO, it makes no sense spending big bucks in a good filter to use with that kind of lens. The "bottleneck" here won't be the filter, but the lens itself. This doesn't mean he's wrong, though

I disagree! Kit lens + bad filter = crap!

Let's test that "theory".

Kit lens + cheap Cokin filters (4 of them!!!) STACKED, including cheap Cokin ND filter, on a 5mp camera about 10 years ago:

Oh yeah, that's just horrible!!! :er:

This is the kind of picture I want to take someday! Can I do that with a cheap ND filter on my D3100 kit lens? How many stops should the filter be to get such beautiful results? Also, did you photoshop this pic at all? I love it. Taking such photos was the reason I bought my first DSLR.

 

[Buckster]

I disagree! Kit lens + bad filter = crap!

Let's test that "theory".

Kit lens + cheap Cokin filters (4 of them!!!) STACKED, including cheap Cokin ND filter, on a 5mp camera about 10 years ago:

Oh yeah, that's just horrible!!! :er:

This is the kind of picture I want to take someday! Can I do that with a cheap ND filter on my D3100 kit lens?

If by "cheap", you mean less than $20 bucks, like say, a $17.50 Cokin ND filter, why yes, yes you can!

How many stops should the filter be to get such beautiful results?

For this shot, I used a graduated blue for the water, a graduated sunset and a mauve for the sky. Then I used a 3 stop ND filter over all to turn the waves to mist. I shot it as soon as the bridge lights came on: 20 seconds at f/8, ISO 100 @ 22mm.

Also, did you photoshop this pic at all? I love it.

I run all my photos through processing, and that usually includes Photoshop for me. I shot this some 10 years ago, so I don't recall the exact steps I took with it, but my general PS workflow includes:

1. Remove any sensor-dust spots that may be affecting the image (was much more of a problem 10 years ago!).
2. Correct color/temperature cast to taste.
3. Crop to taste.
4. I usually apply an S curve and push the saturation to taste.
5. Resize for web (and/or printing, etc).
6. Sharpen.

Taking such photos was the reason I bought my first DSLR.

Enjoy, and have fun with it!

 

[cgipson1]

Sure, Buckster.. if it makes you feel better, then you are right! Always! I'm wrong... John's wrong... etc... etc...

Here is a CHEAP FILTER, by my standards! 52mm ND Fader Neutral Density Adjustable ND2 to ND400 Variable Filter WOW.. a Variable ND for only $8.85.... wanna bet that won't affect image quality ( a LOT worse then the Cokins you are dissin! Right?) This filter is CRAP.. don't you agree? (probably not... just to be contrary, right?)

A $40 Hoya or Tiffen is going to be a LOT better than junk like this filter.... Or yes, even "Cheap" Cokins are going to be better....

Whatever.....

BTW, that's a 52mm. Who would buy a 52mm? Oh, you might. Well, look up the 77mm or the 82mm, which are much more common sizes to be getting, and then see if you can find them cheaper than a $17.50 Cokin.

By the way, in addition to more expensive ND filters, I have one of those VERY cheap variable density ND filters like you just posted (because I actually DO like to test out stuff and KNOW what I'm talking about), but I have the 77mm size, and I'm ready to start pwning you on IQ with that as well, and I'll even use a kit lens to do it, if you'd like to REALLY get pwned.

Just let me know when you're ready.

Cute... especially since I don't own any lenses with a 52mm objective... lol! You can do whatever you would like... it means nothing to me. I was trying to help the OP... all you are doing is attacking my post. If you don't like it... just ignore it, like I do most of yours!

 

[pictureperfekt]

Buckster...you've done it again!
Having been fortunate to drive over that bridge for my commute, and be in awe of it's beauty throughout my childhood...I've sailed under it, been driving mid span when the blue angels flew directly overhead, even knew of someone that flew a plane underneath it, but I have not ever seen it look like it does in your photograph (although by the way the sky looks it does remind me of the world series in 1989) I love it!
I dont often purchase photographs, but would love to inquire if you would sell this and if so what size?

 

[Buckster]

Buckster...you've done it again!
Having been fortunate to drive over that bridge for my commute, and be in awe of it's beauty throughout my childhood...I've sailed under it, been driving mid span when the blue angels flew directly overhead, even knew of someone that flew a plane underneath it, but I have not ever seen it look like it does in your photograph (although by the way the sky looks it does remind me of the world series in 1989) I love it!
I dont often purchase photographs, but would love to inquire if you would sell this and if so what size?

Thank you kindly.

Prints of my photos are available in any standard sizes you like, up to 6 feet on the long side. PM me for further details if interested.

 

[Overread19 7]

Thread unlocked and gets ONE more chance before its simply trashed.

Anyone with personal problems with other members either take it to private messages or use the ignore feature of the forums. It's getting beyond a joke keeping up with some of the petty squabbles between experienced members of the forum - especially when simple differences of opinions on matters are used or become fight zones. We do expect members to exercise a degree of self moderation.
No one revisits the fight though the debate on the merit of filters can continue - if you want to take this any further pm me.

 

[kundalini]

I use B+W, Hoya and Cokin filters....... oops, got a Tiffen in the bag too.