ND filters - anyone have various NDs photos

[astroNikon]

I'm starting my spring time "hey, let's photograph waterfalls" and other water effects cycle.
But I'm curious on the various filters and how they impact the water flow.

I was wondering if anyone had one image and used various ND filters on it, such as 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.8 & 3.0
I know the time of day affects it too but i'm curious on a comparison. I haven't found anything on the internet.

I have the B+W ND 0.3, 0.6 & 1.8 coming for my 77mm lenses but I'm curious if I should get a 3.0 also ?

And, of course, i'm curious on what people's experiences are with them.

FYI - I bought B+W NDs so I'm not worried about quality issues.

And if I stacked my NDs is it as simple as 0.3 + 1.8 = 2.1 optical density for a 7 stop reduction OR is it a compounded type thing?

and, when stacking, now I would have TWO pieces of glass in front. How would that affect things.

Thanks

 

[ruggedshutter]

ND filters come in a couple of different powers and there are a couple of ways that it is denoted on the filters.

Neutral density filter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The purpose of an ND filter is to stop down the incoming light so that you can take long exposures in strong daylight. Now depending upon the scene you may need to drop 2-5 stops (or more) of light. Usually you can adjust aperture and ISO to get most of the way down but sometimes you need a few more stops to get more than a second of exposure to really blur the water. That's where the ND filters come in. I have used them from time to time with good results and I was stepping down 3 stops with an ND8 filter (or 0.9 filter on your manufacturer).

Yes you can stack them and I believe that they stack as you described but I'm not 100% sure.

 

[D-B-J]

I have both the Lee Little Stopper and Big Stopper. The first two images are with the big stopper (10 stops) , and the second two are with the little stopper (6 stops).

150"
Swiftly From Atop by f_one_eight, on Flickr

150"
Splintered Memories by f_one_eight, on Flickr

15"
Wet Rocks by f_one_eight, on Flickr


15"
Liquid Fog by f_one_eight, on Flickr

Cheers!
Jake

 

[D-B-J]

Oh whoops, I didn't see the whole "one image and examples" thing. Sorry!

 

[Scatterbrained]

I'm starting my spring time "hey, let's photograph waterfalls" and other water effects cycle.
But I'm curious on the various filters and how they impact the water flow.

I was wondering if anyone had one image and used various ND filters on it, such as 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.8 & 3.0
I know the time of day affects it too but i'm curious on a comparison. I haven't found anything on the internet.

I have the B+W ND 0.3, 0.6 & 1.8 coming for my 77mm lenses but I'm curious if I should get a 3.0 also ?

And, of course, i'm curious on what people's experiences are with them.

FYI - I bought B+W NDs so I'm not worried about quality issues.

And if I stacked my NDs is it as simple as 0.3 + 1.8 = 2.1 optical density for a 7 stop reduction OR is it a compounded type thing?

and, when stacking, now I would have TWO pieces of glass in front. How would that affect things.

Thanks

stacking filters is fine. If, for example, you stack a 10 stop and a 2 stop, you'll get 12 stops of reduction. The thing with stacking is that it will cause more of a red shift. Red light having a longer wavelength, slightly more of it gets through the filter (some manufacturers, like Lee adjust the color of their filter to counter this). Personally, I think you can get some interesting results stacking filters. From the simple smoothing of water and clouds via a very long exposure to adding color to an otherwise bland image.

 

[D-B-J]

I'm starting my spring time "hey, let's photograph waterfalls" and other water effects cycle.
But I'm curious on the various filters and how they impact the water flow.

I was wondering if anyone had one image and used various ND filters on it, such as 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.8 & 3.0
I know the time of day affects it too but i'm curious on a comparison. I haven't found anything on the internet.

I have the B+W ND 0.3, 0.6 & 1.8 coming for my 77mm lenses but I'm curious if I should get a 3.0 also ?

And, of course, i'm curious on what people's experiences are with them.

FYI - I bought B+W NDs so I'm not worried about quality issues.

And if I stacked my NDs is it as simple as 0.3 + 1.8 = 2.1 optical density for a 7 stop reduction OR is it a compounded type thing?

and, when stacking, now I would have TWO pieces of glass in front. How would that affect things.

Thanks

stacking filters is fine. If, for example, you stack a 10 stop and a 2 stop, you'll get 12 stops of reduction. The thing with stacking is that it will cause more of a red shift. Red light having a longer wavelength, slightly more of it gets through the filter (some manufacturers, like Lee adjust the color of their filter to counter this). Personally, I think you can get some interesting results stacking filters. From the simple smoothing of water and clouds via a very long exposure to adding color to an otherwise bland image.

Depends on the maker of the filter. Lee filters have a slight blue cast (I shoot raw and at 10,000K and rarely have to change the temp), and B+W and Hitech have a slight red/magenta cast.

Cheers!
Jake

 

[Scatterbrained]

I'm starting my spring time "hey, let's photograph waterfalls" and other water effects cycle.
But I'm curious on the various filters and how they impact the water flow.

I was wondering if anyone had one image and used various ND filters on it, such as 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.8 & 3.0
I know the time of day affects it too but i'm curious on a comparison. I haven't found anything on the internet.

I have the B+W ND 0.3, 0.6 & 1.8 coming for my 77mm lenses but I'm curious if I should get a 3.0 also ?

And, of course, i'm curious on what people's experiences are with them.

FYI - I bought B+W NDs so I'm not worried about quality issues.

And if I stacked my NDs is it as simple as 0.3 + 1.8 = 2.1 optical density for a 7 stop reduction OR is it a compounded type thing?

and, when stacking, now I would have TWO pieces of glass in front. How would that affect things.

Thanks

stacking filters is fine. If, for example, you stack a 10 stop and a 2 stop, you'll get 12 stops of reduction. The thing with stacking is that it will cause more of a red shift. Red light having a longer wavelength, slightly more of it gets through the filter (some manufacturers, like Lee adjust the color of their filter to counter this). Personally, I think you can get some interesting results stacking filters. From the simple smoothing of water and clouds via a very long exposure to adding color to an otherwise bland image.

Depends on the maker of the filter. Lee filters have a slight blue cast (I shoot raw and at 10,000K and rarely have to change the temp), and B+W and Hitech have a slight red/magenta cast.

Cheers!
Jake

The blue cast is something they design into the filter. A completely neutral filter would have a slightly red/magenta cast, simply from the excess red light getting through due to the longer wave length of red light. It's also why you can stack totally neutral filters and end up with a magenta scene like this:

Post Sunset Glow Over Bennetts Creek by tltichy, on Flickr
​

To the naked eye there was no color whatsoever in the sky, but stack a 3 stop reverse grad, a 1 stop soft grad ND upside down and a 2 stop grad on top of a CPL and you get. . . .colors! All of those filters are neutral when used on their own, when stacked they start to bring out the reds in a scene that you otherwise wouldn't see. Like this scene, which uses a vari-n-trio, a 3 stop reverse grad and a 1 stop grad on top with a 2 stop grad upside down on the bottom. That's 5 sheets of tinted glass over the lens . The blues of the scene are pretty much what you expect from twilight with daylight white balance, but the oranges, magentas, reds, and yellows are much, much stronger than what was visible.

Lynnhaven Fish House Pier Sunset #3 by tltichy, on Flickr
​

 

[astroNikon]

Oh whoops, I didn't see the whole "one image and examples" thing. Sorry!

wow, still excellent examples.
I never thought of cloud movement either .. that's awesome in that first photo

 

[astroNikon]

stacking filters is fine. If, for example, you stack a 10 stop and a 2 stop, you'll get 12 stops of reduction. The thing with stacking is that it will cause more of a red shift. Red light having a longer wavelength, slightly more of it gets through the filter (some manufacturers, like Lee adjust the color of their filter to counter this). Personally, I think you can get some interesting results stacking filters. From the simple smoothing of water and clouds via a very long exposure to adding color to an otherwise bland image.

Depends on the maker of the filter. Lee filters have a slight blue cast (I shoot raw and at 10,000K and rarely have to change the temp), and B+W and Hitech have a slight red/magenta cast.

Cheers!
Jake

The blue cast is something they design into the filter. A completely neutral filter would have a slightly red/magenta cast, simply from the excess red light getting through due to the longer wave length of red light. It's also why you can stack totally neutral filters and end up with a magenta scene like this:

Post Sunset Glow Over Bennetts Creek by tltichy, on Flickr
​

To the naked eye there was no color whatsoever in the sky, but stack a 3 stop reverse grad, a 1 stop soft grad ND upside down and a 2 stop grad on top of a CPL and you get. . . .colors! All of those filters are neutral when used on their own, when stacked they start to bring out the reds in a scene that you otherwise wouldn't see. Like this scene, which uses a vari-n-trio, a 3 stop reverse grad and a 1 stop grad on top with a 2 stop grad upside down on the bottom. That's 5 sheets of tinted glass over the lens . The blues of the scene are pretty much what you expect from twilight with daylight white balance, but the oranges, magentas, reds, and yellows are much, much stronger than what was visible.

Lynnhaven Fish House Pier Sunset #3 by tltichy, on Flickr
​

These are awesome examples.
I had such a simplistic view of filters.

I basically would use a .3 ND or CPL in super bright sun and then a ND use for water flow. This is the first time I'm getting a 1.8, and I never stacked NDs before. But seeing those colors, I'm definitely am going to have to experiment now.

 

[astroNikon]

You guys got me inspired .. so I'm waiting for a 0.3, 0.6, 1.8 and a 3.0 ND filters
and my normal CPL for sports

This should be interesting. Too bad I don't live near super interesting things like in those photos. But I'll make due to experiment !!
Thanks so much for the information and eye opening techniques. :thumbup:

 

[pgriz]

AstroNikon, there are many uses for ND filters. Smoothing water is definitely one. But you can empty a busy plaza of people... You can get interesting effects when you use them to photograph things moving in the wind. You can get some amazing images in bright sunlight when you can lower the shutter speed to say 1/10 sec and catch people walking (the foot is stationary and clear, the body is blurred...).

 

[agp]

ND filters are a must-have! I use them for smoothing out bodies of water in long exposure shots. But, like mentioned, they can be used in other versatile and creative ways.

Here are two of mine.


Backyard Sunset by hunteryves, on Flickr


Backyard Sunset #2 by hunteryves, on Flickr

 

[Msteelio91]

Great shots agp. You guys keep making my fingers inch toward the "buy it now" for the lee systems............

 

[petrochemist]

The blue cast is something they design into the filter. A completely neutral filter would have a slightly red/magenta cast, simply from the excess red light getting through due to the longer wave length of red light. It's also why you can stack totally neutral filters and end up with a magenta scene like this: <snip>

What rubbish!
A completely neutral filter will absorb all wavelengths to an equal extent and may have to do so well infto the near infra red to prevent colour casts on all cameras. Unfortunately it's not easy to make a completely neutral filter, the best ones made for spectroscopic uses are too small for photographic work, and extremely expensive (1cm wide by 3-4cm, >£1000 for 2 filters according to lab supplier Cole Parmer). I believe these are by depositing metal on the surface of the filter, which may also prove to delicate for photographic use.

The colour cast from cheaper ND filters is down to the absorbing medium (a dye within the glass of the filter) and can usually be corrected for via CWB. The choice of absorbing medium will depend on the manufacturer. The colour cast can vary from camera model to camera model due to differing response to UV & IR as well as subtle changes in the transmission of the bayer matrix.

In many cases CWB won't go far enough to cope with welding glass - Shade 8 is an ultra cheap 10 stop equivalent with strong green cast.

For the OP here's a poor example of what you can get with a £2 shade 8 welding filter. (Sorry no water falls round here, and it's only a early trial shot but hopefully gives an idea of what it could do.)

 

[Mike_E]

I have both the Lee Little Stopper and Big Stopper. The first two images are with the big stopper (10 stops) , and the second two are with the little stopper (6 stops).

150"
Swiftly From Atop by f_one_eight, on Flickr

150"
Splintered Memories by f_one_eight, on Flickr

15"
Wet Rocks by f_one_eight, on Flickr


15"
Liquid Fog by f_one_eight, on Flickr

Cheers!
Jake

Nice!