Which neutral density filter to choose?

[gossamer]

Hi,
I'm interested in purchasing an ND filter, but not sure how many stops I'm going to need for the pictures I take. I have a Nikon D300 with an 16-85mm and a 70-300mm, both of which I believe are 67mm. I would generally be using it to stop motion on waterfalls in standard daylight.

I'm considering the B+W 0.6-4X or the 1.8-64X.

I'm thinking the 0.6-4X would be best, although how often is standard daylight bright enough that I would need something more than 4 stops?

I wish I could read this site all day. So many great posts.

 

[Buckster]

Get a variable neutral density filter, and dial it in as needed.

 

[Vtec44]

Get a larger ND filter and use step down rings to fit it on smaller diameter lenses. That way you don't have to buy too many. They're not cheap.

 

[TCampbell]

You have to be careful when considering a "variable" ND filter in combination with a wide-angle lens. At a 16mm focal length (e.g. the 16-85mm lens) a polarizer will get dark "bands" in the image where the polarization is strongest and that fades as you get farther away from the point of strongest polarization (this is only noticeable when using a wide-angle lens). But when you use a variable ND filter, it's really TWO polarizers stacked together. This can result in an "X" shaped pattern of darkness in the image (one dark band from each of the two polarization layers.)

A non-variable ND is basically a tinted bit of glass (with a "neutral" tint so it doesn't create a color cast -- hence "neutral density" filter.

How many stops you need depends on what you are shooting and what you want to accomplish.

For example...

I can just slightly blur water with a 3-stop ND filter. If you want that strong milky creaming look of waterfalls... a 10 stop ND filter is much better (but a 10-stop filter is so dark that you cannot see to meter or focus so you meter and focus without the filter, manually dial in an exposure compensating for the 10 stops of exposure change and switch the lens to manual focus to avoid it attempting to refocus... THEN attach the 10-stop filter to shoot.)

But sometimes I want the ND filter to allow me to open my camera aperture for portraits. Suppose I want to shoot my subject at f/4 for a moderately blurred background. Here's how that might work:

In full-sun (really I'd probably want to be in shade, but this is an example for illustrative purposes) I would use my flash to provide "fill" lighting to decrease the harshness of shadows. But I can't shoot at shutter speeds faster than the flash sync speed (well... I can, but that involves high-speed sync and that's another thread). For my camera, that flash sync speed limit is 1/200th.

At 1/200th, I'd need to shoot at f/11 (in full sun) assuming ISO 100. But if I attach a 3 stop ND filter, we can bring that down 3 stops... so from f/11 it's -> f/8 -> f/5.6 -> f/4... and there we are at f/4 in full sun using a flash... because we used a 3 stop ND filter.

If you were only going to buy ONE ND filter (many of us have several of them), then I'd start with a 3 stop BECAUSE you can use a 3 stop ND and stack it with a circular polarizer (avoid doing that at very wide angles though) and that might net you a total of 5 stops of light reduction (technically a circular polarizer is variable in how much light it blocks, but it's often somewhere near 2 stops. I've seen this be as little as 2/3rds of 1 stop.)

 

[gossamer]

Tim, thanks. You had to go and make it all complicated

If I'm shooting outside, such as in a landscape setting, I likely wouldn't be using the flash, and my camera doesn't support ISO settings below 200.

I also don't want to be in a position where I need that bright sunlight, but want to be able to use it on a cloudy winter day like today, of a stream with snow on its banks.

Would you still recommend the 0.9 B+W? I'm a little confused, because they have two, and it's not clear what the differences are. Can you recommend a model number from B+W or another vendor?

The two B+W models are "67MM ND 0.9-8X SC" and "67MM ND 0.9-8X MRC", so it's the MRC vs SC that I don't understand.

 

[bratkinson]

I would generally be using it to stop motion on waterfalls in standard daylight.

Gossamer, your statement above indicates you may be confused about the results of using a neutral density filter with a water falls. To 'stop motion', a fast shutter speed is needed to show individual water drops in the spray, or to make a picture similar to what one sees with their eyes. Using a neutral density filter does just the opposite...slower shutter speeds are needed to get a sufficient exposure. An ND makes it seem to the camera sensor that it's darker outside than it actually is. The result of using an ND filter is that the waterfalls would look more 'silky' or 'frosty', or 'smooth'.

 

[TCampbell]

Tim, thanks. You had to go and make it all complicated

If I'm shooting outside, such as in a landscape setting, I likely wouldn't be using the flash, and my camera doesn't support ISO settings below 200.

I also don't want to be in a position where I need that bright sunlight, but want to be able to use it on a cloudy winter day like today, of a stream with snow on its banks.

Would you still recommend the 0.9 B+W? I'm a little confused, because they have two, and it's not clear what the differences are. Can you recommend a model number from B+W or another vendor?

The two B+W models are "67MM ND 0.9-8X SC" and "67MM ND 0.9-8X MRC", so it's the MRC vs SC that I don't understand.

The SC and MRC are B+W's designations to describe the coatings.

SC is a "single coating" and the coating is an anti-reflective coating to reduce ghosting and flaring.

MRC is "multi-resistant coating". It has the anti-reflective coating like the SC filter... but adds layers to harden the filter (to make it scratch resistant) and also makes it somewhat resistant to getting dirty (things don't like to stick to it as easily as the standard single coating.) Basically it provides a more durable filter.

I didn't know WHY you wanted an ND filter and it's not possible to recommend one without knowing what someone plans to do with it (which is why they make so many density values.) The neutral density filter simply changes your shooting circumstances.

I will assume you want "blurred" water in the stream. Everything that follows, assumes that goal.

A white snowy scene tends to get a camera to underexpose (the camera thinks the image should be dominated by mid-tones and the snow is all highlight tones -- so the computer in the camera thinks it should reduce the exposure.) You cannot necessarily trust the camera's metering.

You also mentioned taking the stream & snow shot on an overcast day. We need to quantify "overcast". "Light" overcast still lets you see a shadow... it's a very weak shadow, but you can see it. Light overcast is a loss of about 1 stop (vs. sunny). "Medium" overcast usually won't have a noticeable shadow... but it also doesn't look like you need to head for shelter because it's about to storm. Medium overcast is a loss of about 2 stops. "Heavy" overcast usually means it looks like it's about to storm, and it's a loss of about 3 stops. So I'll assume "medium" overcast which is a loss of 2 stops of light (or 1/4 of the light of sunshine).

That means at ISO 200, you'd need to use a 1/200th exposure at f/16 for full sun... and then slow that down by 2 full stops due to the medium overcast and now you're at 1/50th. 1/50th is too fast to to get a good blur on the water. With a 3 stop ND filter it brings you down to about 1/6th sec. You will get some noticeable blur going at 1/6th. It would be better if we could get that down to about 1/2 sec. But if you stack a 3 stop ND filter with a circular polarizer... you probably *can* get it down to about 1/2 sec.

See: Using Camera Shutter Speed Creatively (mouse over their waterfall to see samples of 1/2 sec, 1/10 sec, 1/30 sec, and 1/400 sec samples.)

You could also buy a 3 stop version (ND 0.9) and a 2 stop version (ND 0.6) and stack them.

B+W does make an ND 1.8 (that's a 6-stop filter... btw, if you haven't picked up on it... each density value of 0.1 = 1/3rd stop. So 0.3 = 1 full stop. That's why 0.9 is 3 stops and 1.8 is 6 stops. Their 10 stop filter is ND 3.0 and equivalent to a Lee "Big Stopper"). If you used the 1.8 you wouldn't need to stack filters. I'm not afraid to stack 2 filters (when you start stacking 4 or 5 filters it's ridiculous so there is a limit ... but 2 is certainly ok assuming they have anti-reflective coatings (and both the SC and MRC do) and you're watching to make sure you don't get ghosting in your images.)

 

[gossamer]

Tim, thanks so much for spending the time with this.

 

[Darthcolo]

Is this ND filter adequate for a starter: ND 8x Marumi Dhg (3 stops)? I will be using it for landscapes.

 

[TCampbell]

Is this ND filter adequate for a starter: ND 8x Marumi Dhg (3 stops)? I will be using it for landscapes.

What do you want this filter to do for your landscape photos? Are you photographing scenes with moving water and you want it blurred?

 

[Darthcolo]

Is this ND filter adequate for a starter: ND 8x Marumi Dhg (3 stops)? I will be using it for landscapes.

What do you want this filter to do for your landscape photos? Are you photographing scenes with moving water and you want it blurred?

Not a fan of silky water, but sometimes yes, I would want that effect. But the main use would be photographing the sunset.

 

[Buckster]

Is this ND filter adequate for a starter: ND 8x Marumi Dhg (3 stops)? I will be using it for landscapes.

What do you want this filter to do for your landscape photos? Are you photographing scenes with moving water and you want it blurred?

Not a fan of silky water, but sometimes yes, I would want that effect. But the main use would be photographing the sunset.

How do you imagine it will help you with that?

 

[Darthcolo]

I imagine that it will reduce the amount of light entering in the camera and allowing me to increase the exposure. Of diminishing the DOF in strong light conditions.
Maybe what I'm looking for is a Polarized filter? I don't know much about filters yet.

 

[TCampbell]

I imagine that it will reduce the amount of light entering in the camera and allowing me to increase the exposure. Of diminishing the DOF in strong light conditions.
Maybe what I'm looking for is a Polarized filter? I don't know much about filters yet.

This is the reason I asked what you wanted to do with an ND filter. At the end of the day, the camera still needs to collect the same amount of light to create the exposure. An ND filter simply changes how much light can enter the lens... and that means you can change the exposure settings by alter either the shutter speed (the most common use) or the aperture (less common, but still valid.) But you still need to collect the same amount of light.

An ND filter won't help with a sunset -- nor would a polarizer. The ND will just make the same sunset shot take longer to expose. A polarizer controls the polarity of light that can pass through the filter, but it turns out that it does almost nothing if the sun is either directly in front of the camera or directly behind the camera. The light needs to originate from the side to work best.

There are filters that WILL help you get better landscape photos near sunset/sunrise. These are the "grads".

Grads (graduated neutral density filters) are not uniformly tinted... they are typically clear on one half and tinted on the other half. When shooting many landscapes, the sky is often brighter than the landscape and this creates a challenge... if you expose nicely for the landscape, then the sky is too bright and possibly blown out. If you reduce the exposure so that the sky isn't blown out, then the landscape may be too dark and you won't see much detail in it. So the idea behind the grad is to allow you to darken the sky WITHOUT darkening the landscape.

Most filters screw on to the front of the lens, and while you can get grads in round "thread on" type filters, don't. Instead you want rectangular "slide in" type filters because this allows you to decide where the transition from clear to tint begins (in a thread-on filter you are forced to make the transition in the middle and putting the horizon line exactly in the middle of the frame is usually not the best composition.)

The grads usually offer various densities (like most ND filters) but additionally come in 'hard' or 'soft' edge variants. A hard-edge filter works well for images that will have a well-defined and straight horizon line. A soft-edge filter offers more flexibility when the transition is less obvious and you don't want people to notice a sudden tint change in your image. I use both soft and hard edge (neither is "best" -- it depends on the subject.)

Lee Filters is probably the top name in these grad nd filters.

See: Get Started with LEE Camera Filters and the Flexible LEE System

You can buy these from the usual suspects... B&H Photo, Adorama, etc. But in addition to the filters, you would also need the filter holder (the "Lee Foundation Kit") and lastly, you would need an adapter ring for each different lens thread-diameter that you use. Most of my lenses are 77mm... but I do have 67mm and 82mm lenses so I have a few different adapter rings.

The 100mm (4") wide version is probably the most popular.

There's Cokin filters which makes entry level versions and these are much more affordable. If you go with Cokin you probably want their "Z" size (which is their 100mm / aka 4" width). BTW, that's just the "width"... a 4" wide filter is really 4" x 6".

There is one other filter vendor I should mention... Singh-Ray. Singh-Ray makes a "reverse" grad ND filter. A normal grad ND is clear on one half, and tinted dark on the other half... but a soft grad ND will get gradually stronger on the tinted half so that the transition from non-tint to tint isn't noticeable in the image. The Singh-Ray "Daryl Benson Reverse Grad" flips the tinting of a soft-grad. It's clear on one half, then suddenly very dark (like a hard-grad) but then fades lighter as you get toward the far edge (like a soft grad).

The idea here is that if the sun is near the horizon, the area where the sun is located will be the very brightest and needs the most help. The bottom is for the landscape and that's clear. But as you go higher in the sky -- away from the sun -- it doesn't need as much tinting. As such, the "reverse" grad gets a bit less dense.

See: Daryl Benson Reverse Graduated FiltersAvailable in Neutral Orange Densities Singh-Ray Filters

 

[Darthcolo]

Thank you Tim. That was very informational!

I wonder... Could I use the graduated filter in Lightroom instead of doing physically? The first counterpart that comes to my mind is that if I took a photo of a sunset without a filter, I could burn the sun area, and therefore loose the information on those pixels; but with a physical filter, the sun area will not been burned and it still has useful information.

Also, instead of using an ND filter, could I just compensate the exposure on the camera to allow a longer exposition?