Which ND Filter?

Hi Everyone,


I am planning on hiking with my camera gear this spring and summer and plan to take pictures of different waterfalls. Both yesterday and earlier this month, I tried taking pictures of waterfalls in the direct sun and couldn't get adequotely slow shutterspeeds to blur the water. In searching the threads, it seems like there are a variety of variable ND filters (Sing Ray, Genus, Opteka) and then B+W 106 or 110. From what I've read, I am pretty tempted by the B+W 106.


Any thoughts or recommendations?


Thanks,


Brant

Hi Brant,


Personally, I've been happy with a B+W #103 (0.9, 3-stop). I find that's usually ample darkening for waterfalls (and if not, I can stack my CPL onto the ND - a Slim CPL to avoid vignetting; in fact, sometimes you'll want to stack a CPL on anyway, for the effect on reflections and the surrounding foliage). I also have a B+W #110 (3.0, 10-stop) - that's too dark for waterfalls, IMO. I use it for long exposures (30 s or more) of sky, etc. With the 3-stop filter, you can focus and meter with the filter in place, but with the 6-stop probably, and 10-stop certainly, you have to focus and meter before you put the filter on the lens.


I've looked at the variable ND filters, but the problem with those is that at wide angles (24mm FF, 15mm for you) you start to get a 'Maltese cross' artifact (like a pair of dark boomerangs in your image). If you do go that route, I'd stay away from Opteka; Singh-Ray will have the best optical quality (but you'll pay for it!).


Hope that helps...


--John

Waterfalls can be a lot of fun to photograph, and I hope you enjoy the adventure. My wife and I spent a week last fall in pursuit of waterfall picts... it was one of the most enjoyable vacations we have had.


ND filters are nice, but nothing is more effective than photographing waterfalls early in the morning, late in the day, or on a dark overcast day. The problem with ND filters when you have direct sun light on the falls, is it does a good job on the the water, but then the surrounding objects are under exposed (remember, frothed up water tends to be very white and reflective).


If you need to take pictures in the middle of the day, then over cast skys are good; or at least make sure you are not getting dirrect sun on the falls (falls in the shadows are good).


I also do not think the ND filter would be the first I would be looking for... start with a polarize (circular). Mine gives me a 1 2/3 stop reduction of light and can get rid of some nasty reflections that can cause problems. If that is not good enough, then go to the ND filter to further reduce the light on the falls.


Here is one where the falls is in the shadows, and the sun is coming up just above it. It is probably the smallest falls we visited, but ended up being a beautiful setting.


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/400x600/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-66-81/Scott-FallsLR.jpg[/img]

I echo the points of CONROPL (great shot by the way) when it comes to waterfalls. for cloud movement and LONG exposures of > 30 sec, an ND filter would come into play. For waterfall shooting, i also use just a CPL and try to shoot in cloudy or shady conditions. On an overcast day, I was able to get a 2 second exposure with a CPL (circular polarizer) at the expense of f/32. I think this is too small of an aperture as sharpness takes a hit, but you live and learn i guess. McArthur-Burney Falls in Northern California.


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/427x640/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/9/8750.burney.jpg[/img]

I have the B+W 110 and as John said it's DARK. However, if long exposures are what you're after then that's what you'll get (30 sec + exposures in mid day). Personally, I'd go with the 106, I think it's a good compromise as I don't think I would get enough benefit out of a 3 stop ND filter.


The 110 increases the kelvin temperature of the shot significantly so be aware of that (definately shoot in RAW if using the 110), the ND6 (106) doesn't have the same effect so it's pretty neutral.


Here's an example of the 110 at work in full daylight.


Good luck,


Ben


http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5218/...ef4e1d1c_z.jpg
Downstream East Leichardt by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Hope that helps...

---

It does!Now I am debating between the B+W 103 and 106. I will also look into if I can focus andwith the 106 mounted.


Conropl and Enro....great pictures. And very similar to what I hope to capture as a lot of my photo opportunities will be in tree cover. So I appreciate the tips. I have used my CPL for photographying waterfalls.It does very well up to an extent.


Ben...another great picture, and in the direct sun like I was trying to take Saturday. Actually, that one andanother of yours from last fall (water's edge with a storm in the background) are two of the shots that have me thinking about an ND filter.


Thanks everyone.


Brant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Now I am debating between the B+W 103 and 106.

---

Typical shutter speeds for waterfalls are in the 0.5 s to 3 s range. Do you have some shots of waterfalls in your collection? Look at the shutter speeds in the EXIF, and see where 3 vs. 6 stops would take you. The other thing to keep in mind is that if your ND filter is a little too dark, you can always bump your ISO up a stop or two to compensate.

Good idea. I tried the shot a couple of ways, both at ISO 100 with CPL. If I recall correctly, f/~10 needed a shutter speed of ~1/40 for proper exposure and then down around 1/4 sec at f/29 or f/32. So, I am just barely blurring the water with a CPL at f/29 or f/32. I just played with some charts, and this would indicate to me that I needed a total of 6-10 stops of light reduction on Saturday if I wanted to have f/5.6-f/11 aperture and 1/2 to2 sec shutter speed. Granted, I was in direct sun at ~11 am. If I where to be there earlier or later in the day, it wouldn't be so extreme.


So, and I am still looking into a few things, but what I see is:

• B+W 103 + my current CPL would give me approximately 1.7, 3, and 4.7 stops of light reduction. That would give me a lot of flexibility in most common instances I am likely to encounter. In extreme cases, I could drop my aperture down for a couple extra stops of light reduction.
• B+W 106 + CPL would give me approximately 1.7, 6, and 7.7 stops of light reduction options.That is ahuge gap between 1.7 and 6 stops. But the 6/7.7 stops is right in therange I needed on Saturday. Italsogets a bonus points as 6 to 7.7 stops is different enough, it probably opens the door to other possibilities (blurring waves, etc).

Does that sound about right?


I think either of these would be a good option. Maybe I should just get both [:P].


Thanks again,


Brant

If it helps in any way here are a few experimental photos taken using a B+W 103 ND filter. The weather was somewhat overcast, there had been a decent storm the previous day and there was a lot of water coming over the fall, the smudges visible in the tree areas are due to the amount of spray on the front of the lens. Histograms along with exposure information are included. The only thing I've done to the image is active the lens profile in LR3, the image itself is a screenshot not an export.


Cheers,


Chris


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/9/1780.ND_2D00_103.1.jpg[/img]


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/9/5518.ND_2D00_103.2.jpg[/img]


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/9/1440.ND_2D00_103.3.jpg[/img]


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/9/8372.ND_2D00_103.4.jpg[/img]

Thanks Chris. More examples definitely help.


It looks like a lot of folks have good waterfall shots they aren

Just a quick update, but after mulling this over and considering the Lee and Cokin options, I ordered the B+W ND 106 and B+W Grad ND 102 yesterday. The B+W 103 is next on my list, but I didn't have the funds to get all three.


Hopefully I'll have a few photos to share using the filters in the next couple of weeks.


Thanks for all your help.


Brant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

B+W Grad ND 102

---

I'd be interested in your impressions of this. The inflexibility of having the grad line in the center of the frame is my big concern...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

B+W Grad ND 102

---

I'd be interested in your impressions of this. The inflexibility of having the grad line in the center of the frame is my big concern...
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Sure.


I had thesame concern. In fact, that is why I was looking at therectangularfilter systems. I stayed with B+W as I am not sure I will use a grad ND filter enough to justify another filter "system" and for the times that I do use a grad ND filter, the B+W softGrad ND 102 may be"good enough." But, if I were to start using grad ND's a fair amount,therectangularsystems seem better for filter stacking and also give you the control over the grad line.


Does anyone have experience with Lee, Cokin or another rectangular type filter system?


Thanks,


Brant

Hey Brant, I recently started using grad NDs in preparation for a Utah/Arizona landscape phototrip with the fellas. I bought the 4 x 6" Lee resin filters with holder. I have taken to landscapes and was tired of sacrificing the foreground at the expense of a well exposed sky vs a presevered foreground with a blown out sky. I

Here is one for the "Post your Best Waterfall" thread. The only one i have ever tried. This is nockalulu falls.
50D ISO 100, F22, 1/8 sec 24-105mm L @40mm. No filter and slightly overcast.

great shots on your flickr site , Erno!! The shot of the GG is absolutely fantastic!!


Kayaker...We are going to Kauai next month for 2 weeks, and I recently bought a B+W 106 from Amazon for those long exposures. I will let you know how it works...if it's not too late. Unfortunately, my adapted Nikon 14-24g doesn't take filters, so I am kinda bummed about that....I thought about trying to place a square ND filter over the lens(and in-place cap) to get a long exposure...but I think that will get in the way by actually being in the photo!!

[Y]Enro...great shots , especially the golden gate. I can't wait to see what you come up with from your Utah/Arizona trip. I've also thumbed through Darwin Wiggett's webpage. Thanks for the reference. It looks like a great resource. And I agree, sacrificing the foreground for a properly exposed sky is why I decided I needed some kind of grad ND filter. I'll see how the B+W Grad ND 102 works. Now I am wishing I had rushed the order.


Gregg, I'd love to see what you come up with in Kaua'i. My B+W 106 is on the way, so we may end up comparing your shots of Kaua'i to mine of New Hampshire. I have a feeling that will make me very depressed. I love Kaua'i. I was last there two years ago. Two different friends went there after I did, and I wrote up a list of my favorite places, restuarants, etc. Let me know if you are interested and I'll forward it to you.

Hi Kayaker....


Thank you for wanting to give me a list of your fav places. Don't take this the wrong way, but we typically go to either Maui or Kauai almost every year!! Well, except since Mason was born almost 4 years ago(he WAS conceived in Maui, though!!). We were last there 2 years ago, also. But thank you for being helpful, it is greatly appreciated. My father in law, who is going with us(and the babysitter, since my wife is now almost 4 1/2 months pregnant with twins) almost always comes, too.


Look forward to comparing shots when we return. I already have my #106. I will play around with it before we go, to get the feel of it, and let you know...but you are getting one, too......


cheers,


Gregg

Gregg...nothing to take the wrong way....actually, it sounds like I may need a list of your favorite places next time I go.[:D]


Have a good trip. Brant

Kauai is so awesome! My peeps are from Maui, but i like Kauai "mo bettah." Unsolicited advice and a photo opp: get out your macro lens and take a shot of a hot bowl of Saimin at Hamura

Hi Erno. We like Maui, too!! Mason was conceived in Hana(my wife says Lahaina), during Late October 2006. We were there for our 5th anniversary(Hana, just the 2 of us) for a week, then in Lahaina for another, where we met some family. We proceeded to Party our asses off for Halloween in downtown Lahaina(they call it the West Coast Mardi Gras)!! You should check it out some time...total kick in the pants. They close all Lahaina off, for the day. A family event until night time, then it becomes a really great party until the wee hours. People dress up(or not), and some people don't dress at all(seriously!!), and it is something that should be attended at least once in a life time....we've been three!!!!


Hey Erno...where do you live in CA??


Cheers, Gregg

Hi Brandt,


We don't frequent too many places out when we go. TOO expensive!! But, we do hit Kintaro's in Kapaa/Wailua(Sushi), at least 2-3 times when we are there. My father-in-law has a thing for Dukes at the Marriott, so we hit that a couple times, too, for pupus and drinks!! There is a good restaurant in Poipu, actually several, but I can't think of them right now, 'cause we usually stay in either Hanalei or Princeville when we go. And then we can't forget....Bubba's Burgers in Hanalei.


As soon as we land, we hit Costco, get most of our food and drink, and then we plan it out from there...it's just cheaper that way!!


Cheers,


Gregg

I'm using the Hoya ND400. I'm very happy, with one exception. The coating on the filter is extremely hard to clean. Though, I shoot with it, looking smudged and such, and it doesn't seem to affect the shot.





I'm looking at the B+W 106 as well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

B+W Grad ND 102

---

I'd be interested in your impressions of this. The inflexibility of having the grad line in the center of the frame is my big concern...
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

John,


I have had the filters for almost two weeks. Long enough to get a preliminary impression and take a few comparison photos. Except for the last comparison, to test the B+W Grad ND 102, without the filter I used M mode and controlled ISO, shutter speed and aperture until the camera indicated I was properly exposed. I then took a picture and then added the filter and took another picture with the same settings. For the last comparison, I focused on the foreground, set exposure, and then recomposed to include the sky.


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/9/0574.Hampton.jpg[/img]


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/9/1108.Farms.jpg[/img]


I have a lot of other photos, if you are interested.


My impressions are both good, neutral, and not so good. The good is that I feel that the filter has improved almost every photo I've taken with it. It takes an average sky and definitely adds some extra pop to it. Regarding your concern about not being able to adjust the line, it seems to be so graduated, and the effect subtle enough,I haven't yet found that to be an issue. "The neutral," even though I did not adjust any setting, it also seems to have an impact over the entire image, not just the portion that appears shaded (before I would have said that the "ND" was only over 50% of the filter). The not so good, is that I was hoping for more of an effect. I suspect the "2 stop" performance is at the very extreme edge of the filter and it decreases very quickly from that edge (which may not even be in the picture).This is why I included the last comparison, the filter has a negligle effect for a bright sky if you want to properly expose the foreground (granted, my shot is pretty extreme). The final "bad" is in the "system" I am using. I bought 67-77mm and 72-77mm step up rings. The filter sticks in these frequently. I am getting better at not tightening it, but still, I can see it being an issue (I need to order a pair of filter wrenches). Also, I get a little vignetting with the step up rings.


After playing with it, I can see a real use and benefit. It does add to typical scenes and has a very nice effect. However, I was looking for something with more of an impact, with 2 stop lightreduction over more of the frame. Combine that with the step up ring issue, I can definitely see some advantages to the Lee or Cokin set ups for ND filters. But, no real regrets. And I will consider one of those other systems down the road a bit.


As for the B+W ND 106. I haven't played with it too much, other than to report that the7Dautofocus and exposure does work with it on.


Let me know if you have any questions or if there is a particular type of shot you'd be interested in.


Thanks,


Brant

I've been using the cokin p-series system. I have some Hitech grad filters and some Singh-Ray reverse grad filters. I've used the ND8 grad filter and then dialed it back in Lightroom. This gives me the most natural effect. I also use the 2-stop filter and it looks nice as well. It really makes the clouds and the sky pop. Also, you need to use a polarizer with the filter. So far, the best polarizers for me, seem to be the B+W KSM filter, or my personal favorite, the Marumi Super DHG (nice and thin).





I've seen the graduated filters used many times and have begun to notice the "shadowed" tops of mountains or such that the filter does. I prefer my shots to look more natural, like I don't use a filter. I've found that using the 3 stop filter and bringing it down one stop in lightroom achieves the more natural look and feel. And, don't even get me started on HDR. I use HDR on more difficult shots, but again, prefer it to not be noticeable.





I've also found that you can shoot the scene, exposing the sky correctly. Then, go into Lightroom and use the graduated filter upside down, and lighten up the foreground. It's impossible to repair a blown-out sky, but bringing the foreground up a couple of stops doesn't seem to hurt the photo. There is also a way of taking a piece of dark cloth and dragging it, like a curtain, upward to simulate a filter, in dire situations.





This is a low end B+W polarizer with a 3 stop Hitech filter in a Cokin P-series holder. I then brought it back one stop with the graduated filter in Lightroom.


http://capnscott.com/images/_MG_1732.jpg


This is a shot with an older B+W polarizer, a Hoya ND400 filter and the Cokin P-series filter holder with a 3-stop graduated Hitech filter. I've modified the holder slightly, otherwise I can see the little nubs of the Cokin P-series hood on the edges of the shot. The 9-stop ND filter really makes the waterfall creamy. Also, in the background, is an interstate highway full of cars whizzing by. With the use of the filter, they magically disappear...


http://capnscott.com/images/_MG_1741.jpg


Amazing clouds and skies really make the shot...


This is a B+W older polarizer, with a grad ND 3 stop filter, and then brought back a stop in lightroom.


http://capnscott.com/images/_MG_1675.jpg


You need to make sure that you have a great polarizer as well...


Capn Scott

This is the grad filter in Lightroom. I brought it down 2 stops, all the way to the water, then I imitated a reverse grad by bringing it back up 1/2 stop near the top. This keeps it still looking more natural, like your eye sees it. It still can't fix the blow-out in the sky, but it is a much better picture.


http://capnscott.com/images/_MG_2226.jpghttp://capnscott.com/images/_MG_2226-2.jpg


Try out the graduated filter in Lightroom first... It will get you hooked. When you use the physical filters, they give you a better histogram. It ends up being a nicely formed bump, right in the middle and a whole lot less work on the computer. Then, you can crank up the contrast a bit and make the shot really pop...


Capn Scott

Scott,


Great images (I especially like the #4 with the row of cherry trees) and thanks for the description to your approach. Aside from the vignetting issues at wider focal lengths, I can see combining filters working out well and it is something I will definitely try. Unfortunately, yesterday was the last day of sun for...oh...as long as they are forecasting here in New England. So, if they are right, the I won't have much of an opportunity for next 10 days.


Brant

As well as the grad filter works on a bright sunny day, it works even better to bring out the moodiness of an overcast sky...


http://capnscott.com/images/_MG_0264.jpg


This one was done in lightroom, before I received my present filters. After I learned about this technique in Lightroom, this is the shot that got me interested in the filters...





Capn Scott

Great comparisons everyone. There are definitely a quite a few possibilities for the filters. I have been looking into the BW stuff, but can

Hi Jayson,


Thanks for the suggestion. I