With or without an ND filter

[bnnrcn]

I have started this thread in this section because when I uploaded a seascape image taken with an ND filter , one of the members commented that the ND filter didn't work because the water was calm and I said that ' no, the ND filter worked because there were very small ripples on the water and ND filter gave a silky and matte look to the water and it also created a nice effect on the clouds'.

After a while , one of the websites about photography which I have a subscription have sent me this article which shows how using an ND filter makes a huge difference even if the water is calm.The article is a bit long and you don't have to read all of it , but please scroll down till the end of the article to see the images taken with and without an ND filter. The first one shows the image taken with an ND filter before and after PP. The second one shows the image taken without an ND filter.

http://www.throughstrangelenses.com/...ilford-sunset/

So, please don't hesitate to use your ND filters with calm water , it creates wonders

[Manfred M]

Binnur - we have a fairly vocal and opinionated bunch here at CiC (and elsewhere).

There are people who automatically dislike smooth water, HDRI, jpegs, etc. I don't and will judge each image to see what works and does not work. I care less about the technique used to get there than the looking at the effectiveness of the final product.

I use a lot of multi-image blending in my work, but find that I tend to shy away from ultra-long exposures for practical reasons. The Milford Sound image in the link you posted is because the landscape is static - the trees are so far away that any movement of leaves is imperceptible. Many of the places where I would normally shoot are "tree heavy" and long exposures give blurred leaves in the trees that are hard to avoid, so most of my long exposures tend to be a few seconds long, rather than minutes long to minimize leaf movement.

So, the technique does work in this case, as it smooths out some very minor disturbances in the water. If there are large disturbances and the exposure time is long, the opacity of the water would increase and the effectiveness of the shot would not be the same.

The one effect I often don't like in the long exposure images is the way movement in the clouds is affected. They tend to look stretched and all pulled and the linked image definitely shows that affecting the image.

[Mike Buckley]

Of course neutral density filters can work very effectively on smooth water for the same reason they can work well with a scene that has no water in it.

You would think the blog's author could at least get the title right. It's that kind of lack of attention to detail that makes me automatically skeptical about whether the piece has other inaccuracies that make things confusing or even downright wrong.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Manfred I'm actually a fan of long exposures and I have no problem with the effects on the clouds or with very long exposures. Interestingly , long exposure images are admired a lot on Flickr and I have to admit that there are very good photographers who shoot long exposures very creatively. I just wanted to share this article here so that some other long exposure fans might benefit from it, although I already know that some members here in CinC don't like long exposures at all.

Binnur - we have a fairly vocal and opinionated bunch here at CiC (and elsewhere).

There are people who automatically dislike smooth water, HDRI, jpegs, etc. I don't and will judge each image to see what works and does not work. I care less about the technique used to get there than the looking at the effectiveness of the final product.

I use a lot of multi-image blending in my work, but find that I tend to shy away from ultra-long exposures for practical reasons. The Milford Sound image in the link you posted is because the landscape is static - the trees are so far away that any movement of leaves is imperceptible. Many of the places where I would normally shoot are "tree heavy" and long exposures give blurred leaves in the trees that are hard to avoid, so most of my long exposures tend to be a few seconds long, rather than minutes long to minimize leaf movement.

So, the technique does work in this case, as it smooths out some very minor disturbances in the water. If there are large disturbances and the exposure time is long, the opacity of the water would increase and the effectiveness of the shot would not be the same.

The one effect I often don't like in the long exposure images is the way movement in the clouds is affected. They tend to look stretched and all pulled and the linked image definitely shows that affecting the image.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Mike I think the title isn't wrong. I think the author means how the Milford sunset becomes an epic sunset with the help of an ND filter and that's why he says ' Epic Sunset Over Milford Sunset'.

Of course neutral density filters can work very effectively on smooth water for the same reason they can work well with a scene that has no water in it.

You would think the blog's author could at least get the title right. It's that kind of lack of attention to detail that makes me automatically skeptical about whether the piece has other inaccuracies that make things confusing or even downright wrong.

[Mike Buckley]

That title makes no sense to me. I think it was intended to be "Epic Sunset over Milford Sound."

[Dave Humphries]

That title makes no sense to me. I think it was intended to be "Epic Sunset over Milford Sound."

That would make more sense to me too

[bnnrcn]

Your guess might be more accurate than mine Mike as English is not my first language.

That title makes no sense to me. I think it was intended to be "Epic Sunset over Milford Sound."

[bnnrcn]

You and Mike might be right Dave I just tried to get a connection between the title and the effect of the ND filter but as I already said to Mike, English is not my first language .

That would make more sense to me too

[NorthernFocus]

Hey, Binnur. To be honest your work and Donald's recent long exposure shots are all I needed to convince me to try the technique a little more often. Particularly in the rippled water situations. In the past I only considered using long exposures on waterfalls or rough beach waves where they create that misty effect. But the in between situations when water is neither glassy nor dynamic looking has always been a dilemma for me. In future I'll try long exposures in those situations where the water isn't all that interesting. Thanks for setting a good example and giving and old dog a new trick

Regarding the article, it's not all that well written but does provide a decent example. And a great reminder to check the settings on your camera before shooting.

[Shadowman]

Binnur,

Something to consider when I get the chance to exercise my ND filters. Thanks for link.

[IzzieK]

I agree with John, Binnur. I have a variable ND filter for all my lens and I still have to try them...I have been to that site before and downloaded his panel but it never came.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Dan. You can also try your ND filter with archeological heritage (or some ruins of a building) if there are many clouds in the sky. Sometimes a lot of clouds and archeological heritage with lots of texture makes a crowded and eye tiring scene. If an ND filter is used in such situations , the clouds become stretched and blurry and the archeological heritage becomes dominant in the scene.You can also convert those kind of shots to B&W. I have seen such images on the internet and they look very nice and artistic . So, I think it is worth giving a go

Hey, Binnur. To be honest your work and Donald's recent long exposure shots are all I needed to convince me to try the technique a little more often. Particularly in the rippled water situations. In the past I only considered using long exposures on waterfalls or rough beach waves where they create that misty effect. But the in between situations when water is neither glassy nor dynamic looking has always been a dilemma for me. In future I'll try long exposures in those situations where the water isn't all that interesting. Thanks for setting a good example and giving and old dog a new trick

Regarding the article, it's not all that well written but does provide a decent example. And a great reminder to check the settings on your camera before shooting.

[bnnrcn]

Hi John, I'm glad that you have got some inspiration from the examples in the link

Binnur,

Something to consider when I get the chance to exercise my ND filters. Thanks for link.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Isabel If you are talking about ' Easy Panel', I downloaded it from one of his videos in the past and I use it from time to time. I can't remember if I pinned the video or not but If I can find it on my Pinterest account I will PM you the link.

I agree with John, Binnur. I have a variable ND filter for all my lens and I still have to try them...I have been to that site before and downloaded his panel but it never came.

[IzzieK]

Hi Isabel If you are talking about ' Easy Panel', I downloaded it from one of his videos in the past and I use it from time to time. I can't remember if I pinned the video or not but If I can find it on my Pinterest account I will PM you the link.

Got the links. Thanks.

[Manfred M]

There is another use for ND filters that I have been playing with, but as of yet, have not produced a result I want to share, and that is in conjunction with portraiture. The ND filters used are not nearly as opaque as in slowing water (usually 1 or 2-stops) where a portrait is taken outdoors and the background is underexposed. The subject is lit with a studio flash and is exposed correctly (the ambient light is overpowered). The ND is used to reduce the light hitting the sensor so the lens has to be stopped open quite far to get a very narrow DoF.

The result is a very moody image. With a bit of luck I'll get back to playing with that technique sometime next month. I picked up a Godox Witstro 360 light last year that I hope to use for this technique.