Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Analysis
OK, what am I doing wrong...?
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Mar 7, 2015 16:09:31   #
SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia
 
My first try at something I thought would be fairly easy...
These were taken with a variable ND filter set at its darkest level.
My aim was to get the "smoky" water effect.
These are just a few examples from several I took, all failures..!
How do you take this type of pic..?
Cheers,
Ron.


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Mar 7, 2015 16:53:39   #
Didereaux Loc: Swamps of E TX
 
You do not have enough ND Probably need a 10 in that strong light. Your problem is that you cannot get a long enough exposure that would smooth the water without over exposing. Get a darker filter, or shoot at some time with less intense light.

Reply
Mar 7, 2015 16:59:18   #
SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia
 
Didereaux wrote:
You do not have enough ND Probably need a 10 in that strong light. Your problem is that you cannot get a long enough exposure that would smooth the water without over exposing. Get a darker filter, or shoot at some time with less intense light.


My filter was set at it's darkest level...I couldn't even see through the lens it was so dark.
I had to compose the shot and focus before I set it so I could see...it was virtually a complete black-out..?
The only way I can think of is to try later in the day when it's darker as you suggest...
The first shot was only 2.5 seconds... at maximum darkness setting on the filter...?

Reply
 
 
Mar 7, 2015 17:55:11   #
Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California
 
ND filters can do strange things sometimes .........

Waves can be a bit tricky to get the look your after as the white wash/spray is moving back and forth, inlike a waterfall wear the flow is always in the same area.

I only use ND filters to help get me to an area that a normal exposure is a bit easier to accomplish but to do what your wanting it's best to do so when the light isn't so intense, done at the right time you won't even need the ND filter.

Reply
Mar 7, 2015 18:24:00   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
What does your variable ND filter max out at? 4 stops? To get the best of the smoky water effects you probably need a 10 stop.

Are you avoiding going higher than f/16 to avoid diffraction? You might find that with smoky water shots, softness isn't a problem.

Reply
Mar 7, 2015 18:32:53   #
SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia
 
R.G. wrote:
What does your variable ND filter max out at? 4 stops? To get the best of the smoky water effects you probably need a 10 stop.

Are you avoiding going higher than f/16 to avoid diffraction? You might find that with smoky water shots, softness isn't a problem.


There are no graduation marks on it but it was at its max, total black out...it's a variable filter... that's why even at 2.5 seconds I'm surprised at the over exposure..

Reply
Mar 7, 2015 18:55:07   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
I had much the same problem trying to get a river to go milky (I'm not too fussy about that look - it was an experiment... ).

It looks like 2.5 sec. wasn't long enough to get the surf to smoothen out anyway. I forgot to mention that if #1 doesn't have blown highlights, it looks like it's probably fully recoverable, just like when you expose beyond the right (EBTR). So if you're happy with soft surf instead of smoky water, you could end up with a nice, low noise image.

Reply
 
 
Mar 7, 2015 19:15:35   #
noel Loc: Virginia
 
SX2002 wrote:
My first try at something I thought would be fairly easy...
These were taken with a variable ND filter set at its darkest level.
My aim was to get the "smoky" water effect.
These are just a few examples from several I took, all failures..!
How do you take this type of pic..?
Cheers,
Ron.

Variable ND filter maybe defective since the pics show
differences in exposures, not uniformly exposed.

Reply
Mar 7, 2015 21:38:18   #
SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia
 
noel wrote:
Variable ND filter maybe defective since the pics show
differences in exposures, not uniformly exposed.


They were all taken at different shutter speeds hence the exposure variation...

Reply
Mar 7, 2015 22:43:53   #
lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode
 
What have you done wrong?
1)You have not metered your images properly.
2)You assumed it would be easy to just go out and snap off a few decent images of this type.
3)You have believed those that told you that variable NDs were not a heap of crap.

I have lost count of the times that I have warned on UHH about the quality and idiosyncracies of these variable ND filters and been howled down by "experts" telling us how wonderful these pieces of crap are.
You chose to ignore, and now you have wasted your money.

Reply
Mar 7, 2015 22:57:37   #
Didereaux Loc: Swamps of E TX
 
lighthouse wrote:
What have you done wrong?
1)You have not metered your images properly.
2)You assumed it would be easy to just go out and snap off a few decent images of this type.
3)You have believed those that told you that variable NDs were not a heap of crap.

I have lost count of the times that I have warned on UHH about the quality and idiosyncracies of these variable ND filters and been howled down by "experts" telling us how wonderful these pieces of crap are.
You chose to ignore, and now you have wasted your money.
What have you done wrong? br 1)You have not metere... (show quote)



2X :thumbup:

Reply
 
 
Mar 7, 2015 23:02:03   #
SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia
 
lighthouse wrote:
What have you done wrong?
1)You have not metered your images properly.
2)You assumed it would be easy to just go out and snap off a few decent images of this type.
3)You have believed those that told you that variable NDs were not a heap of crap.

I have lost count of the times that I have warned on UHH about the quality and idiosyncracies of these variable ND filters and been howled down by "experts" telling us how wonderful these pieces of crap are.
You chose to ignore, and now you have wasted your money.
What have you done wrong? br 1)You have not metere... (show quote)


I suggest you P**s off if you have nothing constructive to add to the conversation...I have seen many pics on the Hog, and other sites, magazines, etc, taken with these filters and the results are quite spectacular.
As I said you are a moron "who thinks he knows all about it" and yet knows nothing. Although, you have shown us that you do have a large mouth and talk drivel...
One wonders why you bothered to reply to my post.
It's idiots like you who give the Hog a bad name and cause people to leave the Forum...
I have asked for help with a particular issue and you, who quite obviously can't help, should but out and mind your own business... :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

Reply
Mar 7, 2015 23:03:58   #
SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia
 
Didereaux wrote:
2X :thumbup:


Jeez, two morons for the one post...a new Hog record....

Reply
Mar 8, 2015 01:58:33   #
fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...
 
Didereaux wrote:
You do not have enough ND Probably need a 10 in that strong light. Your problem is that you cannot get a long enough exposure that would smooth the water without over exposing. Get a darker filter, or shoot at some time with less intense light.


My experience with variable ND filters isn't much different from yours. You didn't mention the filter's brand name but the cheap filters simply turn to crap at their maximum settings. They're actually two polarizers that create a moire' like effect as they become perpendicular to each other. You'll also note inconsistencies depending on your angle of view in relation to the sun. Of course on cloudy days that won't be of concern.
Try backing off to 50% or 60% of max density on sunny days. Of course that doesn't help with your circumstance- stacking a second ND filter (not variable) will probably solve the exposure problem and give some flexibility to the variable one...
You'll probably have to "learn" how your particular filter performs. Manufacturing inconsistencies are common- especially on the lower end products...

Reply
Mar 8, 2015 03:29:58   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
fuminous wrote:
You didn't mention the filter's brand name but the cheap filters simply turn to crap at their maximum settings......

Try backing off to 50% or 60% of max density on sunny days......

You'll probably have to "learn" how your particular filter performs. Manufacturing inconsistencies are common- especially on the lower end products...


Comments like this are a recurring theme with variable ND filters. If you've seen good examples of their use, they were probably NOT cheap and NOT used at or close to their maximum setting.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Analysis
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.