Neutral Density Filters (Page 2): I would strongly suggest these plastic ND filters you can find on Amazon.com or ebay. It is a good place to start. Make sure your set has adapter...

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

illininitt wrote:

I have always wanted to take great water/waterfall pictures be never wanted to "set" the camera or use a tripod for the shot. Can these filter help me do that on a simple Canon T3I camera without any special "settings"/tripod? Looked on Ebay and prices range from $12 to over $100. Help with brand/name/place to buy and cost?

I would strongly suggest these plastic ND filters you can find on Amazon.com or ebay. It is a good place to start. Make sure your set has adapter rings that will fit your lens. Most sets will include a series of lens adapters that will fit most lenses. That is how I started and then I moved up to Tiffen ND and finally Lee filters. But your not ready for that yet. Start cheap, experiment, and then advance. Good luck.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

illininitt wrote:

I have always wanted to take great water/waterfall pictures be never wanted to "set" the camera or use a tripod for the shot. Can these filter help me do that on a simple Canon T3I camera without any special "settings"/tripod? Looked on Ebay and prices range from $12 to over $100. Help with brand/name/place to buy and cost?

NO!!! need a tripod, remote release along with a filter. handholding does not work

cthahn

If you want to take quality pictures, a good tripod is a must. If are looking on E-bay for a tripod in the $12.00/$100.00 price range, forget it. It is not just the tripod, but the head on the tripod that is important. If you are really not interested in using a tripod, don't just buy a cheap piece of junk. You will not be happy.

tgreenhaw

I carry a Neweer Variable ND for slowing shutter speeds or increasing aperture in bright light. Fixed filters are better but carrying a bunch of filters for all occasions is a hassle and costly. Variable ND filters do come at a cost though. They do reduce the quality of bokeh and background contrast and in some circumstances introduce a cross interference pattern. Usually I'm stopping the lens down a fair amount so this impact is minimal, but it is something to watch for. Also, you have 4 surfaces, so lens flare is another thing to guard against.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

repleo wrote:

If you have Photoshop or similar software you can get the same effect by 'stacking'. You wouldn't need the ND filter but you would still need a tripod. Stacking involves taking mutiple shots (maybe a couple of dozen) without moving the camera and then using the software to stack them on top of each other. I have an App on my Sony A6000 that will do it in-camera without PS.

...also you can stack two exposures and mask/ combine the images to eliminate motion blur in foliage and clouds.

cyclespeed Loc: Calgary, Alberta Canada

Might I suggest using a polarizing filter in combination with a ND. Don't be in a rush. Try various angles ( effectiveness ) of polarizing. My go to friend taught me this trick knowing I was inclined at the time to buy an expensive graduated ND filter. This combination has worked fine for me.

mrtobin Loc: North East Ohio

illininitt wrote:

Thanks for all the posts. The "soft water&qu... (show quote)

And heaven forbid if you should learn any thing new.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

Mac wrote:

I think you mean decrease the shutter speed.

shutter speed increases when I go from 1/125 to 1/60; it decreases when I go from 1/60 to 1/125. perhaps I should have said "longer shutter speed."

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

BullMoose wrote:

Sorry, but this comment is very misleading to the typical beginning photographer, which the OP appears to be. The main purpose of the ND filter (for the condition the OP asked) is to slow down the shutter speed. Using the f stop or ISO to compensate for the loss of available light would just defeat the purpose of using it.

Sorry I didn't make the point clearer; in order to compensate for the lost light adjustments would need to be made somewhere in the exposure triangle. In order to get that silky water look that compensation would have to be made in the shutter speed and the OP would need a tripod (even though he doesn't want to use one) if he hopes to have good results.

Bob Boner

The vast majority of my images are taken either from a tripod or a beanbag. You are clearly not interested in the advice of folks who are experienced with the project of photographing moving water. If you leave the camera on the tripod for most of your shots, you will improve most of those.

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

aflundi wrote:

Don't listen to the nay-sayers. With an ND filter used without a tripod, not only will the water be silky, so will the rocks, trees, mountains, birds, and clouds. You'll have the ultimate silky machine. The $12 ones are made especially for use without a tripod. The expensive ones are for tripod use only.

Please explain how can you really believe what you're saying??? I understand about the slow speed and a tripod but saying, "The $12 ones are made especially for use without a tripod. The expensive ones are for tripod use only.", throws me into massive confusion.

diabaig Loc: UK/Denver

illininitt wrote:

Thanks for all the posts. The "soft water&qu... (show quote)

Fine to not want to "hassle" with anything. As long as you are happy with the fact that your photos will always be restricted on quality and your work will always have a narrow focus. Nothing good comes from not wanting to learn or put in an effort. Oh, and good luck with living life from a microwave.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

illininitt wrote:

Thanks for all the posts. The "soft water&qu... (show quote)

It makes me sad to think of all the wondrous experiences your attitude has caused you to miss in your 68 years. I am 81 and still exploring my world almost every day.

aflundi Loc: Albuquerque, NM

GENorkus wrote:

Please explain how can you really believe what you're saying??? I understand about the slow speed and a tripod but saying, "The $12 ones are made especially for use without a tripod. The expensive ones are for tripod use only.", throws me into massive confusion.

It was a joke. The OP clearly wasn't interested in the reality of the situation, and wanted a magic solution that didn't require much effort on his part. So, I suggested a magic solution that would make everything in the image silky -- he could hand-hold the camera (for 30sec, or whatever) enabled by a cheap $12 ND filter that would not only increase the shutter open time, but also intrinsically add "silkiness" (blur/unsharpness) because of it's obvious poor quality.

If you go back and read my post again, I'm sure you can figure it out.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

aflundi wrote:

It was a joke. The OP clearly wasn't interested i... (show quote)

Hey - I GOT it. Pretty funny.