ND filter to enhance detail ??
Nov 13, 2013 09:51:44 #
In Rangefinder Magazine (September 2013 issue) on page 92 is a caption under a picture of Stonehenge. The author writes
"To capture the detail of the rocks and the dramatic sky overhead, I mounted the camera on a tripod and used a 3-stop neutral density filter, allowing me to slow down the shutter to 8 seconds at an aperature of f/19.1....I underexposed this image by one stop and brought the shadow details back in post production. Minimal Photoshop edits were done in post".
I am doing a seaside landscape project that includes a lot of close up rock formations. The use of an ND filter to bring out the detail in the rocks is a new idea for me. I will use a polarizer filter for the sky, but never would have given it a thought to use an ND filter for the detail in the stones themselves as this photographer did..........
Have I missed this concept in the past ??? Is anyone else using an ND filter this way ???
"To capture the detail of the rocks and the dramatic sky overhead, I mounted the camera on a tripod and used a 3-stop neutral density filter, allowing me to slow down the shutter to 8 seconds at an aperature of f/19.1....I underexposed this image by one stop and brought the shadow details back in post production. Minimal Photoshop edits were done in post".
I am doing a seaside landscape project that includes a lot of close up rock formations. The use of an ND filter to bring out the detail in the rocks is a new idea for me. I will use a polarizer filter for the sky, but never would have given it a thought to use an ND filter for the detail in the stones themselves as this photographer did..........
Have I missed this concept in the past ??? Is anyone else using an ND filter this way ???
Nov 13, 2013 09:59:43 #
The concept is actually old. It allows you to use a smaller aperture and longer shutter speeds thereby allowing for more light exposure on the subject with less chance of blowing out highlights.
Nov 13, 2013 10:13:36 #
I would think that a Graduated ND would be more appropriate. Blocking the sky out to let the shadows catch up.
Nov 14, 2013 05:51:16 #
Nov 14, 2013 06:17:50 #
An ND does not alter contrast. Full stop. It does allow to use a wider aperture or slower shutter speed for a given ISO. That should be all it does, if the quality is good.
Nov 14, 2013 09:44:21 #
Why not two filters, it would be even better. Only on this site would I find the UV phobic and the idea that an ND filter would enhance a resolution of a photo.
Then the idea it allows a smaller f stop and creates more light on the subject so the highlights don't blow out.
I don't care for the snarky comments on UHH, but there may be value in pointing out how to use common sense. Reasoning is more powerful than trying to remember a bunch of facts or rules.
Then the idea it allows a smaller f stop and creates more light on the subject so the highlights don't blow out.
I don't care for the snarky comments on UHH, but there may be value in pointing out how to use common sense. Reasoning is more powerful than trying to remember a bunch of facts or rules.
Nov 14, 2013 09:58:59 #
WAL wrote:
Why not two filters, it would be even better. Only on this site would I find the UV phobic and the idea that an ND filter would enhance a resolution of a photo.
Then the idea it allows a smaller f stop and creates more light on the subject so the highlights don't blow out.
I don't care for the snarky comments on UHH, but there may be value in pointing out how to use common sense. Reasoning is more powerful than trying to remember a bunch of facts or rules.
Then the idea it allows a smaller f stop and creates more light on the subject so the highlights don't blow out.
I don't care for the snarky comments on UHH, but there may be value in pointing out how to use common sense. Reasoning is more powerful than trying to remember a bunch of facts or rules.
WAL, I don't think anyone has been "snarky" on this thread. I have been shooting off & on since the late 60's and now delving into digital. I learn something here on UHH every day.
After one bad exchange and some criticism, I have learned to tune out the negativity and if I don't have something constructive and positive to say...I keep my mouth shut. We are blessed continually here by so many that share their knowledge and images willingly !!!
Nov 14, 2013 10:06:06 #
MT Shooter wrote:
The concept is actually old. It allows you to use a smaller aperture and longer shutter speeds thereby allowing for more light exposure on the subject with less chance of blowing out highlights.
Thanks MT, I am having some problems getting my head around this idea of more detail with a longer exposure. I guess I'll pack up my camera and a couple ND filters and shoot some images with and without filters and compare. Stand by for results. I'll Post them.............
Nov 14, 2013 10:14:16 #
Gary; try not to get wet, and let us know how you make out with the ND filter.
damdannyboy :thumbup:
damdannyboy :thumbup:
Nov 14, 2013 10:18:39 #
CTTonymm
Loc: Connecticut
"I underexposed this image by one stop and brought the shadow details back in post production."
This approach will actually decrease the amount of detail in the shadows that can be recovered in post production (reference the several threads on "exposing to the right" - particularly using RAW format) . I usually overexpose by 0.5 or one full stop and recover the highlights and increase shadows in Lightroom. Use of grad filter is better IMO for holding back sky brightness than ND Filter - I'm betting author of article had a " typo" and meant grad? Also, using ND Filter requires lengthening shutter time at any given shot to use the same aperture. I would think that for landscapes a smaller aperture for longer depth of field are required, so ND filters are wrong direction here also.
This approach will actually decrease the amount of detail in the shadows that can be recovered in post production (reference the several threads on "exposing to the right" - particularly using RAW format) . I usually overexpose by 0.5 or one full stop and recover the highlights and increase shadows in Lightroom. Use of grad filter is better IMO for holding back sky brightness than ND Filter - I'm betting author of article had a " typo" and meant grad? Also, using ND Filter requires lengthening shutter time at any given shot to use the same aperture. I would think that for landscapes a smaller aperture for longer depth of field are required, so ND filters are wrong direction here also.
Nov 14, 2013 10:24:17 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
GC likes NIKON wrote:
In Rangefinder Magazine (September 2013 issue) on ... (show quote)
He certainly meant graduated ND filter. He's holding back the brightness of the sky so that he can get detail in the rocks.
Nov 14, 2013 14:19:41 #
To that end two exposures masked together non-destructively in PS is an infinitely better solution.
Nov 14, 2013 15:55:45 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
Just a few thoughts.
I am going to assume it wasn't a misprint for a grad.
Its Rangefinder magazine - maybe it was a film camera and some of the post work was in developing film therefore underexposing slightly may have been relevant to bring out the best in the photo.
It doesn't specifically state that the ND was to bring detail in the rocks out.
It says "To capture the detail of the rocks and the dramatic sky overhead".
Maybe he means the effect on the sky while retaining rock detail.
But, also, from memory, I do believe that Peter Hills very credible ND article does say that he seems to think that he gets more depth to his detail with his 10 stop long exposure work.
It is a theory I haven't fully tested yet but I have to admit, he does get magic depth and feel to his waterfalls. Whether that is due to the 10 stoppers or to his exceptional processing skills I don't know. But I am not discounting it. I do see a logical reason why this might happen.
[/i]
I am going to assume it wasn't a misprint for a grad.
Its Rangefinder magazine - maybe it was a film camera and some of the post work was in developing film therefore underexposing slightly may have been relevant to bring out the best in the photo.
It doesn't specifically state that the ND was to bring detail in the rocks out.
It says "To capture the detail of the rocks and the dramatic sky overhead".
Maybe he means the effect on the sky while retaining rock detail.
But, also, from memory, I do believe that Peter Hills very credible ND article does say that he seems to think that he gets more depth to his detail with his 10 stop long exposure work.
It is a theory I haven't fully tested yet but I have to admit, he does get magic depth and feel to his waterfalls. Whether that is due to the 10 stoppers or to his exceptional processing skills I don't know. But I am not discounting it. I do see a logical reason why this might happen.
[/i]
GC likes NIKON wrote:
In Rangefinder Magazine (September 2013 issue) on ... (show quote)
Nov 14, 2013 16:02:09 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
kymarto wrote:
To that end two exposures masked together non-destructively in PS is an infinitely better solution.
Agree completely!
Nov 14, 2013 16:18:12 #
CTTonymm wrote:
"I underexposed this image by one stop and br... (show quote)
I read an article that supports this as well. ETTR is supposed to better in almost every application. Could this be one case where it doesn't apply?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.