| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/23/2006 12:17:42 PM · #1 |
Hi all,
I need help as soon as possible before i travel because i need to order it.
What is a good Graduated Neutral Density filter let say for skies and clouds and so?
I need one before i travel in november (07 - 19) to Europe (Paris, Geneva), so please someone can post a link of a good GND filter, and i will buy it from B&H only, so if someone can guide me to a good GND filter available on that site please post a link of that filter and i will order very soon.
Waiting your replies and posts. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 01:06:56 PM · #2 |
This is nice if you don't want to do it in post. I generally take multiple exposures and blend the two (you can make a digital GND filter that does the same thing). I prefer the digital method as you can get away from dark objects that extend into the sky. However, this isn't allowed for DPC so some people are very supportive of the GND filter. So, if you want a GND for DPC then someone will recommend one. Otherwise, if you just want stuff for yourself:
//www.ronbigelow.com/articles/neutral-density/neutral-density.htm
|
|
|
|
10/23/2006 01:34:28 PM · #3 |
Oh thank you for your reply.
Just i want GND for myself only not for DPC or something else. and i don't think you can get good photos always without filters as if the sky is so bright and blown out then you can't fix by digital unless you replace the sky itself which i don't want to do, thats why Polarizer and ND filters help to get the sky and waters in good exposure with details not blown out. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 01:36:56 PM · #4 |
| Singh-Ray are the best. I know B&H has carrie them in the past. Besides the great glass they are longer than most so you can get the 90/10 splits. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 01:39:56 PM · #5 |
Don't forget there are hard and soft edge GND filters. I would assume that the softedge one has more uses as it blends in a little better.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2006 02:03:44 PM · #6 |
ok, so which one from B&H i should choose?
there are B+W, Cokin, Hoya, Tiffan and so alot..., soft and hard, so i think i am not good in reading in English that much so i hope if someone can help me and post a link from B&H of that filter so then i can add it to my list to buy, i can't go to many sites to read about filters, i know how they work but i don't know which is good enough, i can't buy one and it is not so useful, so that i prefer if you can link me then thats all what i need, sorry for that and thank you for your posts. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 02:04:46 PM · #7 |
I bought the Cokin P filter system recently, and the thing I've found is that there's no universal GND filter for every situation. Some have soft graduations, and some have harder, less subtle grauations for more straight horizons. Then there's the matter of intensity or how many stops it will filter. So unless you buy a few filters in each range (which gets expensive), you might not be covered for a particular scene.
I like to bracket exposures when the range is more than a few stops.  Bear_Music informed me in a thread about Photomatix and I tried it out on a bracketed shot I recently did and it worked flawlessly. Had I known about this before I bought the filters I probably would've spent my money on the software instead. Here's an example I did (watermarked because it's the trial version) that's otherwise straight from camera with no additional editing:
It did everything for me and was pretty much effortless. Worth a try.
Message edited by author 2006-10-23 14:09:54. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 02:08:58 PM · #8 |
| The ones that slide into a holder are the best (Cokin and Lee) since you can adjust where the gradation line ends up. With screw in filters you're stuck with the gradation line in the middle. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 02:22:45 PM · #9 |
I have photomatix and i got nice results i posted somewhere else.
but i use polarizer mostly here for sky and sun and so, but some people somewhere else told me to get GND if the weather is so cloudy, thats why i need only GND for that case, but the sky is not cloudy then Polarizer is the tool i need which i have, i think most advised me for cokin GND filter as well, so i think i have to check that one, but is that GND cokin filter fit in my lenses (wide Angle lenses)? I think i will get only the filter with holder but i don't know what holder should i get or is the holder one type only?
Here are two links of what i did with Photomatix, not so good but i like it:
Photo1
Photo2 |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 02:28:20 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by UAE_Guy:
Oh thank you for your reply.
Just i want GND for myself only not for DPC or something else. and i don't think you can get good photos always without filters as if the sky is so bright and blown out then you can't fix by digital unless you replace the sky itself which i don't want to do, thats why Polarizer and ND filters help to get the sky and waters in good exposure with details not blown out. |
Not sure I understand why you feel this way. It's a very easy technique (expose the shot, and expose for the sky) then blend using that tutorial I pointed you to. In any case, Cokin seem to be nice (and relatively inexpensive) but the problem lies in the fact that you will need many filters to cover yourself completely. Sometimes the sky won't be as bright as others, sometimes you may need it to be a distinct line, others a soft edge. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 02:47:37 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by cresus:
Originally posted by UAE_Guy:
Oh thank you for your reply.
Just i want GND for myself only not for DPC or something else. and i don't think you can get good photos always without filters as if the sky is so bright and blown out then you can't fix by digital unless you replace the sky itself which i don't want to do, thats why Polarizer and ND filters help to get the sky and waters in good exposure with details not blown out. |
Not sure I understand why you feel this way. It's a very easy technique (expose the shot, and expose for the sky) then blend using that tutorial I pointed you to. In any case, Cokin seem to be nice (and relatively inexpensive) but the problem lies in the fact that you will need many filters to cover yourself completely. Sometimes the sky won't be as bright as others, sometimes you may need it to be a distinct line, others a soft edge. |
Thats why i have Polarizer Filter and normal ND filter, i will use them for sure in some cases, but i know that there is a situation that i need to use Graduated ND filter, if it is not useful then i will not think of it at all, but because some trsut people told me to get one GND filter then i search for that, i found that most advised me for Cokin, so i will check Cokin GND filters and see which one to get.
Thank you, but i got many shots where the skies was so white blown out and your technique was useless. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 03:03:51 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by UAE_Guy:
but is that GND cokin filter fit in my lenses (wide Angle lenses)?
|
I don't think it will totally work on your widest angle lens/camera combos. You might have to step up to the larger "Z" system (4"x6" filters) in the Cokin products and those are REAL expensive. With my 20D and the 10-22mm in landscape orientation, you can see the end of the filter holder to about 13mm. Turned vertical it dissapears at 10mm. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 03:30:03 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by UAE_Guy:
Originally posted by cresus:
Originally posted by UAE_Guy:
Oh thank you for your reply.
Just i want GND for myself only not for DPC or something else. and i don't think you can get good photos always without filters as if the sky is so bright and blown out then you can't fix by digital unless you replace the sky itself which i don't want to do, thats why Polarizer and ND filters help to get the sky and waters in good exposure with details not blown out. |
Not sure I understand why you feel this way. It's a very easy technique (expose the shot, and expose for the sky) then blend using that tutorial I pointed you to. In any case, Cokin seem to be nice (and relatively inexpensive) but the problem lies in the fact that you will need many filters to cover yourself completely. Sometimes the sky won't be as bright as others, sometimes you may need it to be a distinct line, others a soft edge. |
Thats why i have Polarizer Filter and normal ND filter, i will use them for sure in some cases, but i know that there is a situation that i need to use Graduated ND filter, if it is not useful then i will not think of it at all, but because some trsut people told me to get one GND filter then i search for that, i found that most advised me for Cokin, so i will check Cokin GND filters and see which one to get.
Thank you, but i got many shots where the skies was so white blown out and your technique was useless. |
This is why you expose a shot for the sky and for the foreground and blend them. If you shoot two exposures, one 2 stops less than the other, the sky will be the same brightness as when used with a GND filter. I'm not trying to pressure you here, I'm just trying to make you understand this can be done in photoshop (more effectively actually as you're not limited). You can take a shot that's as dark as you want to make the sky dark (can't do this with GND filters) so you won't get it blown out. That's why I didn't understand what you were saying. This technique will work if you take the right shots. I'm not saying use 1 raw image to expose twice as that doesn't always work. I'm actually saying press the shutter twice. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 03:50:09 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by cresus:
Originally posted by UAE_Guy:
Originally posted by cresus:
Originally posted by UAE_Guy:
Oh thank you for your reply.
Just i want GND for myself only not for DPC or something else. and i don't think you can get good photos always without filters as if the sky is so bright and blown out then you can't fix by digital unless you replace the sky itself which i don't want to do, thats why Polarizer and ND filters help to get the sky and waters in good exposure with details not blown out. |
Not sure I understand why you feel this way. It's a very easy technique (expose the shot, and expose for the sky) then blend using that tutorial I pointed you to. In any case, Cokin seem to be nice (and relatively inexpensive) but the problem lies in the fact that you will need many filters to cover yourself completely. Sometimes the sky won't be as bright as others, sometimes you may need it to be a distinct line, others a soft edge. |
Thats why i have Polarizer Filter and normal ND filter, i will use them for sure in some cases, but i know that there is a situation that i need to use Graduated ND filter, if it is not useful then i will not think of it at all, but because some trsut people told me to get one GND filter then i search for that, i found that most advised me for Cokin, so i will check Cokin GND filters and see which one to get.
Thank you, but i got many shots where the skies was so white blown out and your technique was useless. |
This is why you expose a shot for the sky and for the foreground and blend them. If you shoot two exposures, one 2 stops less than the other, the sky will be the same brightness as when used with a GND filter. I'm not trying to pressure you here, I'm just trying to make you understand this can be done in photoshop (more effectively actually as you're not limited). You can take a shot that's as dark as you want to make the sky dark (can't do this with GND filters) so you won't get it blown out. That's why I didn't understand what you were saying. This technique will work if you take the right shots. I'm not saying use 1 raw image to expose twice as that doesn't always work. I'm actually saying press the shutter twice. |
your point is exactly the job of Bracketing, i can get 3 exposures as well, is that what you mean?
In all cases, i visited another sites and saw many photos, some members who posted those great photos declaired that they can never get those shots without GND even with photoshop works, so i am confusing who is right, you or them?
in all cases i want to have GND if necesary, if not then i can shoot without any filters.
Message edited by author 2006-10-23 15:52:01. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 03:51:08 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
Originally posted by UAE_Guy:
but is that GND cokin filter fit in my lenses (wide Angle lenses)?
|
I don't think it will totally work on your widest angle lens/camera combos. You might have to step up to the larger "Z" system (4"x6" filters) in the Cokin products and those are REAL expensive. With my 20D and the 10-22mm in landscape orientation, you can see the end of the filter holder to about 13mm. Turned vertical it dissapears at 10mm. |
I am still looking at these filters or holders to see which one is good for my WA lenses.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2006 03:53:44 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by UAE_Guy:
your point is exactly the job of Bracketing, i can get 3 exposures as well, is that what you mean?
In all cases, i visited another sites and saw many photos, some members who posted those great photos declaired that they can never get those shots with GND even with photoshop works, so i am confusing who is right, you or them?
in all cases i want to have GND if necesary, if not then i can shoot without any filters. |
Yeah bracketing is what I'm talking about. There are a lot of people who believe you can't do it as well in photoshop but it's the same thing so if you know how to use photoshop it shouldn't be a problem. The trick is just making sure you get the sky exposed correctly and don't move the camera. But yeah, having a GND is nice so you don't have to do it. It's just a nice technique to know if you have abnormal objects against the sky that prevent you from using a GND.
I'd be interested to see the website you're talking about that has examples of the two and shows why the GND is the better alternative. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 03:56:38 PM · #17 |
I shouldn't do this but look at these photos:
Photo1
Photo2
Photo3
the guy who posted these photos commented as follow:
" OK,i don`t think you will find many posts or tests here with before and after,what i have to offer is this...
No way you would get this sky in these images without a ND Grad , Lee 0.6 & 0.9 "
What do you think now? is he a liar or he doesn't know about photoshop works? |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 03:58:22 PM · #18 |
Sometimes there isn't time to get two exposures shooting fleeting subjects. When I shoot photos of fast moving subjects totally in the sky or water, such as jet airplanes or jet skis, a polarizer helped a great deal.
I have used Cokin filters years ago when I shot with a film camera. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 03:58:47 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by cresus:
Originally posted by UAE_Guy:
your point is exactly the job of Bracketing, i can get 3 exposures as well, is that what you mean?
In all cases, i visited another sites and saw many photos, some members who posted those great photos declaired that they can never get those shots with GND even with photoshop works, so i am confusing who is right, you or them?
in all cases i want to have GND if necesary, if not then i can shoot without any filters. |
Yeah bracketing is what I'm talking about. There are a lot of people who believe you can't do it as well in photoshop but it's the same thing so if you know how to use photoshop it shouldn't be a problem. The trick is just making sure you get the sky exposed correctly and don't move the camera. But yeah, having a GND is nice so you don't have to do it. It's just a nice technique to know if you have abnormal objects against the sky that prevent you from using a GND.
I'd be interested to see the website you're talking about that has examples of the two and shows why the GND is the better alternative. |
Sure, i am a member in this site and you check it yourself
Thread about GND |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 04:01:30 PM · #20 |
yes, i need tripod to get exactly 2 exposures for same shot, but shots views are moving msotly like waters and so, then thats why i feel this technique is useless outdoor for most shots, unless i freeze actions of the world to take same exact view twice with different exposure.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2006 04:08:09 PM · #21 |
I agree that for fast moving subjects this isn't a feasible option. Although honestly, it usually takes longer to set up a GND than it does to take 3 exposures. In any case, none of those guys ever mentioned using multiple exposures. They're basically saying that the dynamic range of the scene was way too high for the camera to capture in a single exposure. The same thing can be done with multiple exposures. One of the issues I was commenting on can be seen on the image with the lighthouse. The top of the lighthouse is dark as compared to the bottom because they had to use a GND there. If it was shot as two exposures and blended they could've prevented this problem.
I'm a little confused about your previous post. Usually when taking landscapes, people use a tripod. So I would definitely argue with the 'useless for most outdoor shots' statement. In any case, to each their own. I was just making a suggestion.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2006 04:51:52 PM · #22 |
I mean if you don't use slow shutter speed then you don't need tripod, i know that using tripod can be useful alot, but think about it, the shot with long exposure (slow speed) can't be the same all the time unless you shoot forzen steady object, clouds are not steady and move slowly and you can see the difference with slow shutter speed so then difficult to get 2 exposures for the same clouds in the sky with slow shutter speed, don't tell me to use higher shutter speed because thats means no need for tripod if you walk all around and stop all the time to set up tripods for landscape in exposures not so dark or nightshots.
so you think i shouldn't get GND if i travel and only with 2-3 exposures i can do the job?
Message edited by author 2006-10-23 16:52:29. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 04:59:48 PM · #23 |
It doesn't matter if the clouds move. I'm not talking about using HDR for this (photomatix), you simply take the two shots and overlay them. Then you make a layer mask on one that exposes the one behind it. You can tailor what the mask looks like to change what parts of the underexposed image are revealed.
I'm not saying don't buy a GND because they are useful, but just be aware of this for those times that a GND doesn't make sense to the scene. This will work almost always and for almost any situation but does require experience to know what exposures you should use.
As for the fast shutter speed landscapes...tripods still make the image sharper and most landscape shooters don't shoot just 1 exposure.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2006 05:16:58 PM · #24 |
Thank you
I will take many shots with different settings or exposures and see what i will end up with.
How can i take tripod to the plane? if not then how can i get good shots need tripods without tripod?
I am trying my cameras and lenses in my area to see what are the best exposure for different time or lights conditions, but we don't have clouds so we have sunny hot clear sky all the time, even there are few clouds still it is well strong exposure, but in parts of Europe i will visit it will be mostly clouds and dark skies i think, hope to use correct settings for skies.
BTW, even i get GND i will not use it all the time, even my Polarizer i don't use it all the time even some said that they don't take it off for landscapes shots, i use filters only when i need it for strong lights or reflections which is not preferable and eliminate some undesirable rays.
Message edited by author 2006-10-23 17:18:46. |
|
|
|
10/23/2006 09:40:17 PM · #25 |
| If its not too late, try this link...Filters |
|
