Solid ND filter style of photographs.

[RaymondC]

<p>Hi all, I like some of your view on this topic. I have been looking into solid ND filters, ie., how some people use very dense filters such as a 6 stop or even a 10 stop filter to blur our afternoons to 30" or such exposures. </p>

<p>A lot of these filters might be difficult to make color neutral and also I have been having second thoughts about the style of the photographs. Granted in the perfect world, I would rather have calm pristine lake that I could capture instead of faking it with a solid ND filter which has more of a milky effect than a crystal calm lake. What is your view on these photographs? To me they sort of looks fake. Ie., how the water blurs to a milky with maybe a reflection or that the clouds recorded as motion but on a bright summer's afternoon .... (?). </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I have a 10 stop B+W filter. I use it , but not obsessively. I think that for me anyway , an issue comes about when photographers start looking for reasons - or searching for opportunities - to use particular tools such as long exposures or tone-mapped HDR or toned monochrome, or even using a polariser- instead of assessing opportunities to make photographs as objectively as they can to decide whether to use or reject a particular technique. The ability to reject is important I think, and the moment you find yourself unable to resist as soon as you think of the possibility of using a photographic tool is the time when your pictures become secondary to the technique rather than the tool helping the photograph. </p>

<p>For me, I have photographs that I believe are much improved by the use of long exposure via a filter and I think its something I'm pleased to have in the bag. I have photographs that only work because I've used a strong ND filter. I have no problem with having a few of my photographs with milky water- I just don't want all my pictures to look like that. Its a tool not a style.</p>

<p>There are some parallels with the rise of panoramic photographs amongst landscapers a decade or more ago. Many photographers -including some well known ones- bought cameras like Xpan to make panoramic photographs. To me that was and is the wrong way about and a tool looking to be used, not just there for when it was appropriate. Personally I preferred having the ability to make a panoramic photograph when needed through cropping MF film from a Mamiya 7 or whatever, to a mindset like "I'm going to go out and get some panoramic pictures on my Xpan today". </p>

<p>The thing that doesn't much bother me is whether stuff is natural-or real- or not. I think that my task as a photographer is to interpret what I see so that it appears as i'd like it rather than slavishly follow what a scene and conditions throw at me. I think thats what making the best of something means and requires. If that means softening some water, or slowing down the action in a busy place so that only one person is sharp , then I'll do it. </p>

<div></div>

[SCL]

<p>I use my 3 stop ND filter occasionally to allow me to use a wider aperture, but that's it.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Good question. Like Stephen and David, I sometimes use one to obtain a wider aperture for more selective (restrained) depth of field, and not so much with the objective of reducing the shutter speed. Using one to obtain slower shutter speeds strikes me as most useful to render water motion milky, but that is an effect that sometimes looks too artificial, as you have mentioned. On the other hand, closeness to reality should not always be an objective. I think it is most effective in some images of moving seawater with other, and static, objects within the frame, often where the water is rendered almost uniformly white or another fairly bright tone. Not all such approaches work well (the unreal uniformity places other demands on the composition), but they can lead to some effective compositions that approach those of some oriental paintings, with the compositional effect of their blank or negative spaces.</p>

<p>Alas, with my mostly rangefinder equipment, while I can easily use deep solid ND filters (even more easily, as the VF is separate from the camera lens), the use of graded ND filters for brightness control is a real hassle, although a digital camera more easily allows trial and error to obtain the right alignment. But graded ND filters are another subject.</p>

[paul_nicol]

<p>In a world full of cross process, HDR, tone mapped, multi layered assembled images, black and white, selective focus, and clever cropping / composition, unrealistic saturation, and what else have you, the last thing I would worry about is if it looks fake. If it’s your vision and you enjoy it then do it. If others like it then all the better. Those that set boundaries limit their own imagination. You don’t have to like all of it but realize it is part of photography and much of it always has been. I don’t care for tone mapped creations as a rule but every now and then I see something that I have to concede looks quite good. I have been using ND filters for quite a few years (film and digital) and enjoy the results I get. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/9482333@N02/sets/72157629766661843/with/756380513/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/9482333@N02/sets/72157629766661843/with/756380513/</a><br>

My two cents…</p>

[craigd]

<p>As some others have already noted, the main use of ND filters is to allow you to use wider apertures to obtain shallower DOF. For that purpose, a 3-stop ND filter is all you ever need. In direct sunlight, at ISO 100, a three-stop ND filter lets you shoot at f/2.8, 1/500 sec., which is within the shutter speed range of just about any high-quality camera made in the last 50 years.</p>

<p>I have come to dislike the blurred, milky or foggy water style of image -- it's become a cliche, and a rather cheap, sentimental cliche at that; and the fact that it is frequently combined with exaggerated HDR tonalities with all the grace and subtlety of a stampeding herd of elephants makes it even worse.</p>

[charedan]

<p>@Paul, Very nice set. Some of these images are stunning.</p>

[paul_nicol]

<p>Thanks Daniel.</p>

[andrew_aungthwin1]

<p>"To me they sort of looks (sic) fake".<br /> <br />I think you have the wrong understanding of photography. Photography is not reality. You know, reality is in 3 dimensions and a photo is two dimensional. You create a photograph. The only thing that matters if whether or not you like it.<br /> <br />As for using dense filters, I like them because I can slow down the shutter speeds to around 30 seconds in almost broad daylight.</p><div></div>

[mfophotos]

<p>You can also use two polarizers and have nearly zero light coming through. I don't like moving water at 1/500 sec. It looks far less real than 1/20 sec. So, using dense ND filters on a sunny day definitely helps with long exposures. </p>

<p><a title="Flow by mfophotos, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4031/4643787396_c15f6e24ce_z.jpg" alt="Flow" width="640" height="429" /></a><br>

The Sturgeon River, just above Canyon falls in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. I know there are probably too many long images of streams, etc., but I'm not trying to represent the water as I see it, but how I hear it, and the images take on a more abstract form, rather than a well-documented body of water.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Unfortunately, almost all polarizers are, at some level, imperfect, and, when crossed, artifacts such as non-uniform attenuation and false colors (both shifts and color bands from stress induced birefringence in the glass) can be a problem. Do tests before you commit to this approach.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>There was a variable ND filter sold a while back that was two layers of polarized film. Worked pretty well. However, most of my long exposures are in b&w. </p>