Variable ND filters.

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>I picked up a variable neutral density filter recently, also know as a "fader filter." It's a versatile tool to have in the camera bag, but I noticed it does seem to have one minor glitch. When it's dialed up to maximum effect, the coverage becomes a bit patchy. I took one shot where I was able to get away with a 3 second exposure shooting into the sun, but part of the shot is unnaturally dark. I got this filter mainly because I like long waterfall exposures. Does anybody else notice the same problem... well maybe not problem, but nuisance?</p>

<p><a href="

<p> </p>

[User_3804048]

<p>I have noticed the same thing with my variable filter.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Yes, this is very common, in fact I am not sure there is one that isn't like this. Other problems include color casts and flare.</p>

[henryp]

<p>A variable neutral density filter is actually two polarizer filters ganged together. The overall effect will vary depending on several factors including the angle you're shooting at relative to the sun, whether you're aimed at metallic or non-metallic subjects etc.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was just because I bought a cheap one. Henry, your explanation makes sense. Now I just have to experiment a bit more. :-)</p>

[Palouse]

<p>Rob, this may help answer you questions, and ease your experimentation: http://breakthrough.photography/2015-nd-buying-guide/</p>

<p> </p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>Nick, at this time, my digital weapon is a Panasonic Lumix FZ200. It only goes down to ISO 100 and the diaphragm can only go down to f8. I usually prefer to shoot waterfalls, but this one time I tried my luck shooting into the sun. I have a ton of film cameras, a number of which have lenses that go down to f22. I'm not in the market to spend a ton and a half of money on a DSLR (regardless of make) and another ton on lenses. The only reason I have the Panasonic is because my Canon SX20 went for a swim with me on Christmas Day.</p>

[Palouse]

<p>Rob, I wasn't implying buying a new filter, rather, the information at that site may be useful and interesting to you, given your subject matter and style.</p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>Actually Nick, the idea already did cross my mind. While the fader is a cheap fix (I only paid $12.00 for it), it doesn't quite cut it for all purposes. Sure it has a thin profile and lets me play with the lens zoomed in wide. I used to simply stack two 3 stop ND's and it generally wasn't bad except for the vignetting in wide angle applications and it caused a bit of a greenish tinge on the images. The camera sensor doesn't see the light the same way that I do directly and as such, the patchy coverage I see in the camera's viewfinder comes up more quickly than what I see when looking through the filter directly. Even looking through the viewfinder of my FT2 with the filter attached, the coverage is patchy only at the darkest points. In adjusting the fader a bit more one way and then the other, the patchy area either moves up and down or left and right. The reason I got it in the first place was because I understood the inconvenience of stacking ND filters and as I like shooting long exposures, I wanted something dark enough to shoot long in sunlight. At least now I know that what I want will require a proper neutral density filter around ten stop. A digital camera will compensate for the darkness and a film camera will require a bit of calculation (I don't have an aversion to that). There's a camera show coming up here next weekend and I hope I can find something reasonable there.</p>