Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages User List Top Users
Show your ad here! Mail reto at pmwf.com for ratesShow your ad here! Mail reto at pmwf.com for ratesShow your ad here! Mail reto at pmwf.com for rates
Infinite Menus, Copyright 2006, OpenCube Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Advanced

Here is why filters still are used in this digital age.


Your Ad here? Your Ad here? Your Ad here? Your Ad here?
Chris L  
Current mood:
April 07, 2013 11:09PM
I took this series along a rapids in a creek this afternoon. These are unretouched, just imported and resized.

I've been driving by this spot a lot during my job, always wanted to stop and try taking pics here. But I am doing this today just a couple of hours past noon, which is not ideal light for photographing moving water. I came prepared though, as I brought both my circular polarizers filters and a set of 3 neutral-density filters that I just bought earlier this year.

I approached from my parking space with my 35mm lens attached to my Nikon D80 body, removed the UV filter, installed my 0.9 ND filter, put my 0.6 ND filter in my pocket, and carried that and my tripod / cable release towards the creek. I got 2/3 of the way there, could see the glare from the sun's angle, and walked back to also grab my 52mm circular polarizer. I knew it was not going to work with the ND filters alone.

I set the camera to ISO 100, A-priority mode and set to f-22 (being lazy, but wanting to make the shutter speed as long as I can with good exposure), Auto white balance. Took a test pic with the 0.9ND and CP filters stacked, decided the shutter speed was still too fast, and stacked the 0.6ND filter between the 0.9ND and CP filters.

So now I've established that it would be impossible to do motion-blurring of the water without aid of the ND filters (had the ISO all the way down, aperture as small as it goes, and assisted with a CP filter). Had to stack 2 ND filters to get there. Now here is a comparison of why the CP filter is needed.

Here I set the CP "open" to allow in maximum light. (actually I was experimenting to see if the motion blurring would be enhanced with the added glare). Exposure is 1.6s


Now I rotate the CP for minimum light passage, exposure time recalculates at 2s.


Pull back away a bit, and here's a maximum - minimum comparison again. Exposures are 1.5s and 1.8s (not much change for motion-blurring purposes).




Recompose by moving in closer, again a maximum - minimum comparison. This time the exposure goes from 3/4s to 2.5s (significant change for motion-blurring)




1.6 seconds here


3 seconds here


Moved up closer to a bridge, here maximum glare again, 2.2s


And minimum glare, 3.6 seconds.


On that last pic especially there are other features away from the water that benefited from the polarizer. The sky has better contrast the the exposure of the fence in the foreground is also better. You see an improvement on the bridge and the house in the back too.

So don't poo-poo the benefits of adding filters to your equipment line-up. They can make all the difference in the world.


My 2014 photo calendar now available
SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

Here is why filters still are used in this digital age. Jpeg Attachments

Chris L225April 07, 2013 11:09PM

Thumbs up! I am using them a lot (n/t) Jpeg Attachments

Jan55April 10, 2013 03:16PM

Thumbs Up Cool (n/t)

cmoy27April 10, 2013 03:57PM

Nice shots to show the difference. Thumbs up! (n/t)

Robmks84April 09, 2013 12:55AM

I WIS Honeymoon my filters Blushing (n/t)

cmoy56April 08, 2013 02:46PM

Very interesting! Thumbs up!Smile (n/t)

IF49April 08, 2013 07:02AM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

  PMWF.com Sponsors! Definitely worth your visit today!
Show your ad here! Mail reto at pmwf.com for rates Show your ad here! Mail reto at pmwf.com for rates
Show your ad here! Mail reto at pmwf.com for ratesShow your ad here! Mail reto at pmwf.com for rates Show your ad here! Mail reto at pmwf.com for ratesShow your ad here! Mail reto at pmwf.com for rates