Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: using graduated nd filters correctly  (Read 9098 times)
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2004, 05:04:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I've never used a split ND, and have no interest in getting one, for the simple reason that most of the high-contrast subjects I shoot are irregularly shaped, and a filter with a straight-line graduation would be useless. For me it's usually sunsets with mountains in the background rather than slot canyons, but the same concept applies.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8887


« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2004, 06:41:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've never used a split ND, and have no interest in getting one....
Same here. Autobracketing and digital blending work fine for me, although I sometimes have a bit of difficulty getting rid of unnatural halos around dark objects like trees against a brighter sky. I assume this is what Bruce was referring to and is why he prefers to use split ND filters.

Perhaps we need an additional tutorial on how to remove unnatural artifacts of digital blending  Huh  Adjusting the levels of the individual blended layers can largely overcome the halo problem, but there may well be other adjustments in the process that can help.

Excellent photos, Bruce. Strong compositions with a tendency towards minimalism which I like.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8887


« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2004, 08:56:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Didger,
Thanks for the link. The capacity to blend 3 images is appealing. I'll give it a try.

In the meantime, I'll have to finish the concreting because the only exit from my property until the concrete's cured will be by foot or bicycle  Smiley .
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2004, 07:25:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
It's not a joke.
Hey, I also thought it was a joke. Who's going to straighten us out here if Jonathan ever leaves?
Well, I don't know that I'm comfortable with the wearing the mantle of The Ultimate Arbiter Of All Truth And WhizDumb, but I do attempt to fact-check before posting.

I was wrong once, in that uber-long thread about the required exposure difference between 4x5 and 8x10 format film...
 
Logged

Brock
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #24 on: December 28, 2004, 04:14:43 PM »
ReplyReply

November issue of Outdoor Photography or maybe December...had a good article on using split ND filters....and trying to get the square ones like for Cokin so you can move, twist and adjust the location of the split as you need it instead of being stuck with a solid ND or split one on a fixed filter...
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2004, 02:24:31 PM »
ReplyReply

If you're using an aperture if f/16, you're only using a small portion of the center of the lens and a graduated ND filter isn't going to accomplish much.
Logged

jayz
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2004, 04:55:17 PM »
ReplyReply

i actually am using splid nd filter (hard grad?).
i think what i'm having trouble detrmining is what to assign meter value to assign to the reflection.  I assigned it as my midtone, maybe is should be brighter then midtone.
then i added in my grad/splid nd filter for the number of stops over for the sunlit snow.  that was 3 stops over foreground, and added another two stops since i figured the sunlit snow was two stops over grey.
i am not looking to combine over under expousres, shooting film with a nikon f100.
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1692


« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2004, 09:13:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you're using an aperture if f/16, you're only using a small portion of the center of the lens and a graduated ND filter isn't going to accomplish much.


That's a joke, right? Just so we're clear.
Logged
Sam NI
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2004, 02:07:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Bruce,

I reckon you should know how to go about this because I've just spent quite some time visiting your site. I think I'll close mine down!  Cheesy  

You have captured remarkable and powerful images.

I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciated your work.

Good luck for the future,

Sam
Logged
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2004, 07:38:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No neutral density filter would help this kind of composition.
I got my introduction to latitude problems in slot canyons and there the contrast is generally extreme and virtually never fixable with ND filters, so I figure it's best just to do whatever it takes to learn go get good results with bracketing and blending.  There's just too many situations where nature does not oblige with a simple vertical division of light intensity.
Logged
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2004, 06:55:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Perhaps we need an additional tutorial on how to remove unnatural artifacts of digital blending
Well, we have a definite "hard core" group of committed digital blenders, but no certainty about how to get the best results.  I downloaded the demo version of Photomatix, but I don't really know when I'll have a chance to mess with it.  I can't spread myself any thinner with things I'm trying to do for the time being.  There's lots and lots of sample images and details about the program.  It looks vastly more sophisticated than the Miranda blending plug and the demo images look very very good, so how about somebody else doing some serious impartial testing?  I've done my share with lens and tripod research and testing!!   Cheesy
Logged
christoforos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #31 on: November 22, 2004, 02:23:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Blending two exposures with digital is really easy, but don't forget that a lot of folks still shoot film (especially medium and larger formats). Sure you can take two exposures with film scan them and blend them in PS, but the cost adds up (film processing and scanning) and the blending of the scans is a little more difficult.
I don't think that separate software for blending is needed just good knowledge of PS.
Logged
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2004, 07:36:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I was wrong once
Well, don't feel bad, I was wrong about something one time too, but it was so long ago I forgot what it was.  Maybe by now it's been proven that I was right after all; probably so; almost certainly.   Cheesy
Logged
rosswarner@rosswarner.com
Guest
« Reply #33 on: December 06, 2004, 08:25:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Does someone need to "straighten out" John Shaw??? Here's what he says:

"By the way, the more you stop down for your final exposure, the greater the filter's effect. This is particularly true with wide-angle lenses, which are the lenses you'll use most with these filters. If you work with your lens wide open, the filter will have little effect, since it lies far outside the depth of field of the wide-open aperture. Stick with apertures around f/16 for the best results."

See http://www.singh-ray.com/shawarticle.html
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad