- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Phill
- Edit My Images
- No
So u had a ten stop on and then had to boost the shutter speed... why not shoot iso 100 at like f16 without a filter :s
Excellent CHEAP 10-stop.
- Thread starter Phil Young
- Start date
So u had a ten stop on and then had to boost the shutter speed... why not shoot iso 100 at like f16 without a filter :s
OP
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Like I said, it was just to upload to the thread to show color cast (or lack of) and sharpness.
Here's one that might make you a little more satisfied
Relatively sunny day.
Canary wharf back side by PhilYoung1, on Flickr
- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Phill
- Edit My Images
- No
Very nice. But to show cast you need a long exposureLike I said, it was just to upload to the thread to show color cast (or lack of) and sharpness.
Here's one that might make you a little more satisfied
Relatively sunny day.
Canary wharf back side by PhilYoung1, on Flickr
OP
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Jeez look at those dust bunnies! - that was before I cleaned it apparently!
OP
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
D
Deleted member 67219
Guest
For £22... one has just gone on my list!
OP
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In fairness, the bus ones are pants lol...thanks.
- Messages
- 15
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No need Phil, what I think happens is in most cases the noise reduction of the RAW minimises the trait for stills use.
Funniest case of IR contamination I have seen was a performer's hairpiece which was invisible to the naked eye and on the camera's live output but showed up as hard transition line like Friar Tuck to fine purple noise on the back of their head when seen off the camera's RAW files compared to their own hair.
OP
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have the slim.
No. It just allows you to control the lighting better.
OP
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have to wonder what a B&W woukd have over one of these, if anything?
S
stupar
Guest
You only need one, both those lenses have the same filter thread size
- Messages
- 351
- Name
- john
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Or get the 72mm slim for your superwide and then use adaptor rings for all the rest !
Had a test of mine today, posting an example to show a 100% crop from RAW. Only went for a walk in the garden so nothing exactly exciting I'm afraid, looking forwards to taking it out somewhere scenic.
Very happy with the filter itself, pleased with the sharpness too, especially as the example below was taken with an ND grad stacked on top of it, these are the results, with crop shown in second image. Exposure time was 111 seconds, was a little windy so excuse the slight motion blur.
View attachment 5223
View attachment 5224
Details for those of you that are curious:
Lens used: Sigma 10-20
Filter size used: 72mm
Exposure Length: 111 seconds
Aperture: f/18
ISO Speed: 100
Very happy with the filter itself, pleased with the sharpness too, especially as the example below was taken with an ND grad stacked on top of it, these are the results, with crop shown in second image. Exposure time was 111 seconds, was a little windy so excuse the slight motion blur.
View attachment 5223
View attachment 5224
Details for those of you that are curious:
Lens used: Sigma 10-20
Filter size used: 72mm
Exposure Length: 111 seconds
Aperture: f/18
ISO Speed: 100
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nuff' said!
- Messages
- 4,341
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nuff' said!
Been following this thread and might well get one
Phil hope you do not mind me asking about setting and processing for this image?
OP
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not at all.
Settings were;
20mm (I think), f5.6, 30s, ISO100.
For processing, I adjusted the EV and highlights etc to make it even. Boosted clarity, vibrance down saturation up then boosted the greens and brought down the blues a bit.
Then in photoshop, I made a new layer and applied topaz adjust, didn't do anything other than boost the detail and then erased the parts that I didn't want to be sharp and detailed such as the water.
Hope that helps
OP
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks
The mind seriously boggles one why someone would spend over £100 on a filter when there are just as good, if not better cheaper alternatives...
- Messages
- 3,696
- Name
- Frank
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks
The mind seriously boggles one why someone would spend over £100 on a filter when there are just as good, if not better cheaper alternatives...
Because a lot of people believe the adage "You get what you pay for", so they'll pay £100 for a £60 filter with a £40 name on it.
OP
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And the phrase is usually correct...but to spend that without researching what else there is or to dismiss something can be good if it's cheap - that's what baffles me.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
B+W's multi-coated ten stopper is the best ND filter I've tested, and that includes most of them. Most accurate colours (after neutralising in post processing), least infrared pollution, best coatings (flare resistance, water resistance).
Whether that's worth the extra cost is another question. For most folks, probably not.
OP
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Curious to know if you've tested the one in question???
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
No. And TBH, there are now so many of these things about (many of them probably the same glass under different brand names) there are quite a few I've not tried. But it won't be better than the B+W, if only because it's not coated. That doesn't mean the Camdiox isn't very capable, as this thread proves. I'm just pointing out what you get for the extra money with B+W.
OP
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Fair enough.
For me, I don't think there's anything another filter could give me to justify an extra £80...but that's me
- Messages
- 4,341
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
[quoit does helpe="Phil Young, post: 6099682, member: 39200"]Not at all.
Settings were;
20mm (I think), f5.6, 30s, ISO100.
For processing, I adjusted the EV and highlights etc to make it even. Boosted clarity, vibrance down saturation up then boosted the greens and brought down the blues a bit.
Then in photoshop, I made a new layer and applied topaz adjust, didn't do anything other than boost the detail and then erased the parts that I didn't want to be sharp and detailed such as the water.
Hope that helps[/quote]
Thank you Phil, very nice image, not too much processing then, interesting to see what you did,Yes it did help
e="Phil Young, post: 6099682, member: 39200"]Not at all.Settings were;
20mm (I think), f5.6, 30s, ISO100.
For processing, I adjusted the EV and highlights etc to make it even. Boosted clarity, vibrance down saturation up then boosted the greens and brought down the blues a bit.
Then in photoshop, I made a new layer and applied topaz adjust, didn't do anything other than boost the detail and then erased the parts that I didn't want to be sharp and detailed such as the water.
Hope that helps
[/quote]Thank you Phil, very nice image, not too much processing then, interesting to see what you did,Yes it did help
- Messages
- 16
- Edit My Images
- No
Looking at getting into a bit of slow shutter speed photography this year, I have a Sigma 10-20mm. Is that ok for Slow Shutter speeds? I was told that by adding filters to the front of a wide angle lens it would bring vignetting to the photo and make for a bad image??
OP
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's all subjective. Try it and see, 10 stops give a bit of vignette anyway but you'll be at base iso so can easily correct if you need to
I am using one of these filters with a Sigma 10-20mm. I have found vignetting to only be very slight. Even when stacked with an ND grad on top. Easily correctable in pp.