Do people still use filters now
Or is it a lost art
Am I alone in using my Lee 150 system
Thanks
Do people still use filters now
Or is it a lost art
Am I alone in using my Lee 150 system
Thanks
Just a better mid point between 3 and 10 lol. I don't expect I'll use it much hence waiting to find one at a bargain pricewhat benefit would 6 have over 5 ?
So you would not use such filters as 10 stoppers etc
Evenly coated neutral density filters are great, where you need to reduce the amount of light entering the camera for a multitude of reasons.
Yes, people still use them. Most people in fact.
Do people still use filters now
Or is it a lost art
Am I alone in using my Lee 150 system
Thanks
Aside from me knowing a LOT of photographers and only 2 who do regularly - so IME its FAR from most - I'd use the phrase, hardly any
Dave
Every landscape photographer I know uses filters, and I know a fair few.
So I’d argue most do.
And even then, I know more Landscapers who don't than do - with one exception, the 10-stopper is still common as its arguably better on water than the otherwise more convenient and flexible option
Dave
You have me intrigued, what is the more convenient and flexible alternative to a 10-stopper?
As an alternative to 10-stopper?Multiple exposures merged.
Do people still use filters now
Or is it a lost art
You have me intrigued, what is the more convenient and flexible alternative to a 10-stopper?
I've been enjoying & using the simulated technique of merging photos for quite a while now. It has a variety of benefits, not least you don't have to shoot with a small f-stop, so you can be more creative by using a shallow DoF and still having a long-exposure blurring; you get the choice of how long the effective exposure was AFTER you've got home, so if you shot for 2 mins worth you can decide that 20 seconds was enough, or 50, or whatever, so its more flexible; its easier to combine areas of blur with areas you didn't really want blurring; and (if shooting wider) you don't get those damn dust-bunnies as bad lol
Oh and its quicker & cheaper too as you don't need any filters
Dave
So I am not convinced merging in post is quicker, more practical or enjoyable tbh.
Happy to disagree
Dave
Erm ok but that doesn't help with the debate.
I'm not debating - night
Dave
I saw it as a genuine question on how you achieve the same effect as a 10 stop filter, I am also interested in this as well if you care to share?
Agreed.So I am not convinced merging in post is quicker, more practical or enjoyable tbh.
nandbytes, you are assuming that you need to create the 10 stops to achieve the blurred effect required. I took 10 shots of 1/20 sec of a waterfall when averaged in PS produced a fine blurred image. In my earlier post I mentioned that the method did have limitations because I many circumstances it would require a much larger number of shots (certainly hundreds). This is why I suggested that a big stopper is still important. If intending to take this type of shot, I would use the filter in this case or possibly combine the methods as my filter is only 6 stops. However, if I wanted a shot of say a waterfall and did not have my filter available, I would capture multiple shots rather than miss the opportunity. Unfortunately, the opportunity to take such shots rarely arises for me.
Dave
I saw it as a genuine question on how you achieve the same effect as a 10 stop filter, I am also interested in this as well if you care to share?
Debating is not the same as arguments
I am not interested in baseless arguments but factual debates.
You claim my math is wrong. It may well be but let me explain it again. Say we have a 1s exposure we want to stop down.
For 1 stop ND filter will get you down to 2s. Top get the equivalent 2s from stacking you need two 1s shots.
For 2 stops down i.e. 4s you will need to stack 4x 1s images i.e. 2^2
For 3 stops down i.e. 8s you will need to stack 8x 1s images i.e. 2^3
So on and so forth which nets in 1024 images i.e. 2^10 images for 10 stops
I believe this the same kind of calculation astrophotographers use to stack exposures to get a very very long exposure when shooting deep space stuff.
If there is something wrong in my math people point it out please and I'll correct my understating.
As @Dave Canon said if people are assuming that 10 stops is needed to blur our water or smear the crap out of clouds that's not the point. That's purely dependant on the situation. The point is to establish how we can achieve 10 stop ND filter effect (regardless of the usecase/situation) in post production without using filters.
This is defo my final comment on this for now - but
Its the time over the overall effect that matters, so how many seconds or mins of movement are included
If you want the sky to move a certain amount then a 10-20-30 stopper may be needed to have the shutter open long enough depending on how windy it is, or you can simply take any number of images over the same time period at very short exposures and blend those; how many are needed depends on how smooth the final image needs to be
On a fairly windy day 1 shot per second is easily enough, and on a calmer day one every few seconds creates the same effect as a very long single exposure would, you do not need thousands of shots for that
Simples
There done - out of here
Dave
This is defo my final comment on this for now - but
Its the time over the overall effect that matters, so how many seconds or mins of movement are included
If you want the sky to move a certain amount then a 10-20-30 stopper may be needed to have the shutter open long enough depending on how windy it is, or you can simply take any number of images over the same time period at very short exposures and blend those; how many are needed depends on how smooth the final image needs to be
On a fairly windy day 1 shot per second is easily enough, and on a calmer day one every few seconds creates the same effect as a very long single exposure would, you do not need thousands of shots for that
Simples
There done - out of here
Dave