Ways to use an ND filter.

Sidney

Sidney

Messages
167
Name
Sidney
Edit My Images
No
Hello All,

I have finally decided to order a 9 stop ND filter (A Hoya 400) and I need some ideas of how to use it. The idea is to have this thread as a bank of ideas for shot setups which take advantage of the slow shutter speed. I have the three most obvious ideas to start us off:

1. Waterfalls.
2. Silky smooth water under a pier.
3. Dramatic, blurry clouds.

Please post some more ideas. As I anticipate we will get a lot of water-based ideas submitted, please could I ask you to focus on other areas also (I feel this thread will work best with really quirky/abstract submissions).

Thanks, I hope this thread will become useful for all with ND filters and persuade those without one to make the investment. I was very surprised how cheap they are (mine was under £40 excl postage).

Cheers,

Sid.
 
I don't like the silky smooth water look myself but a couple of uses for ND's I'd add to the list are...

Longer shutter speeds allowing...
Zoom in and out and moving camera effects.
A way of capturing images without people or with ghost / blury moving people.
 
City shots with blurred crowds, car tail lights and perfectly sharp buildings can be cool. And with ND filters you don't need to stop down to silly apertures so much to get the long exposure.

Also, for simply shooting at wide apertures in sunshine. You can have your bokeh and blurred backdrops at 2.8, without blowing the highlights. Especially with cameras only having a max shutter speed of 1/2000 - 1/4000
 
Last edited:
Drag landscapes, as in dragging the shutter to create movement in trees, leaves and frondy things.
 
Forgot to add, also great for video, when you want that shallow DOF when recording using wide apertures. Much the same as stills, but I see more and more videographers using them these days.
 
You really don't need a heavy ND filter for waterfall photography. You can get exposures of about 1/2 sec @ f16 in cloudy conditions using only a polariser, and that is perfectly suitable.

But as a general response it appears that you have seen some images on the internet or in a magazine and your intention seems to be to more or less copy them. There HAS to be more to photography than that.

The problem with heavy ND filters is that there are very limited situations in which you can use them. Personally I would put them in the same class as the HDR "look".
 
jerry12953 said:
You really don't need a heavy ND filter for waterfall photography. You can get exposures of about 1/2 sec @ f16 in cloudy conditions using only a polariser, and that is perfectly suitable.
Click to expand...

The problem is waiting for cloudy conditions and having to shoot at f16. Personally I hardly ever shoot at such extremely small apertures.
 
I have been in situations, facing a waterfall, where f/16, ISO 100 was not enough. An ND filter is perfect for those times. And just because you don't like it, doesn't mean someone else is doing it to copy something from a magazine.

And though I think it is over done, give me a silky waterfall over anything approaching HDR any day!
 
jerry12953 said:
You really don't need a heavy ND filter for waterfall photography. You can get exposures of about 1/2 sec @ f16 in cloudy conditions using only a polariser, and that is perfectly suitable.
Click to expand...

And when it's not cloudy - or when you don't want massive depth of field?
 
Cagey75 said:
I have been in situations, facing a waterfall, where f/16, ISO 100 was not enough. An ND filter is perfect for those times. And just because you don't like it, doesn't mean someone else is doing it to copy something from a magazine.

And though I think it is over done, give me a silky waterfall over anything approaching HDR any day!
Click to expand...

I agree about silky waterfalls - I do plenty myself. But you don't need heavy ND filtration for them.

It's the manmade structure/silky seascape at dusk/ flowing clouds images that seems rather a cliché to me.
 
jerry12953 said:
But as a general response it appears that you have seen some images on the internet or in a magazine and your intention seems to be to more or less copy them. There HAS to be more to photography than that.
Click to expand...

Hahaha! I am stunned!!!

I honestly believed that this thread would not attract the heard of ignorant commenters such as yourself but it appears I was wrong! Although I believe that your comment doesn't even warrant response, I will humour you. To suggest that I simply wish to try to replicate an image that I have seen on "the Internet or in magazines" is not only incredibly patronising and insulting, but also factually flawed; there is a difference between subject matter and image.

If I had asked the the co-ordinates, camera angle, time of day and equipment used of a photograph I had seen, perhaps your comment would have merit - I would be copying. However, I am simply asking for ideas of what sort of subject matter to shoot with a piece given piece of kit.

Do you just read threads and see what response you could give that would boost your photographic ego? I will give you a solid piece of advice, grow up and get a life!

Thanks for all others who posted useful feedback.

Sid.
 
jerry12953 said:
You really don't need a heavy ND filter for waterfall photography. You can get exposures of about 1/2 sec @ f16 in cloudy conditions using only a polariser, and that is perfectly suitable.

But as a general response it appears that you have seen some images on the internet or in a magazine and your intention seems to be to more or less copy them. There HAS to be more to photography than that.

The problem with heavy ND filters is that there are very limited situations in which you can use them. Personally I would put them in the same class as the HDR "look".
Click to expand...

So you've never seen someone else's photo in a magazine or the Internet and thought "that looks nice, I'd like to try something like that"?

So you've never taken a shallow depth of field portrait, or sunset, or landscape, or street photo, or macro of a flower/insect/random object?

Hmm ok, I guess all your photos are 100% unique with no outside inspiration whatsoever.
 
hollis_f said:
Well, they must be. I just wish he'd post a link so we could see these amazing original styles.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not suggesting that my photographs are unique.

What I am saying is that if it is clear from a brief glance at a photograph that a certain piece of kit has been used to get "an effect" then it runs the risk of becoming a cliché.

HDR may have been interesting when it first appeared but it quickly became a cliché. In my opinion the same goes for the manmade structure/silky waves/sunset (using a "big stopper" ) which, let's be honest, appears over and over again here and elsewhere on the internet and in magazines.

If my comment to the original post was harsh then I apologise.
 
My idea for a use of an ND filter involves a long exposure of about 1-2 seconds, but also using a flash, to get my son on his scooter while he does his 'stunts', kinda like having him doing his stunt spread across the 1 image, if you know what I mean, not sure if possible though and unsure what strength of ND.
 
Can I as a rank amateur suggest using one to get the shutter speed down and large aperture for out of focus background at race meetings?
 
If anyone is interested in reading more of my thoughts on the subject of 10 stop ND filters, they are welcome to read my blog post

http://wp.me/p2BFlt-8R

I'm quite happy to enter into a reasoned debate but I shall ignore any insults!

Sidney, I see you are a GCSE student. I would strongly suggest that you try to read anything you can by David Ward if you are interested in landscape photography.

And David Noton writes regularly for Outdoor Photography.


......lights blue touch paper and retires........
 
Last edited:
Hello Jeremy,

Just had a read of your blog and it seems to me that one of your biggest issues is the masses having access to "specialist equipment". I have been aware for some some that there is a streak of photographers who feel that this art should be some sort of exclusive club, and you are frustrated when techniques previously only available to the enthusiasts and pros become available to the wider public.

You also suggested that ND filters were some sort of meme - adopted by ignorant beginners who wish to copy others' work.Your blog suggests that ND filters are spreading, with the purchasers being people who are not wise enough to know better, so instead just copying what they have seen other photographers use. I found it very hypocritical, therefore, when you went on to say:

"I did buy a big stopper. It was difficult not to, really. I would otherwise probably have been the only landscape photographer in the world without one."

That one quote suggests that you yourself are obsessed by the kit bag of others, the only reason you brought one was because you saw other photographers shoot with them. You are guilty of your self-created crime.

The blog was well written, and interesting to read, but I am no nearer to agreeing with you after reading it.

Sid.
 
jerry12953 said:
There's some interesting comments there, Sidney, but I must say your interpretations of what I say are largely very wide of the mark!

Thanks for reading it and for taking the time to reply.
Click to expand...

Jeremy,

I think it might be a positive idea to start a new thread re ND filters and their use/place in photography.
It's better than hijacking the OP's thread and I reckon it could be a civilised debate.
I for one would post as I am an avid user of a 10 stopper for the exact effect that you aren't keen on/call cliche. I take no offence in your comments as we are all entitled to a view point. It all boils down to personal preference at the end of the day.

To go back to topic, ND's are also very useful for shallow DOF portraiture where without the filter the fastest shutter speed of the camera may not be enough.
 
Sidney said:
Hello Jeremy,

Just had a read of your blog...
Click to expand...

Oh dear... Personally I like photography and I have an interest in the gear too. The gear doesn't necessarily have to be the best, the latest or the most expensive, it just has to catch my interest and I'm exactly the same with subject and technique too and I'll try different things and either stick with it or discard it and move on to the next thing.

I think you should do the same. Obviously these filters have captured your imagination and you fancy giving them a try and I see nothing wrong in that and the world wont end if you produce some results that others think are copycat. When you get a filter you'll probably do it to death for a few weeks and either love it or hate it or you'll most probably end up just use it now and again over the years. Great. And nothing for anyone to get upset about.

Good luck with the filter and I'll look forward to seeing your results. :D
 
stupar said:
To go back to topic, ND's are also very useful for shallow DOF portraiture where without the filter the fastest shutter speed of the camera may not be enough.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I use them for but in my case it's just an ND2 and a 4. Nothing into the high digits. This isn't the worlds most exciting shot but it couldn't have been taken with that camera, lens and aperture without two stacked ND's. Not without blowing anyway.

 
stupar said:
Jeremy,

I think it might be a positive idea to start a new thread re ND filters and their use/place in photography.
It's better than hijacking the OP's thread and I reckon it could be a civilised debate.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're right. I'll think about it.

It wasn't my intention to hijack the thread and perhaps if I'd have realised Sidney's tender years I might have taken a different tack.....
 
jerry12953 said:
If anyone is interested in reading more of my thoughts on the subject of 10 stop ND filters, they are welcome to read my blog post

http://wp.me/p2BFlt-8R

I'm quite happy to enter into a reasoned debate but I shall ignore any insults!

Sidney, I see you are a GCSE student. I would strongly suggest that you try to read anything you can by David Ward if you are interested in landscape photography.

And David Noton writes regularly for Outdoor Photography.


......lights blue touch paper and retires........
Click to expand...

People shouldn't buy equipment and then think what it could be used for, they should buy equipment when they have something they can use it for.

I have a 3 stop ND filter but have never used it, I bought it for 1 purpose, actually 1 shot, I was going to do a model shoot where the model stands in the middle of the street in daylight. She would be still and obviously everyone else will be slightly blur from movement. It doesn't need to be long, 2 seconds would do but if I want to shoot at under F/2.0 then I would need quite a big ND filter.

I didn't want to narrow down aperture to get the entire scene in focus, I still want that shallow depth of field so it was the only way. The resulting image should be a pin sharp model in a world that moves around her with the wide aperture which should give a 3D like effect.

Waterfalls ? never in a million years did it cross my mind to shoot that.

Unfortunately that shoot was cancelled last minute and I never got round to it.
 
Last edited:
3 stop ND8 for my 50mm f/1.8, to stop overexposure when looking for maximum Bokeh in bright daylight.
10 Stopper for effects, but I rarely get chance to use it around here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top