- Messages
- 3,163
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Where did anyone call your images 'mediocre and generic'?
and please use their services
Which filter for smooth water?
- Thread starter johnjess
- Start date
Where did anyone call your images 'mediocre and generic'?
TCR4x4
Wishes he had a couple more Inches
- Messages
- 8,849
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ignore people like him, there are plenty of poeple here who will answer even the most basic question without talking to the poster like they are stupid.
Most will probably actually answer the question asked and not go off on a completly unrelated tangent too.
- Messages
- 1,424
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'll illustrate my take on it, with the aid of the histogram, just to drag things back on topic. Apologies.
Just to be clear, these results would have been apparent with or without a filter. There may be differences in how blurry the water is, etc, but ultimately the over and underexposed areas would turn out much the same. As it happens, I didn't use a filter as it was quite a dull day.Here's a shot I took last year, which is clearly underexposed. The blue areas show detail that has been lost in the darkness forever. Note the shape of the histogram.
If I up the exposure in Lightroom, you can see the effect it has on the water. Red areas indicate blown whites, blue underexposed areas are still visible. Note the shape of the histogram.
Finally, after messing around with a few other sliders; fill light and recovery, mainly, it starts to get closer to the correct exposure across the scene. No blown areas, and only very negligible underexposed areas. Note the shape of the histogram, which is closer to the "correct" shape, although that rule doesn't always apply.
I suppose I'm just saying what EdBray is saying, really. I can sort of rescue my shot in LR, but that may not always be possible. To be sure, I could have taken a shot with correctly exposed water, and a shot with correctly exposed rocks and such, and then combined them in Photoshop.
So, yeah, an ND filter, CPL, or no filter at all, can all be used to achieve blurry water, depending on how light/dark the scene is. But you can't guarantee you won't end up with blown/underexposed areas without taking more than one shot. That's not to say they won't necessarily be recoverable in post-processing. It's just not wise to rely on it.
Hope that all makes sense, and I've not missed out anything important. That's just my take on the subject.
- Messages
- 3,163
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That water still looks too white with no detail. 
I think the bottom line is there are two separate issues here.
1) Whether the dynamic range of the scene is within the camera's capabilities.
2) Whether you can achieve the desired shutter speed to blur the water in the available light.
If the dynamic range of the scene is within that of the camera and the conditions are too bright to achieve the desired shutter speed, use a ND filter.
If the dynamic range of the scene is beyond that of the camera and the conditions are too bright to achieve the desired shutter speed, use a ND filter and bracket exposures or edit/mask/layer in PP.
Sure, shoot without a ND filter if available light is low enough that you can achieve the necessary shutter speed but there are many, many occasions where this won't be possible even at the lowest ISO and smallest usable aperture. That's when you need a ND filter.
I think the bottom line is there are two separate issues here.
1) Whether the dynamic range of the scene is within the camera's capabilities.
2) Whether you can achieve the desired shutter speed to blur the water in the available light.
If the dynamic range of the scene is within that of the camera and the conditions are too bright to achieve the desired shutter speed, use a ND filter.
If the dynamic range of the scene is beyond that of the camera and the conditions are too bright to achieve the desired shutter speed, use a ND filter and bracket exposures or edit/mask/layer in PP.
Sure, shoot without a ND filter if available light is low enough that you can achieve the necessary shutter speed but there are many, many occasions where this won't be possible even at the lowest ISO and smallest usable aperture. That's when you need a ND filter.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 42,005
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
I'll illustrate my take on it, with the aid of the histogram, [snip] .... [/snip]Hope that all makes sense, and I've not missed out anything important. That's just my take on the subject.
Thanks for a very informative post
- Messages
- 1,424
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks for a very informative post
You mean I wasn't just talking rubbish?
That water still looks too white with no detail.
It's your monitor. :razz:
- Messages
- 7,179
- Name
- Edward Bray
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Amongst other things here! about halfway down the page is an image from my flickr which Helen aka decca aka medusula posted along with excerpts from this thread.
The images on my flickr are there for sharing, either for posting to forums as examples or for my friends/family to be able to download, if Helen in her various guises finds them mediocre and generic then that is fine as the majority of them probably are mediocre & generic, as I no longer do any paid work or specialise in a particular genre.
aaand, the actual forum rules state that you shouldn't copy the contents of posts for use elsewhere.
aaand, the real life actual law states that you shouldn't use copyrighted material without the owners permission.
Maybe EdBray will be buying some ND filters with his 'unathorised usage fee'
- Messages
- 7,179
- Name
- Edward Bray
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would be interested in knowing when I have insulted you?
I have just been through your 125 posts and can not see where I have posted in any thread that you have, I am using my iPad so might have missed one but I do not think I have.
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What a sad thread this is. When some of you have finished patting yourselves on the back, Ed was actually quite right in his original post. The OP stated quite clearly that when he used a longer shutter speed his image was blown out. (Let's assume that the OP used a smaller aperture to compensate for the longer shutter speed and to retain the same exposure value, although that's by no mean clear)
If the image was blown out adding a ND filter isn't any answer at all, this is a basic exposure problem and a ND filter isn't going to provide any magical solution.
Ed gave you the solution to the problem - two exposures - it's as simple as that. He might have been a bit tetchy in his subsequent response but it can be extremely annoying to have to justify the advice you've given to those who clearly have a long way to go before they can consider themselves the experts they seem to think they are.
There aren't that many people here on TP who can, or who are willing to take the time to give advice you can go to the bank with, but Ed is certainly one of those who can and does. It will be a sad day for TP when people like him decide it's not worth the hassle any more.
If the image was blown out adding a ND filter isn't any answer at all, this is a basic exposure problem and a ND filter isn't going to provide any magical solution.
Ed gave you the solution to the problem - two exposures - it's as simple as that. He might have been a bit tetchy in his subsequent response but it can be extremely annoying to have to justify the advice you've given to those who clearly have a long way to go before they can consider themselves the experts they seem to think they are.
There aren't that many people here on TP who can, or who are willing to take the time to give advice you can go to the bank with, but Ed is certainly one of those who can and does. It will be a sad day for TP when people like him decide it's not worth the hassle any more.
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Great Post, thanks.
JHC, how silly Helen.
Indeed. There are some people who think they know a lot on this forum, there are a few who actually do and offer advice.
- Messages
- 42,005
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The thread is titled which filter to use for smooth water. Now it seems that some advocate the use of filters, others don`t. Best for the OP to try both methods and choose for himself,no?
CT, does not need to pat himself on the back,nor would he. Others,myself included will do that for him. There are not many more knowledgeable people on here, certainly not many more willing to help ,advise and share that knowledge. Cedric has been, and still is, a tremendous help to photographers of all standards on this forum.
- Messages
- 3,163
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Last edited:
Ed Bray has been extremely helpful on TP in the past, as well as contributing with articles in the tutorials section, particularly the one on exposure.
My two peneth is he was having a bad day, but to be fair the original question from the OP was somewhat 'open to interpretation', despite the mention of filters.
I would like to thank Ed for his ongoing contribution to TP and hope he doesn't take his bat and ball home over this.
Also many thanks to GrittyShaker, ZoneV and and CT for further constructive posts in this thread.
My two peneth is he was having a bad day, but to be fair the original question from the OP was somewhat 'open to interpretation', despite the mention of filters.
I would like to thank Ed for his ongoing contribution to TP and hope he doesn't take his bat and ball home over this.
Also many thanks to GrittyShaker, ZoneV and and CT for further constructive posts in this thread.
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I ain`t being sycophantic, Cedric is a genuinely helpful guy. Maybe some of the myriads of people he has helped over the years on here may be along to back that up.
Simple as that.
- Messages
- 1,828
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry to stick my nose in but ....
Its such a shame this thread has gone the way it has. Surely this must stop now as we don't want to lose creditable and knowledgeable posters all because of this continued bickering?
This has now gone way off topic and is getting ridiculous.
Come on all, lets just post the advice required and move on .....
Its such a shame this thread has gone the way it has. Surely this must stop now as we don't want to lose creditable and knowledgeable posters all because of this continued bickering?
This has now gone way off topic and is getting ridiculous.
Come on all, lets just post the advice required and move on .....