My Idea For A Round GND Filter - What Do You Think?
rpcrowe
Registered Users Posts: 733 Major grins
I don't shoot with a round GND filter because the ND cut-off line is diractly across the center of the filter and I just don't frame my images with the horizon splitting the center of the frame!
I would like to see a round GND filter with the ND portion only on approximately the top third of the filter. That way I could use a round GND filter and still use the rule of thirds...
Sure, I could use my square GND filter but, when I want to travel fairly light as on my upcoming trip to China, it would be a lot easier to just carry an additional round filter than carry the filter holder for my square GND filter plus the rather large filter itself..
Also, I would have to completely change my filter/lenshood setup if I wanted to mount a square filter instead of the present lenshood I use on my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens.
Sure, I could just hold the square filter in front of the lens but, that would be a PIA and not efficient.
I will just leave the square filter and holder at home and Photoshop bright skies out.
Graduated ND effect in Photoshop
http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/tutorials/75691-graduated-nd-filter-effect-photoshop.html[/COLOR]
Additionally, I could just use a round GND and crop the image extensively to more-or-less conform to the rule of thirds. But, this could be accompliahed better with a full-frame 21MP camera than with my 1.6x gear. However, even with full-frame equipment; that extensive cropping would negate the advantages of full-frame to a large extent.
I would still like a GND with the ND across the top 1/3 of the frame instead of splitting the filter in half.
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS IDEA?
I would like to see a round GND filter with the ND portion only on approximately the top third of the filter. That way I could use a round GND filter and still use the rule of thirds...
Sure, I could use my square GND filter but, when I want to travel fairly light as on my upcoming trip to China, it would be a lot easier to just carry an additional round filter than carry the filter holder for my square GND filter plus the rather large filter itself..
Also, I would have to completely change my filter/lenshood setup if I wanted to mount a square filter instead of the present lenshood I use on my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens.
Sure, I could just hold the square filter in front of the lens but, that would be a PIA and not efficient.
I will just leave the square filter and holder at home and Photoshop bright skies out.
Graduated ND effect in Photoshop
http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/tutorials/75691-graduated-nd-filter-effect-photoshop.html[/COLOR]
Additionally, I could just use a round GND and crop the image extensively to more-or-less conform to the rule of thirds. But, this could be accompliahed better with a full-frame 21MP camera than with my 1.6x gear. However, even with full-frame equipment; that extensive cropping would negate the advantages of full-frame to a large extent.
I would still like a GND with the ND across the top 1/3 of the frame instead of splitting the filter in half.
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS IDEA?
0
Comments
One solution I've seen and used is to carry just the square GND. Leave the holder system at home. When you want to use it, frame the shot and hold the GND in front of the lens for the exposure. Unless you are shooting extra long exposures (20, 30 seconds for example) you should be good to go. Additionally, if you get one large enough, you not only have a GND, but also a plain neutral density filter - just move the clear part of the filter out of the frame
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
I guess this covers those 0.05% I mentioned :-)
Please do agree, that if you have to stop a flowing water (requires typically 1/3..1/2 sec or slower) under a very bright horizon (that calls for, say, 1/1000 sec or faster), you'd need 6..10 stops difference. I'm yet to see a GND that features even 3 stops difference, and most are 1..2 at best.
Yet if you must - yes, just get the rect. large glass, forget the holder. Maybe get 2 or 3 to double/tripple the effect (never tried that though, just an idea)
Yep this is what I do. I use the "P" size Cokin filters, which cost all of $15-$30. Just hold in front of the lens. Even if you move a bit, there is no impact to the shot. When I plan on lots of shots with the filter,, I put the holder on, but usually not.
I also shoot with both a polarizer and the ND filter, for shots on lakes where I want to stop water. The polarizer is screw in, and the ND is handheld:
You're right, the GND effect in LR and using various plug-ins can almost always make up for several stops of exposure differences. I do always at least attempt to get the best image out of the camera to minimize the amount of manipulation in post. I have a 3 stop soft GND filter that takes up very little space in my bag (yes its a large piece of glass, but its flat and takes up little room when thrown in with other bodies and lenses) and I always hand hold it over the lens so when shooting a long exposure (flowing water, as mentioned), I can move it up and down slightly during the exposure. So I agree, forget the holder and get the large filter.
Crescent City Prints
Facebook Fan Page
Blog
With autumn coming and fall colors, I've been thinking of purchasing a ND filter to add to my kit. I currently use B+W Kaesmann CPL's (77mm & 82mm) & wondered if that would make a difference. Do you recommend screw-in ND's? There isn't a thread at the end of my CPL's and wondering if I'd screw the ND on first then the CPL. Thanks in advance for the tips-
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass
site ∙ facebook
Well, as I mentioned above, I don't use a screw in ND. I find it too inconvenient. A CPL I use frequently, such as at the beach, and will use it for many shots and hours at time. The ND and GND I use infrequently, for a few shots or special composition considerations, so popping it in front of the lens for a few images is much easier.
Which brand do you suggest? Cokin, Lee, Singh Ray, B+W, Hoya & Tiffen...
How many stops to do you suggest? 1, 2 or 3
What size do you suggest? 4x4, 4x5 4x6
What thickness do you suggest? 100mm to 150mm
What finish do you suggest? Hard or Soft
As you can see, I have plenty of questions as I've never used a GND and realize these are necessary for achieving beautiful landscape shots where both the foreground and background are exposed properly. In theory, wouldn't mounting a Circular Polarizer followed by a Linear Polarizer achieve almost the same effect as a GND with autofocus set to off? Thanks again!
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass
site ∙ facebook
I use Cokin, but mostly because I didnt want to spend a fortune for these rarely used filters. If you want the drop in filters, then that is either Cokin, Lee or Singh Ray. Lee and Singh Ray are much more expensive and offer glass options. Cokin's are 'organic glass' which basically means plastic. They are very durable and from what I can tell, crystal clear and do not introduce any distortion I can detect. They just aren't glass.
Well this depends on what you need. A "3" is very dark mind you. I have the Cokin P 153 '2 stop" and 154 '3 stop". However I rarely use the 3 stop, except for very bright, middle of the day shots. I recommend starting with a 2 stop if you are only getting one. If you spend a fortune, you may have to be selective, it you go inexpensive, they are cheap enough to have as many as you need. These Cokin filters are only $20.
The one you need. I use Cokin P size
I have no idea what my thickness is now, and not sure this is really a factor
For Graduated Neutral Density, which is Different than Neutral Density, I prefer soft, because except for photos at the beach, i have never run into a situation where there is a hard horizon to put a hard GND on. Soft GND edges are easy to work with.
By the way, I forgot to mention earlier, another benefit of these pop in filters: When you add these filters, it gets quite dark, and some cameras or lens might begin to have trouble focusing. I focus first, on manual, then pop over the filter and take the shot, using timer or remote.
A Linear Polarizer is not recommended for digital SLRs because it will interfere with the autofocus of your camera. Using two polarizers generally acheives the same results as a black piece of cardboard, if you line up the polarizers correctly. However, I am not sure how a linear and circular would interact. Frankly, I have no use for a Linear Polarizer by itself, and they are usually more expensive than the retangular drop ins. I use a circular polarizer often with my ND filters, both for cutting the exposure as well as water glare.