# ND filter, please help....



## tron76 (Jan 24, 2013)

I am totally Frustrated ...i have been seeing photos of amazing water effects online.....and everywhere it says...u need ND filters for this..so i bought a circular ND variable one...i tried to use it today....and...the results were TERRIBLE...i turned the ND filter to near the darkest it can go.....and when shooting landscape it was dark on the top left and bottom right of the pic.........and worse...when i put the cam into portrait ......i had big thick black vignettes going horizontally through the pics....totally destroying it...i tried using both full auto and manual ...neither seems to give the desired effect...................really disappointed.if someone can please give me some advise it would be great


----------



## christop (Jan 24, 2013)

Sounds like you bought a circular polarizer (CPL) instead of a neutral density (ND) filter. I've never heard of a circular ND filter before.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 24, 2013)

I'm on my mobile right now, so I cannot see the images.

But I'll bet you dollars to donuts you bought a super-cheap VND.


----------



## KmH (Jan 24, 2013)

christop said:


> Sounds like you bought a circular polarizer (CPL) instead of a neutral density (ND) filter. I've never heard of a circular ND filter before.


They make variable ND filters.

Good ones are in the $400 neighborhood.

Cheap ones are often called Faders. UltraPro 77mm Variable NDX Fader Filter ND2 - ND1000


----------



## christop (Jan 24, 2013)

Huh, I hadn't heard of variable neutral density filters before... do they work by using two polarizing filters at a variable angle to each other?


----------



## EIngerson (Jan 24, 2013)

I would recommend a LEE set-up, but you can get a Cokin kit for a very reasonable price and get some good results.
Amazon.com: Complete ND Neutral Density Filter Set Compatible with Cokin P Series - Includes: Graduated ND2 ND4 ND8, Full ND2 ND4 ND8 Filters, DSLR Camera Bag, Square Filter Holder, Square Lens Hood, Complete Adapter Ring Set, MagicFiber Microfiber L


----------



## tron76 (Jan 24, 2013)

hi...sorry i should give more info....its an INCA pro 77mm variable ND filter..2-8 stops by rotating the outer ring...


----------



## KmH (Jan 25, 2013)

Using the Shift key and loosing the ... also helps. 

Notice that very few members use texting lingo on the forums, because it is not a readable.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 25, 2013)

By amazing water effects- you mean wanting a slow shutter-speed to catch the motion of the water?

Buy a couple of ND filters, 4x and 8x. you can stack them. Variable ND filters that use Polarizing filters have some interaction with polarized light in the scene. That seems like it was going on in your image.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 25, 2013)

KmH said:


> Using the Shift key and loosing the ... also helps.
> 
> Notice that very few members use texting lingo on the forums, because it is not a readable.


Notice also that very few members actually care about such things, as long as they can understand the message.

Notice also that you seem to have some OCD issues.

BTW, since you're so big into constantly correcting others, "loosing" is something you do to make something loose as in not tight, while "losing" is something that happens to your keys resulting in them being missing.

Also, why do you have "a" between "not" and "readable"?  What grammatical function does that serve?


----------



## Helen B (Jan 25, 2013)

Try backing the filter off from the maximum density. A lot of variable NDs do that when turned to the very maximum. 

... .....  .. . .......


(It isn't interaction with polarized light in the scene, it is interactions between the two polarizing filters when exactly crossed. The VND may be a pair of CPLs, with the pola elements next to each other and the wave plates on the outside of the sandwich. This dramatically reduces the polarizing effect in terms of the subject - polarized light from the subject is first circularly polarized.)


----------



## tron76 (Jan 25, 2013)

@Helen, yes i thought that might have been the problem, but the lower setting wasnt giving me that ''dream'' like water i was hoping for, i guess the water was too still...? im not sure.
but i may return this filter and go for another type.

And yes buckster is right i dont care to much about how many dots i use in my....text..... i am quite new to photography and i am learning so i came here for peer advice..thats what it is for.....its nice when people help to share the joy of a hobby we all enjoy
personally i love landscapes and esp those photos of beaches with rocks and the waves which have just melted around the rocks like in a dream....that is the effect i was going for...i thought this filter would help me to do that...
if you have other advice on how i go about getting that style please let me know

thanks


----------



## deeky (Jan 25, 2013)

My first advice for getting good help here - first impressions are important, lose the attitude.  Just understand that when you ask for advice on the internet, you open yourself up to any and all advice.  That's just the way it is.

As far as the effect, you are shooting at only 1 second shutter speed.  The effect I think you want is shot at a much longer exposure.  To acheive that, use something like a 10-stop ND filter.  Also, I think getting down lower to the water level a little will help and yes, you are right - a little water movement is needed to create the milky effect you seem to be wanting.


----------



## chris (Jan 25, 2013)

I am assuming that what you are trying to get is for the water to look 'misty' and blurred while other elements in the shot look sharp. If that is so then you need to find some water that is flowing rapidly over rocks or a rough sea. Your photos are of a placid stretch of water with little apparent movement so you will always struggle to get the dreamy effect that you are after.

Also, if you cannot get a long enough exposure time with low ISO and small (high f number) aperture then get a decent neutral density filter not a cheap variable one. For the exposure times needed for the effect you want you will also need a tripod or somewhere solid to rest the camera.


----------



## tron76 (Jan 25, 2013)

deeky, not sure where the ''attitude'' was in my original question but thanks for the other advice.
i think ill do what chris said also and take back the variable and get the other rectangle slide in ones i have seen online..it seems that are more effective

thanks everyone.


----------



## bratkinson (Jan 26, 2013)

Helen B said:


> Try backing the filter off from the maximum density. A lot of variable NDs do that when turned to the very maximum.



Thank you, Helen! I would have never thought of that. I'll have to keep that in mind, which is getting more difficult by the day. (Does losing my memory equal losing my mind?)

But then, I've never had a need for NDs, much less GNDs. Maybe someday...


----------



## cosmonaut (Jan 26, 2013)

You really don't need a variable one I use a three stop Cokin and it works for pretty much every situation I come across.


----------



## Tee (Jan 26, 2013)

The water looks very still so creating any kind of movement would prove to be difficult unless you went into bulb mode for a really long exposure.  Also, when you moved the camera into portrait mode it looks like you did not adjust the ring to go with it thus the vertical gradiation.  I sometimes forget to move my CPL when I change camera orientations.


----------



## elaukli (Jan 29, 2013)

remember to keep your iso low and pay attention to your aperture.


----------



## jrizal (Jan 29, 2013)

christop said:


> Huh, I hadn't heard of variable neutral density filters before... do they work by using two polarizing filters at a variable angle to each other?



Variable Neutral Density (VND) filters or simply faders do exist and I have one myself. And no they may look similar but differs in the way they handle light. As far as what I'm concerned these VNDs do work to a certain degree but using them at their maximum density results in cross marks. This is an inherent design of VND, even the more expensive ones have it but to a much lesser degree. A more practical solution is to use normal or non-variable ND filters. By doing so you can also choose from solid, center or graduated ND filters of which the last two can produce results the VND can do. Unlike VNDs you would need to have several filters in order to select the right density you want for your shot. Screwing filters for every shot can be quite cumbersome. And this is the downside of regular ND filters. A solution to this is to use square filters wherein you have filter adapter on your lens and just swap your filter. Cokin is one of the brands that use this type of filters. The ability to change density without switching filters the primary advantage of VNDs albeit with some trade-offs. But for casual users a VND would be quite sufficient. But for me it is almost impossible to "capture" flowing water without those pesky cross marks with my VND!  Other darkening effects are still fine though and I'm still saving up for a decent set of NDs. Just my two cents.


----------



## jrizal (Jan 29, 2013)

cosmonaut said:


> You really don't need a variable one I use a three stop Cokin and it works for pretty much every situation I come across.



As per my experience, these Cokin or even knockoffs perform better than VNDs (at least the cheap ones). And if some asks why type of ND filters to buy, I would recommend an adapter based system mainly for better effects and much easier handling too. Lost my Cokin set years ago and just settled with a cheap VND hence the reason I can say that the adapter style filters are better over-all. And let's just say I'm still saving for something better.


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 29, 2013)

Those dark bands occur when you use a POLARIZER with a wide angle lens.  The amount of light blocked by a polarizer depends on the angle from which the light source originates.  Since a WIDE angle lens is collecting light from a broad range of source angles, SOME of those source angles will have a stronger polarizing effect than others.  Polarizers work best when the true angle of view is limited (which means you're using "normal" through "telephoto" focal lengths... but avoiding "wide" angle focal lengths.)

The ND filter in your sample shots is undoubtedly (as everyone else has already pointed out) really a polarizer.  You can stack two polarizers to create the effect of a tunable variable neutral density filter... but that's not the same as a true neutral density filter (one that has a fixed density and cannot be "tuned" or adjusted.)

A true ND filter is simply decent optical grade glass which is evenly tinted to block light light equally at all wavelengths regardless of the polarity of the light.  In other words, had you used a simply ND filter rather than a variable ND, then the light would have been blocked evenly and all would be well.


----------

