UKBouldering.com
technical => photography => Topic started by: Bubba on June 01, 2009, 05:55:08 pm
-
Any recommendations for filter brands/series that are good quality but don't break the bank?
No point in having (and can't afford) the very best for my average lenses.
I currently have some really old Hoya UV filters on the lenses for protection but it's probably time to replace them as they're not in the best state.
Would also like to play with Polarizing / ND Grads - would prefer ones that you rotate on the lens rather than slide into a holder - less faff.
-
Personally I don't use 'protection filters', I'm not convinced of their worth. Lens hoods are more effective protection and actually improve the image quality. And I say that as someone who drops his lenses annoyingly regularly, my 12-24 now has two chunks chipped off it...
I'm not sure if you can even get screw-on ND grads anymore. Even if you can, don't bother. The whole point is being able to align the graduation with the horizon. Being forced to have the horizon across the middle doesn't make for great compositions.
Polarisers are expensive, full stop. £50 for one of any size, my 105mm was £120 and that was a good deal. It covers all my lenses and hopefully it'll last a long time too though.
Options on reasonably priced grads are either Cokin or Hi-tech, I think the best option is a Cokin holder and polariser plus a set of Hi-tech grads. The other option is to get a screw-in polariser to fit your biggest lens and then fanny around with adaptor rings. Neither is great, if you've got any lenses that are really wide (less than 18mm on consumer SLRs) expect vignetting with either option.
Last year I bit the bullet and got a Lee kit and the big polariser to screw on the front. It was ludiscrously expensive but is great to use.
-
Cheers - see your point about screw on grads not being much use.
Think i'll be forgetting polarizers for a while then at those prices - seen some quite cheap on ebay but they're probably crap.
-
I was looking at getting a circular polariser recently and have always put it off as they seemed mucho money for the 72mm thread on my best lens (still not pro though). I found a Hoya (reasonable brand, but not their pro range) for £32.50 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hoya-72mm-Circular-Polarizing-Filter/dp/B00006I5BW/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1243889715&sr=8-17) which I thought was quite a good price (although its from a "seller" rather than amazon themselves, so add on postage).
Chatting with a friend the other day about it and the advice he was given in a shop (can't remember where he said it was) is that if you've got really good glass in the first place, you're not going to notice that much difference between consumer and pro filters. Obviously gear freaks and pros will want the best money can buy, but I'm neither and just dabble.
-
before anyone gives up on polarisers for being too expensive, walk into harrisons and have a look at their box of old filters - you can often pick up a polariser there for no money at all. just check its no scratched to fuck and make sure its a circular polariser rather than linear. Also check the used filters section on FFordes (https://secure.ffordes.com/index.htm) - I picked up a 77mm blinging singh-ray one for less than I sold my old hoya 67mm one to some guy on ebay. actually I think I've got a brand new 67mm hoya one unopened that i got from a stiff if anyone's interested.
I think shit places like 7dayshop still do wack screw-in grads. don't buy one. Like the showpony says get a cheap cokin holder - again, mine was £1 from harrisons filter box, which is handy since with a wide lens you may have to saw the front slots off. I did that with mine and got no vignetting even down to 10mm.
don't buy cokin grads though. get hitech. cokin are shit, nowhere near neutral, and scratch easily. I've actually got an oldpair of Cokin 2stop soft and 3stop hard grads if you want to test the water or see how shit they are. you can get away without a filter holder if you don't mind using blutack too. its fidly but no chance of vignetting.
the bog standard hoya quality filters are fine - manufacturers like to scare people into buying stupidly expensive ones but it makes no difference 99% of the time. cheaper non-multicoated filters are actually easier to clean.
-
If you want to, there is nothing to stop you holding the ND grad in front of the lens with your hand and moving it up and down. It's not ideal but possible. Saves on expensive holders etc. Easy if you are using a tripod though. I have seen various Heath Robinson contraptions with elastic bands and stuff in the past. None of which work.
-
The plastic holders are about £10
-
If you want to, there is nothing to stop you holding the ND grad in front of the lens with your hand and moving it up and down. It's not ideal but possible. Saves on expensive holders etc. Easy if you are using a tripod though. I have seen various Heath Robinson contraptions with elastic bands and stuff in the past. None of which work.
the problem with holding them in front is that you can't hold them against the lens incase you cause the camera to shake, but if you hold them any distance away from the lens you're gonna invite reflections/flare n shit. plus if its a long exposure of a few seconds its actually quite hard to hold one in exactly the same position for the duration. once you've taken the shot and had to use your hands again then if you want to repeat the shot you've lost the position of the filter and have to start again. I speak from having done this myself here. 95% of the time it actually works out quicker overall to use a holder or blutack.
-
Like I said - not ideal but possible.
-
I'll second the Harrison's bin (not what it used to be mind, rummage is going out of fashion in camera shops) plus blu-tac option. Until I bought the Lee kit, all my widest shots were taken with blu-tacked on filters. I have done the hand-hold method too, I wouldn't agree with Dave about not holding them against the lens, if you hold it right there's no reason to worry about shake.
Polarisers might be expensive but they don't half work - they can seem like cheating at times. The price problem is partly modern lenses having massive filter threads but still needing extra thin filters. Seeing as polarisers become awkward to use unobviously on very wide lenses (you get uneven polarisation basically) you could not bother with one that covers your widest lens at first.
-
To drag this out of the grave, rather than start something new...
Out of curiosity, does anyone actually use their filters much?
I rarely bother, but sometimes wonder if I should more.
-
polariser and grads all the time.
-
Ditto. I go easier on both now I have digital, but always take them out. By go easy I mean err on the side of a weaker grad, and beef it up in Lightroom if necessary. Histogram is a godsend with grads, much as I loved spotmeters. Polarisers need some restraint, especially with super wides, but its a great effect. I often shoot with and without just in case.
-
Are you using square filters and a holder or something circular and step up rings etc. ?
-
I've got 100mm Lee shit for tripod type landscape work, and a handful of screw-on polarisers for walkaround type stuff.
-
I often shoot with and without just in case.
any chance of a side by side? I follow one blog and the guy seems to get some vivid reds and greens that I just can't get near in post. I've been wondering if it'd been to do with polarisation or whether I'm just being a numpty.
-
Point us at the pics? He may well just have slumped on the saturation sliders...
Some side-by-sides here: http://www.edbergphoto.com/pages/Tip-polarizers.html (http://www.edbergphoto.com/pages/Tip-polarizers.html)
I'm not familiar with the camera profiles for Canon but that's another avenue to pursue.
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2ROlBOogHoU/Tmvz3Xog0HI/AAAAAAAAAt8/dCpD6KrI7rY/s1600/_MG_9554_mini.jpg)
http://fjallsport.blogspot.com/ (http://fjallsport.blogspot.com/)
Hmmm I'd meant to look into the invariant & untwisted camera profiles as certain sliders wreak havoc on skintones etc. using the default canon offerings in Lightroom but it doesn't appear to be the difference between say std and landscape, or normal and acid trip as they should be labelled. Maybe it is just leaning on the sliders heavily or selective saturation?
Post production :worms:
-
You've lost me there; I can't see anything unusual about those colours, what browser/ monitor are you on?
No one in their right mind would use a polariser for a shot like that, so I doubt its a filter. It is heavily vignetted but that's probably in post.
Playing with the Nikon profiles suggests you need to zero all other controls first to avoid acid-trip colours - they're more a function of the default settings elsewhere.
-
... what was that guys number again? (Some samsung thing).
-
Baking powder?
Some reading:
http://www.mountainlight.com/articles.html (http://www.mountainlight.com/articles.html)
Not much about filters, but 'Sharpness on the mind' might answer your other question.
-
After doing sone early morning seascapes recently I've decided I need a ND grad in my life, after fiddling around with levels forever to get where I want with exposures.
Trouble is I have one of these;
http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/2797/Sigma-12-24mm-F4-5-5-6-EX-DG-Aspherical-Lens---Pentax-Fit.html (http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/2797/Sigma-12-24mm-F4-5-5-6-EX-DG-Aspherical-Lens---Pentax-Fit.html)
with a permanently attached lens hood. It appears to have an internal threading of some sort, but not sure if this is just decorative. The cap says 82mm, but not sure if this is the exact internal thread diameter, and if you can get a filter mounting system that will fit it?
Or is it easier than dicking about with rings etc to get a nice big filter and hold it by by hand / use blu tac? I'm usually using a tripod anyway.
-
Lee have a 150mm filter system that clamps over lenses like yours wi integral hoods. They developed it for the nikon 14-24mm, and is priced accordingly.
Does your lens not have one of them weird two-part sigma hoods that takes filters?
Failing that, just blutack a grad to the front of the hood.
-
Cokin do one too but:
"you're looking at a whole world of hurt"
Blutack or some form of DIY matte box/filter holder rig? Like this perhaps:
http://reedingramweir.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/diy-filter-holder-for-nikons-af-s-14-24mm-%C6%922-8-g-lens/ (http://reedingramweir.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/diy-filter-holder-for-nikons-af-s-14-24mm-%C6%922-8-g-lens/)
Regarding the OP, if anyone is sat on the fence or considering a circular polariser I'd jump in with both feet. After perhaps my nifty fifty it has been the best value thing I've bought (even if I do overbake my wide-angle shots).
I don't have grads but to mimic them I shoot RAW and bracketed at -2 and -1 (or more). Then from LR you can load the original and an exposure into PS for the sky (whichever is correct), and use a gradient mask on the layer to act as a pseudo ND.
-
I don't have grads but to mimic them I shoot RAW and bracketed at -2 and -1 (or more). Then from LR you can load the original and an exposure into PS for the sky (whichever is correct), and use a gradient mask on the layer to act as a pseudo ND.
I shot in RAW and bracketed very widely. Only got GIMP at the moment, need to get down with using gradient masks.
Cheers for the DIY options, I think it's the way to go without horiffic spenniness.
-
Does your lens not have one of them weird two-part sigma hoods that takes filters?
I dont think so? Just got the integral hood, then a conventional lens cap that attaches to cylindrical hood which covers the whole inegral hood? Or am I missing something clever it does?
-
Only got GIMP at the moment, need to get down with using gradient masks.
GIMP is shit for processing RAW (and uses UFRaw in the background anyway).
Check out RawTherapee (http://www.rawtherapee.com/) instead, its what convinced me to switch to shooting RAW (not that its actually improved my processing, but its very intuitive to use and I never understood what I was doing in GIMP)
-
What Dave said, Chris - big lump of blu-tack. Did me proud for years.
Have you tried the grads in Lightroom? I tend to use the lightest grad I can get away with in the field now, and add more in LR if needed.
-
As I said, only got GIMP. Think some technology upgrades are needed/
-
Lightroom is a hell of a lot better value than a couple of filters. Currently on special offer at Amazon - only £95. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B003N7O3CI/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=cdrebyc6-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B003N7O3CI)
-
Does your lens not have one of them weird two-part sigma hoods that takes filters?
I dont think so? Just got the integral hood, then a conventional lens cap that attaches to cylindrical hood which covers the whole inegral hood? Or am I missing something clever it does?
Check if the cylindrical portion, it might be threaded for filters.
-
I shot in RAW and bracketed very widely. Only got GIMP at the moment, need to get down with using gradient masks.
Its piss, put the sky layer or whatever on a layer over the top, then add a layer mask. Pick your gradient tool and drag from where you want 100% to 0% to be on your mask. You can change the gradient to get the desired effect you want (also there's no need for a linear change if that's not whats necessary), just keep dragging and seeing what looks right. If you want to get fancy throw in an exposure adjustment layer and you've instantly got the LR gradient tool with a shed load more room for manoeuvre (in exposure terms).
Also the mask can be manupulated for horizons that aren't linear with your brush tool on the mask.
You can do the same with a single exposure, an exposure adjustment layer and the same mask too. Its worth recording as an action if you do it a lot.
-
Check out RawTherapee (http://www.rawtherapee.com/) instead, its what convinced me to switch to shooting RAW (not that its actually improved my processing, but its very intuitive to use and I never understood what I was doing in GIMP)
or Darktable, it looks closer to LR (but Slackers mentioned it was a bit sluggish).
-
Check out RawTherapee (http://www.rawtherapee.com/) instead, its what convinced me to switch to shooting RAW (not that its actually improved my processing, but its very intuitive to use and I never understood what I was doing in GIMP)
or Darktable, it looks closer to LR (but Slackers mentioned it was a bit sluggish).
Not so easily available for Windows though (http://www.darktable.org/install/#windows), which is likely a barrier (RawTherapee have native Windows builds to download & install (http://rawtherapee.com/downloads)).
Tried it out again and its not as slow as it was, but didn't feel as intuitive having already spent time getting to grips with RawTherapee.
-
Ok, so what's a good slot in filter system to start with? I know that the filters themselves are reasonably interchangeable, but am looking to invest in a good sytem to slot them into. Not top of the range, but also not so shit it falls to bits the first time I use it.
Cokin?
-
Unless you're using big lenses the cokin P system is fine. Cheap and bits for it are readily available. Not terribly smooth when sliding filters in or out but it does the job. Will accept all cokin P sized filters (i.e Hitech 85mm, Kood 85mm etc). Main issue with slot-in systems is not getting the holder in shot with wide angles. With a cheap plastic cokin (or kood, almost identical) holder you can just hacksaw the front couple of slots off.
Next step up in quality for the same sized filters is the Hitech hardware - never used this but will be a lot more customisable and smooth:
http://www.formatt.co.uk/stills-filters/hardware-85mm/products.aspx (http://www.formatt.co.uk/stills-filters/hardware-85mm/products.aspx)
After this is Lee filters 100mm, top drawer stuff. Open your wallet, take a deep breath and say "help yourself".
-
will I be needing a 100mm set for use at 17mm on a FF body and will they require some kind of wide angle adapter too?
I take it these holders will take 10 stop lumps of resin too?
-
If you're going with Lee then you'll probably want the WA ring. Will take 10-stop welding glass fine.
But i used to use the sigma 10-20 on dx with only the cokin P sized 85mm filters, 15mm equiv view, with nay problems wi vignetting, so you might be able to get away it, unless you've sold the 400mm and want to spend up on a 100mm system.
-
I was tempted by Hitech... The other week I borrowed a set of Lee grads at the crag but I haven't a clue if they were 85mm or 100mm. There was some hard vignetting (at 17 mm, went away at 20 mm) from the holder but the Hitech modular system allows you to either have one or screw additional slots on as necessary.
I was even going to splash out on an 'actual' lump of resin rather than the welding glass, hitech again.
-
If they were Lee they were 100mm. (Unless they were the new smaller 75mm set but they're only really for rangefinders/mirrorless.)
Was it the holder that was vignetting (rectangular bits coming into the sides of shot) or the adaptor ring (vignetting at the corners)? Did it have the big ring on the front for the polariser?
The Lee mounting system (as the Hitech) lets you have as many or as few filter slots as you want.
-
It had the wide angle adapter on the polariser. The vignetting didn't overly strike me as rectangular.
-
the polariser ring or polariser can give you vignetting if there's too many slots on, might have been that. You can strip them down to the bare minimum of one slot, and don't have to have the polariser ring on if you don't want either.
-
I'm sure some Canon forum would give the required setup for your 17mm, otherwise its just a case of trial and error.
Worth noting though, that you're unlikely to want to use a polariser at 17mm, and if you can get it working at 20mm+ you can always resort to blu-tac for the odd 17mm shot. Pretty sure on my Lee rig the lens ring tends to cause problems before the polariser ring. I find myself cropping to either 4:3 or 16:9 a lot nowadays too, so its less important.
-
Unless you're using big lenses the cokin P system is fine.
Unless you're using big lenses the cokin P system is fine.
After doing a bit of reasearch, I think Cokin looks a good compromise.
My 12-24 is 82 or 83 mm diameter though, and it looks like the P series is only good for up to 84 mm. Am I going to get vignetting problems?
I'm wondering if it's worth futureproofing it and going for the Z Pro series, as I may at some point invest in a quality telephoto lens for surfing and wildlife pics and don't really want to have to buy a whole new set of filters.
-
With your 12-24 you might get away with cokin-p if you just blutack the filters onto the lens, otherwise it might be a bit tight.
If you're stepping up to 100mm filters then deffo look at hitech or lee as the quality is top drawer and they're all about as expensive as each other these days.
-
I think the 100mm might be worthwhile investing in, will do some direct comparisons.
(so nice I quoted you twice? not sure how I did that?)
-
So good he quoted it twice.
-
Which 12-24 are you using Chris? The Nikon and Tokina are both 77mm, I can use my 100mm Lee setup fine at 12mm.
If you get a big tele for surfing shots its pretty unlikely you'll want to use any filter other than a plain/ UV to protect against spray. Grads don't really work on long lenses, and polarisers will tend to eat too much light unless in the tropics. The faster lenses will have a slot for drop in filters anyway - never seen anyone with a slot system on a proper tele.
-
Which 12-24 are you using Chris? The Nikon and Tokina are both 77mm, I can use my 100mm Lee setup fine at 12mm
Sigma. i think I'm going to go for the 100mm Lee System, although it looks like they are having supply problems for some of their filters atm.
Having a look around, tru most lenses I would consider have drop in systems.
Thanks for the help, now to spend some cash!
-
If you're getting Lee grads be wary of the soft grads, the ones I had were way too soft to see where tou were putting em (graduation covered about 3" of filter). Might be worth getting hard grads instead.
-
I'm mainly interested in using them for "seascapes" so will definitely be going for hard grads.
-
Ok, so last question. Looking to get an ND and a Hard ND Grad to get started. What strengths to go for? 0.6 for both? I will probably buy a polariser sometime soon too, which I guess can be used to stack up the density a bit if combined with the ND?
Thanks
-
I mainly use a 0.3 (1 stop) and a 0.6 (2 stop), both hard. I wouldn't bother with a soft. With those two you can also combine for a 0.9 - line up for hard, stagger for soft. You can even turn the 0.3 upside down and make a 'reverse' 0.6 - denser at the horizon where it overlaps, then a 0.3 over the rest of the sky.
A polariser will can be used as a 2-stop ND yeah.
-
Are you anticipating using the ND simultaneously with the grad? If not then just buy the grad as you can usually get away with using the solid end of a hard grad as a straight ND assuming it covers the lens. I do this when I need ND, I don't actually own an actual ND filter (but then again with ISO 50 film you rarely have need for ND....)
Otherwise a 0.6 grad is a popular starting point.
A polariser gives you about 1.5-2 stops of faux-ND. If you're after long exposures it might make sense to get a 0.9 ND to complement this. Or just get a 0.9 ND grad and use it as a straight ND plus another grad, might be better value overall.
-
Are you anticipating using the ND simultaneously with the grad?
Yes. I'm keen to do more coastal landscapes, and want to keep detail in sky as well as get some of the blurred wave / water effects. Good point on using solid end to cover whole lens. Will probably get a 0.6 grad to start, see if I can get it to cover whole lens and if not then buy a 0.3 ND to go with it, or a 0.3 grad if I can.
Thanks for the help.
-
Sorry, missed the fact you were after a plain ND and a grad. I definitely wouldn't bother buying a 0.3 plain ND, waste of time. As a grad a 0.3 is useful as its virtually invisible. With digital, I tend to err on the side of weak grads and add more in LR as required.
-
I'm sure some Canon forum would give the required setup for your 17mm, otherwise its just a case of trial and error.
You'd think wouldn't you? Instead I was told to buy Lee because they cost more than Hitech. You know I'd usually go with this logic but he failed by not mentioning Singh Ray... ;D
Trial and error it is...
-
Didn't realise you could get Singh-Ray in the uk tbh. I wouldn't spunk £££s on a Lee setup unless you're sure it'll achieve what you want.
-
I think blingh-ray are only cokin-p sized anyway. Never seen em in the UK. I'm sure they are good even if they do seem to milk the galen association a bit.
Interesting fact about Lee/hitech filters, being they came about by two kodak filter guys who left the company and started up on their own. And there was another guy who made similar 100mm filters for sinar (they've since stopped doing em). So the technology behind lee and hitech won't be that different if at all.
-
Are you anticipating using the ND simultaneously with the grad?
Yes. I'm keen to do more coastal landscapes, and want to keep detail in sky as well as get some of the blurred wave / water effects. Good point on using solid end to cover whole lens. Will probably get a 0.6 grad to start, see if I can get it to cover whole lens and if not then buy a 0.3 ND to go with it, or a 0.3 grad if I can.
Thanks for the help.
Just beware that some grads will provide a color cast when stacked (this is why people pay $$ for Lee filters that don't do this). This can be anything from a mild blue to a vivid orange depending upon what brands you put together. Pretty much all of my seascapes are shot with a single 0.6 soft and then exposure blended in PS
Ive just got a Lee big stopper (10 stop ND) as well that can give some great results, but theyre like rocking horse shit to get hold of at the moment
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7124/7119743825_3946ffcba5_z.jpg)
-
I've got a Lee 0.6 Hard to start off with along with a big polarisers, will probably go for a 0.75 or 0.9 Lee ND next, once funds recover from the big hit! . The big stopper looks like a nice piece of kit, not only hard to get hold of, but also fucking expensive, especially since laptop is going through death throes, and I think it's time to invest in a half decent desktop to do this photography malarkey properly.
-
I've seen comparisons between the Lee big stopper and the Hitech Pro Stop MK II. The original Hitech supposedly had a horrendously odd colour cast that was hard to correct amongst other issues.
Side by side comparisons of the Lee and new Hitech showed each to have distinctive colour shifts but the Hitech had a stronger, blue cast. This was shown to be easily correctable with something such as the LR white balance tool.
The other advantages of the Hitech over the Lee stated were price and if you drop them they're a hell of a lot less brittle.
-
Sounds like what people really need is a camera system that lets you take really long exposures without having to resort to shooting through a glorified piece of welding glass, without colour casts, hot pixels, noise, batteries going flat etc etc.
-
f64?
-
Hopefully last question. Any good tips for how to carry all these fiddly things about? adaptor rings, filters, etc etc. Something sturdy that will keep them clean, i think the case and tissue paper they came wrapped in aren't a viable long term option.
-
Sounds like what people really need is a camera system that lets you take really long exposures without having to resort to shooting through a glorified piece of welding glass, without colour casts, hot pixels, noise, batteries going flat etc etc.
Pinhole directly on photosensitive paper perhaps?
(http://i.thestar.com/images/65/eb/705b87dd4321b6babfd4bb4febeb.jpeg)
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1109339--year-long-exposure-of-toronto-skyline-produces-dreamy-image (http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1109339--year-long-exposure-of-toronto-skyline-produces-dreamy-image)
-
+1 for hitech, I have some of their glass ones and they're great. On the other end of the price bracket, i hear good things about Kood filters too.
If you want square resin filters the http://vandiemenbroadcast.co.uk/epages/eshop406899.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/eshop406899/Categories/Products/Filters (http://vandiemenbroadcast.co.uk/epages/eshop406899.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/eshop406899/Categories/Products/Filters) seem better value than Lee
-
Hopefully last question. Any good tips for how to carry all these fiddly things about? adaptor rings, filters, etc etc. Something sturdy that will keep them clean, i think the case and tissue paper they came wrapped in aren't a viable long term option.
Sorry only just seen this.
Adapter rings stay on the lenses ideally, if this isn't practical then stick em in a pocket in your bag.
For storing 4x6" filters get a Lee triple wrap.
-
Ive just got a Lee big stopper (10 stop ND) as well that can give some great results, but theyre like rocking horse shit to get hold of at the moment
Managed to track one down, and bit the bullet. Not cheap!
-
Any good tips for how to carry all these fiddly things about? adaptor rings, filters, etc etc. Something sturdy that will keep them clean....
I use an old, hard-shell CD holder (think it's a 12 CD pocket version - just over an inch thick). Mine takes 3 adapter rings and 3 filters (85 x 100mm HiTech ND grads, kept in the cardboard sleeves and can be slotted in the plastic pouches) The filter holder goes in camera case itself, but at a push I could maybe get it in the CD holder too.
-
Wish I'd thought of that. Ended up buying an expensive Lee wallet for them.
Anyone used a Big Stopper much? I was using mine early the other morning and notice the sea comes out very blue (which can be easily corrected). Was wondering though if this was a colour cast from the filter, the warmth of the light, or some refracting (or is it diffracting?) effect from the long exposure.
-
Wish I'd thought of that. Ended up buying an expensive Lee wallet for them.
Anyone used a Big Stopper much? I was using mine early the other morning and notice the sea comes out very blue (which can be easily corrected). Was wondering though if this was a colour cast from the filter, the warmth of the light, or some refracting (or is it diffracting?) effect from the long exposure.
The Lee stopper is meant to be about as neutral as they come isn't it? Certainly the comparisons I've seen show it that way. Despite this the Hitech is on my list simply as if I drop it, it won't break (and I will drop it!).
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3547/5815791168_1b07e292a5.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulo_dias/5815791168/)
New Pro Stop from Hitech vs. Bigstopper from Lee (http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulo_dias/5815791168/#) by Paulo "Santa Cruz" Dias (http://www.flickr.com/people/paulo_dias/), on Flickr
-
Never really seen the appeal myself.
-
The Lee stopper is meant to be about as neutral as they come isn't it?
Yeah my impression too, hence the question. Anyway, here's the unedited jpeg of the photo in question. Trust me the sea here never looks this blue!
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s720x720/303683_10151039135721087_1825497844_n.jpg)
Need to revisit with a rougher sea and sort out depth of field.
-
could it have been massively effecting your white balance or something?
-
I'm not sure, hence the question. I think it was in AWB.
-
Shoot in RAW, unlikely but perhaps there is something strange going on in the JPEG compression. :shrug:
-
I don't see anything wrong in that shot. The sky is blue, hence the sea is blue.
P.s. why are you using AWB?
-
I was shooting in RAW + JPEG. Had WB on AWB as a default, as I have RAW file of it anyway. Not got round to processing RAW image yet.
Compared to how it looked on the day, the sea is a considerably bluer than it looked, hence the question.
-
Shutter speed? I'm guessing the averaging effect of the long exposure necessitated by the filter means the reflections of the sky overwhelm the underlying green/ grey of the sea. When you look with your eyes your eye/ brain no doubt concentrates on the base colour rather than the dancing/ shifting reflections. I'm assuming the sea was rougher than it appears?
-
What Cadfael says.
-
Shutter speed? I'm guessing the averaging effect of the long exposure necessitated by the filter means the reflections of the sky overwhelm the underlying green/ grey of the sea. When you look with your eyes your eye/ brain no doubt concentrates on the base colour rather than the dancing/ shifting reflections. I'm assuming the sea was rougher than it appears?
It was rougher, I suspect you are right, just interested to know the causes behind it. Thanks. Shutter speed 20 secs.
-
Shutter speed 20 secs.
There you go. If it'd been flat calm I suspect you wouldn't have noticed such a big difference.