Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus Micro Four Thirds

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 13, 2014, 2:02 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
chiPersei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 931
Default With/Without 10xND

I've been wanting to find a lake with a dock to check out the effect my cheap 10x ND would have on the water. Well, still no dock but here's the experiment.

BTW- This was shot from the banks of Big Lake in the Cascade range. Mt Washington in the background.
Attached Images
  
chiPersei is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 13, 2014, 6:16 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,907
Default

G'day mate

Yeah - i'll pay the results - keep the filter & use it as often as it helps

Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Spends 8-9 months each year travelling Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2014, 10:00 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Steven R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzie_Traveller View Post
G'day mate

Yeah - i'll pay the results - keep the filter & use it as often as it helps

Phil
Yeah, I agree.
Steven R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2014, 11:42 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

Beautiful country. It definitely does the job on the water.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2014, 12:15 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
chiPersei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
Beautiful country. It definitely does the job on the water.
Agree with both. I was surprised to see the rocks under the surface. Didn't know they were there until I saw the photo. Makes me wonder what might have happened if a CPL was stacked on the ND filter. Oh well... that's an experiment for another day.

Thanks for the comments everyone.
chiPersei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 17, 2014, 1:12 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
James Emory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 2,380
Default

Ditto for me as well.
__________________
Olympus OMD-M5, HLG6 grip, Olympus 4/3rd 35mm macro lens, Panny/Leica 25mm, f1.4, Olympus 17mm, Canon Pro 9000 Mk II Printer, Canon MP990 Printer, Slik U212 Tripod, Manfrotto monopod, MMF3 converter.
James Emory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2014, 3:58 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
MarceloLI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Long Island - New York
Posts: 2,102
Default

Beautiful shot and landscape, try to find a group of rocks at the river and play with different apertures/long exposures, with that background the results can be amazing..!!
MarceloLI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2014, 5:33 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
MacBook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 565
Default

The water in the second photo looked so different that I checked the EXIF information, which showed these to be very differently exposed photos. The first one is exposed at 1/320 second and the second at 20 seconds. Is that correct?

The mountain's color is very different, in terms of what looks like a lava plain. The second one looks a bit more realistic, if not a little too light.

Beautiful country, indeed.
MacBook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2014, 12:22 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
boBBrennan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, Texas USA
Posts: 3,566
Default

....that is an awesome difference. I don't know a thing about ND filters, maybe I should attempt a learning curve.
__________________
.
boBBrennan .. FB=> http://tinyurl.com/dxlwxfz

.......he likes Olympus, Apple MAC & SmugMug best of the choices; he likes that he has choices

boBBrennan.smugmug.com
boBBrennan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2014, 1:00 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
chiPersei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook View Post
The water in the second photo looked so different that I checked the EXIF information, which showed these to be very differently exposed photos. The first one is exposed at 1/320 second and the second at 20 seconds. Is that correct?
That is correct and largely due to the ND filter. Since a 10x ND greatly reduces the amount of light that passes through the lens it takes longer to get a proper exposure. During that 20 seconds of exposure the undulating riplets on the water were blurred into what appears to be a smooth surface.

I say "Largely" due to the filter because I also stopped it down from f/5 to f/8 for the sake of DOF. The difference between f/5 and f/8 for this exposure, in this light, without the filter, may have reduced the exposure time from 1/320 to 1/250 or 1/160 at most and would not have had a noticeable effect on the water.

I'm pretty happy with this $20 filter for creating long exposures but I do believe the "N" part of the ND may not be as neutral as a good quality filter. I had to use the LR temperature slider to bring them a little closer together.

Thanks for checking them out.
chiPersei is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:57 PM.