Tag Archives: neutral

Equipment, Reader Questions, Technique

Reader Questions — March 10, 2017

2 Comments

Photographers write to me with questions, and I always try to reply. In many cases I prefer to reply here on the website so that others who may have the same questions can see the answers, too. Today I’m going through a backlog of questions on a variety of topics: neutral density filters, photographing in Utah, the Canon 5DsR, use of photographs by non-profits.

Pete writes: Dan enjoy your website! Question:Have the Mark III – May get the 5DSR – Has anyone used the 5DSR with Neutral Density Filters 6,10,15 etc.. and what have been the times -lengths – and outcomes? Any noise issues? Other problems noted?

Thanks for writing, Pete. I use a 10-stop neutral density (ND) filter sometimes and I use the 5DsR… but so far I haven’t used the two together! That said, I can’t think of any problems that would be specific to the use of these filters on the 5DsR. I do have experience using the 5DsR with much longer exposure times for night photography, and it works quite well for that.

For those who don’t know, the very dark 5-10 stop and more ND filters can be used to extend the exposure time in daylight conditions. Depending on the filter and your aperture choice you could get 30 second or long exposures. Their use presents a few challenges: Continue reading Reader Questions — March 10, 2017 →

Technique

Exposure Blending – A Quick Overview

12 Comments

(This is a slightly modified version of something I wrote as part of a discussion on Google+)

The author of the post that I read before writing this mentions two alternatives for dealing with dynamic range issues in landscape scenes – the use of graduated neutral density (GND) filters or the use of a similarly-named post process technique in Lightroom. (Similar processes are available in other software including Photoshop/ACR.) Another alternative is to use HDR (High Dynamic Range) techniques that allow computer algorithms to combine source images in ways that are not the same as what I describe in this post. I almost always use a different approach, exposure blending, and I’d like to share a few ideas on this topic.

When the scene contains an extremely large dynamic range – a common situation in landscape photography – it is possible to end up with shadow areas that are nearly black and devoid of detail, along with bright areas that are blown out and also completely lack detail. (The latter is especially an issue with digital capture in which overexposed areas can simply become pure white. Film failed more gracefully in this situation.)

One traditional method for dealing with such scenes is to attach various types of graduated neutral density (GND) filters to the front of the lens. These filters include a clear area and an area darkened by a few stops. A typical use might be to position the dark portion over the sky and the clear section over a darker foreground, effectively reducing the dynamic range of the light reaching the sensor by reducing only the brightness of the sky. With film, especially positive transparency film, this was just about the only realistic way to handle the situation in many cases.

A second method is to make a single exposure and use features in Photoshop/ACR, Lightroom, or other software to simulate the effect of the GND, lightening (or darkening) a portion of the photograph. This can often help quite a bit when it comes to balancing out dark and light areas in the image, and the fact is that most savvy landscape photographers do this sort of thing and more in post. But it has its limits. For example, darkening a bright area cannot put detail back in blown out areas, and lightening underexposed shadows can lead to problems with noise and posterization. The bottom line is that this technique works well when the overall range 0f brightness in the scene does not exceed the dynamic range of the camera – here it may be used to adjust the relative levels of the areas – but it does not work well when the dynamic range is actually too great for a single normal exposure.

There is a third method, sometimes called exposure blending, that can often be used when making the exposure. The idea is to make more than one exposure, with each exposure optimized for different parts of the scene by varying shutter speed, and then selectively blend the two exposures during post-production.* Two exposures are sufficient in almost all cases, with one for the shadow detail and the other for highlight detail – though in very complex or wide dynamic range situations more exposures can be used. Continue reading Exposure Blending – A Quick Overview →

Commentary, Equipment, Technique

Very Basic Filter Advice for New DSLR Shooters

2 Comments

(This article has been slightly updated since it was originally posted.)

Earlier this morning I replied to a question about filters from a new DSLR owner who wondered which filters he “had to get” to use his new camera. I realized that this sort of question comes up from time to time, and I thought that the answer might be useful to others. So here it is!

With DSLRs there are typically four types of filters that most people might consider. You do not necessarily need filters – it is a question of shooting preference and some stylistic issues.

“Protective” filters

Some believe or have been told that they need so-called “protective UV filters” on their lenses. The thought is that these filters will protect the front element of your lens from possible damage, and there is an old school notion that reducing UV (ultraviolet) light will improve certain types of photographs. DSLRs are not sensitive to UV light  in the way that film was, and there are some compelling arguments against using filters for protection in normal shooting. My thoughts on this are posted elsewhere on this blog.

I must acknowledge that opinions vary on this issue, and that this discussion (oddly, but like those about certain other photography equipment issues) can become rather heated. I don’t use protective filters. Others do. You’ll have to weigh the arguments yourself on this one.

Circular Polarizing (“CP” or “CPL”) Filters

Contrary to what you may think, CPL filters are generally not simply placed on the lens and left there, but they may be added occasionally for certain shots and in certain conditions. You do not necessarily need them, but in some situations they are useful. There are several things that they can do:

  1. In some photographs they can increase the contrast between things like clouds and sky, possibly producing a more dramatic photograph. This does not always work – it depends on things like the angle of the sun and the nature of the sky. It also does not work well on very ultra-wide-angle lenses. You almost certainly would want to use this effect sparingly, since it easily become a cliche.
  2. The CPL can control or reduce reflections from things like the surface of water or windows. It can also be useful in some situations for reducing the reflections from shiny foliage. Some find the CPL useful for photographing waterfalls and cascades.
  3. The CPL can also function as a stand-in neutral density filter when you want to use a slightly longer exposure time or a larger aperture.

In the first two cases, you rotate the filter to control the effect. There is usually a small dot on the edge of the filter and you can maximize the filtering effect by rotating in 90 degrees away from direction of the sun.

Neutral Density (“ND”) filters

These filters simply darken the image by some number of stops, ranging from one stop to as much as 10 stops. ND filters allow you to use a longer exposure and/or a larger aperture in conditions that might otherwise not allow this. You might do the former to allow motion blur, for example with photographs of water or clouds. You might to the latter to limit depth of field in very bright conditions. (As noted above, a CPL can stand in for a mild ND filter in some cases.) Contrary to some claims you will read, they do not really alter the overall brightness or color balance of photographs at all. (The very dark 9- and 10-stop filters can produce an unwanted color shift.) Most photographers starting out will not need neutral density filters.

Graduated Neutral Density (GND) filters

These filters are darker on one half than the other, with the clear and darker sections separated by an area of relatively smooth gradation whose width may vary. The dark section may reduce the light by two or three exposures. An example of their use might be a scene with very bright sky and darker foreground – the filter is lined up so that the graduated section is on the horizon and the darkened section covering the sky. Although screw-in versions of these filters are available, their usefulness is very limited. More common are large rectangular versions that are attached by means of a holder in front of the lens and then positioned manually. This is a fussy bit of business, and if you are new to this it is quite unlikely that you want to “go there” at this point. (I have heard some argue that they should be called “gradated” rather than “graduated” neutral density filters. I may be dense, but I’m, uh, neutral on this question. ;-)

Filter Alternatives

Today we can emulate the effects of most filters in software. In most cases this gives us more options and greater control than attaching filters to the lens at the time of exposure, and it also means less gear to carry. The circular polarizing filters is an exception, in that you cannot really emulate its ability to control reflections using photography post-production software.

Bottom Line

In my opinion, if you just got your first DSLR and suddenly find yourself in the mood to start buying lots of accessories… hold off on getting filters for a while. Not everyone needs them, and at first you can probably do everything you need to do without adding this additional complication. Eventually, once you become more comfortable with your camera, the filter that is most likely to occasionally be useful to you is perhaps the circular polarizer since it is useful in several different ways and because its effect is generally not one you can duplicate in post-processing.

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email

Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Commentary, Technique

Combining Exposures in Wide Dynamic Range Scenes

2 Comments

My apologies, but as a result of a move to a new hosting company this article is no longer available. I’m hopeful that I’ll be able to recreate it or a replacement eventually.