Couple of experimental photos with ND Filter

[NJT]

Because it is a beautiful effect not actually seen in a natural state.
So here are two images of the same waterfalls- which one do you like the best? click on both GodafossWaterfall-slow-water-lo res8885.jpg. and. Goðafoss waterfall-lo resDJI_0293.jpgView attachment 95737

The smooth photo is awesome and also not grainy. The short exposure is very grainy, was it dark and ISO too high?

 

[Dale D]

You would get a good result using a polarising ND filter in this case. The reflection off the water would be cut and you would get a deep blue most likely...

If you are using Photoshop or other similar software, try opening up the shadows (shadow slider tool) in the featureless rocks in the ocean in pic 95596. In picture 95597- try to get more punch in the sky- try cutting the highlights, and white slider and increase the saturation ,

 

[eckydrone200]

You would get a good result using a polarising ND filter in this case. The reflection off the water would be cut and you would get a deep blue most likely...

Thanks for that advice, that is the next thing I am going to try as a lot of my flying is done round the coast.

 

[Meta4]

Not being able to control the aperature on my drone makes getting the correct exposure and DOF difficult.

Getting correct exposure shouldn't be difficult.
Your camera has a shutter speed that goes from 8 secs – 1/8000 sec
And depth of field isn't an issue at all since drone cameras are very wide angle with more depth of field than you could need and in aerial photography, the subjects are almost always too far from the lens for DoF to be a concern at all.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Unfortunately not. In the MA case they just lessen the amount of light that hits the sensor so you can have a longer exposure. On a variable aperture lens it also lets you shoot with a wider aperture thereby increasing your depth of field.

A circular polarizer can reduce glare but it has to be adjusted manually to get the best results. I'd imagine that's a lot of guesswork with a drone.

Keep in mind that anytime you introduce another layer of glass between the subject and the sensor you run the risk of introducing flaring.

Wider aperture = less depth of field.

 

[Unknown Pilot]

Wider aperture = less depth of field.

Absolutely - decreasing, not increasing as I had it.

 

[Peter VS]

Because it is a beautiful effect not actually seen in a natural state.
So here are two images of the same waterfalls- which one do you like the best? click on both GodafossWaterfall-slow-water-lo res8885.jpg. and. Goðafoss waterfall-lo resDJI_0293.jpgView attachment 95737

One can do the same with clouds. They do have to be moving, however.

 

[Peter VS]

All four images were taken using a DSLR+ tripod and ND filters to slow the water. All images taken with prolonged shutter speeds like 1/10th of a second or 1/20th of a second. Of course this cannot be done with a moving drone, but my point in the post was th explain the longer shutter speed to give the slow water effects, The closer we can get to longer shutter speeds by narrowing the aperture, or using the lowest ISO possible the closer we get to that goal.

Totally agree. I’ve been taking these shots for a while with my camera. With my drone, I’ve used a nd64 and have gotten the blurred effect from some great vantage points, but the fixed aperture makes the DOF difficult.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Totally agree. I’ve been taking these shots for a while with my camera. With my drone, I’ve used a nd64 and have gotten the blurred effect from some great vantage points, but the fixed aperture makes the DOF difficult.

You shouldn’t have any issue with depth of field unless your flying dangerously close to your subject or your camera is faulty/lens focussed incorrectly.

 

[NJT]

If you are using Photoshop or other similar software, try opening up the shadows (shadow slider tool) in the featureless rocks in the ocean in pic 95596. In picture 95597- try to get more punch in the sky- try cutting the highlights, and white slider and increase the saturation ,

This would work to a certain extent, but the polarizing lens removes the actual reflection so you can see past it into the ocean. Just like using polarizing glasses for fishing.

The only thing I haven't got my head around is usually on an SLR you can manually rotate the lens to get the correct angle for the polarizing to work/ be optimized. With it being on the Mavic, you would need to fly it out and back to you again to adjust? Can anyone explain how they use the polarizing filters efficiently on the flying camera?

 

[Meta4]

With it being on the Mavic, you would need to fly it out and back to you again to adjust? Can anyone explain how they use the polarizing filters efficiently on the flying camera?

You can't properly use a polariser on a drone unless you set it for one shot and only fly on that course.
Once you turn the drone, the polariser won't be set correctly and can give some undesired effects.
Although a popular concept in the forum, polarisers on drones are more of a hassle than they are worth.
You can do a lot to remove glare from the water surface by carefully positioning the drone.

 

[NJT]

polarisers on drones are more of a hassle than they are worth.

This was the conclusion I came to also. I have gone for a set of DJI ND filters with no polarization.