How much ND Filter is too much?

[Shon]

Been disappointed by over exposure of both video and photos on my Mavic Air. I started flying with an ND 32 filter on cloudless sunny days. Exposure looks a little dark in my opinion. Am I using too much of a filter? Should I just adjust for the "under exposure" in post? Is "under exposure" better than "over exposure" assuming I don't have much noise in the photo?

Here is a non-corrected photo (note there is a bit of vignetting in the upper left corner...but it doesn't appear in a subsequent photo taken at the same place of the same subject)


I'm thinking the ND filter at least increased shutter speed which improves the look of the water?

 

[brett8883]

Been disappointed by over exposure of both video and photos on my Mavic Air. I started flying with an ND 32 filter on cloudless sunny days. Exposure looks a little dark in my opinion. Am I using too much of a filter? Should I just adjust for the "under exposure" in post? Is "under exposure" better than "over exposure" assuming I don't have much noise in the photo?

Here is a non-corrected photo (note there is a bit of vignetting in the upper left corner...but it doesn't appear in a subsequent photo taken at the same place of the same subject)
View attachment 71897

I'm thinking the ND filter at least increased shutter speed which improves the look of the water?

Turn your contrast settings down. I like mine at -2. Looks like a nice photo actually. You can definitely turn up those shadows in post. This this a perfectly good photo and yes the water movement was helped my the ND filter and you are using the one I would have used.

ND filters don’t reduce exposure in certain ranges they reduce exposure in all ranges.

 

[Shon]

Turn your contrast settings down. I like mine at -2. Looks like a nice photo actually. You can definitely turn up those shadows in post. This this a perfectly good photo and yes the water movement was helped my the ND filter and you are using the one I would have used.

ND filters don’t reduce exposure in certain ranges they reduce exposure in all ranges.

I appreciate your feedback. I've always loved drawing and artwork...just never any good at it...Thought photography might be easier...but again... it is more art than science and some folks just have more talent for it. Still...I don't might puttering along learning little by little and perfecting my technique for my own enjoyment. I really need to take a photography class.

Thanks Again!

 

[Meta4]

Been disappointed by over exposure of both video and photos on my Mavic Air. I started flying with an ND 32 filter on cloudless sunny days. Exposure looks a little dark in my opinion. Am I using too much of a filter? Should I just adjust for the "under exposure" in post? Is "under exposure" better than "over exposure" assuming I don't have much noise in the photo?

Unless you have a particular reason to want a slower shutter speed, there's no reason to use an ND filter for drone stills.
You put an ND filter on .. it reduces the light getting to the sensor .. the camera needs either a larger aperture or a slower shutter speed to achieve a proper exposure.
An ND filter won't do anything to reduce overexposed highlights as in your example, but adjusting the exposure compensation will.

 

[brett8883]

Unless you have a particular reason to want a slower shutter speed, there's no reason to use an ND filter for drone stills.
You put an ND filter on .. it reduces the light getting to the sensor .. the camera needs either a larger aperture or a slower shutter speed to achieve a proper exposure.
An ND filter won't do anything to reduce overexposed highlights as in your example, but adjusting the exposure compensation will.

If you have the lowest iso and the highest shutter while outdoors in high sun like that than the ND filter is the way to go. Besides the water is good reason to use one in this particular case.

 

[brett8883]

Besides the water moving is a text book example of when to use an ND filter in photography

 

[Shon]

Unless you have a particular reason to want a slower shutter speed, there's no reason to use an ND filter for drone stills.
You put an ND filter on .. it reduces the light getting to the sensor .. the camera needs either a larger aperture or a slower shutter speed to achieve a proper exposure.
An ND filter won't do anything to reduce overexposed highlights as in your example, but adjusting the exposure compensation will.

I have found that in high sun ISO 100 and fastest shutter speed the photo is over exposed and "washed out". These photos are a bit too dark for me...but still better than no ND filter at all. I've only recently gotten into still photography...been more interested in videos in the past... I've read all sorts of debate about the use of ND filters and whether they should still be used or not. I'm a novice...so to me...I guess it depends on whether I like the look or not. I'm still learning...but hey...I've hopefully got at least another 50+ years on this rock to figure things out...

For the fast moving water...I definitely like the ND filter. To each their own...I do appreciate your opinion and feedback...

 

[Meta4]

I have found that in high sun ISO 100 and fastest shutter speed the photo is over exposed and "washed out". These photos are a bit too dark for me...but still better than no ND filter at all.

If you have the lowest iso and the highest shutter while outdoors in high sun like that ....

Your fastest shutter speed is 1/8000 and you'll never find conditions so bright that you would use it.

And slapping an ND filter on won't make the image look any less washed out anyway.
Your photos are not washed out because you need to use an ND filter.

Look at what the camera data line is saying.
If it's showing EV and a + number, dial that back to EV0
If it's showing EV0, dial that back to EV -0.3 or EV -0.7.
Look at what's in your image.
Do you have a small bright area in a larger darker area? .. that can causes washed out highlights even though the overall exposure is correct.
Slapping on an ND filter is not the solution to exposure problems

And one more time since the message didn't seem to get through ...
Unless you have a particular reason to want a slower shutter speed, there's no reason to use an ND filter for drone stills.

Besides the water moving is a text book example of when to use an ND filter in photography

It's a textbook case of when you might have a particular reason to want to force a slower shutter speed.

 

[brett8883]

Your fastest shutter speed is 1/8000 and you'll never find conditions that are that bright.
Your photos are not washed out because you need ton use an ND filter.
Look at what the camera data line is saying.
If it's showing EV and a + number, dial that back to EV0
If it's showing EV0, dial that back to EV -0.3 or EV -0.7.
Look at what's in your image.
Do you have a small bright area in a larger darker area?
Slapping on an ND filter is not the solution to exposure problems

And one more time since the message didn't seem to get through ...
Unless you have a particular reason to want a slower shutter speed, there's no reason to use an ND filter for drone stills.


It's a textbook case of when you might have a particular reason to want to force a slower shutter speed.

Alright so we agree. Not all camera's have a 1/8000 shutter(if they are mechanical) so since you obviously weren't talking about THIS photo which was a correct usage of an ND filter I assumed you meant more generally.

 

[Meta4]

you obviously weren't talking about THIS photo which was a correct usage of an ND filter.

The image in post #1 is significantly overexposed and has completely blown out highlights so I wouldn't say that the ND filter has achieved anything (which is as you would expect).
The exposure setting used has still resulted in an over-exposed image.

It's a difficult composition with a lot of dark rocks, trees and shadows contrasting with bright white water and is always going to be tricky getting exposure right because the range from brightest to darkest is just too much.
Shooting on an overcast day would help but direct sun on that water is always going to be a problem against all that dark area.

 

[Simmo]

I agree with Meta4, the shot was always going to be difficult due to the huge dynamic range.
A couple of minutes in LR can change things a little?

 

[Deleted member 94047]

@Shon; For still photography, the only reason to use an ND filter is slowing down shutter speed without overexposing the picture. This creates a very artistic motion blur such as the one you have over the water. In this particular case, you would have had better results had you gone with an ND64 or darker; you might even have pulled it off with an ND1000 if you got lucky.

As for under vs over exposure - most guides I have read agree it is better to expose to the right so long as your highlights are not blown out. But I think practice is what makes perfect; keep experimenting!

 

[brett8883]

Guys there are no blow highlights in this image. There are some small bits of blue by the trees but that is just JPEG artifacts. This isn't my opinion this is scientific fact.

I actually turned the exposure up because if it was under or over exposed it was under exposed per the histogram above but thats as close to perfect as anyone can get. Its better to be under than over exposed.

Here are my adjustments. And the final product.We have no missing information everything is there. This is a great shot technically and visually @Shon. Dont let anybody tell you otherwise. It was a breeze to edit and I never say that.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Guys there are no blow highlights in this image. There are some small bits of blue by the trees but that is just JPEG artifacts. This isn't my opinion this is scientific fact. View attachment 71923

I actually turned the exposure up because if it was under or over exposed it was under exposed per the histogram above but thats as close to perfect as anyone can get. Its better to be under than over exposed.

Here are my adjustments. View attachment 71924And the final product.We have no missing information everything is there. This is a great shot technically and visually @Shon. Dont let anybody tell you otherwise. It was a breeze to edit and I never say that.
View attachment 71925

The pure white areas with no detail- they are blown highlights. You can drag your Lightroom sliders around as much as you like that area won’t have any usable information.

 

[brett8883]

The pure white areas with no detail- they are blown highlights. You can drag your Lightroom sliders around as much as you like that area won’t have any usable information.

No that was due to the longer exposure which was a creative decision(if accidental). It’s not suppose to have detail!

I'm thinking the ND filter at least increased shutter speed which improves the look of the water?

It’s not white btw nor over exposed, it’s the water moving.

You can do it in better light to get this kind of contrast but I just did a very unfair thing and that was compare @shon’s images to professional photographer’s images but this is the idea.

Again there are no blown highlights this is a measurable thing. Look at the histogram

 

[WithTheBirds]

No that was due to the longer exposure which was a creative decision(if accidental). It’s not suppose to have detail!
View attachment 71928

It’s not white btw nor over exposed, it’s the water moving.View attachment 71929View attachment 71930

You can do it in better light to get this kind of contrast but I just did a very unfair thing and that was compare @shon’s images to professional photographer’s images but this is the idea.

Again there are no blown highlights this is a measurable thing. Look at the histogram

I’m measuring it with my eyes. Very obvious blown highlights. Badly. You can only rely on the histogram when ironing the original unprocessed file in Lightroom and using the appropriate camera profile.

 

[Deleted member 94047]

Bret is on point here, this is exactly why one would use an ND filter for still photography; slow down the shutter speed to expose the picture for longer and capture something, in this case, in motion without blowing out the whole picture.

@Shon you really ought to consider adding an ND1000 filter to your kit. I got one a few weeks ago and they are not that expensive. Unfortunately, I still haven't had the opportunity to put it to the test. But a sufficiently dark ND filter will give you results close to the pictures Bret posted above.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Bret is on point here, this is exactly why one would use an ND filter for still photography; slow down the shutter speed to expose the picture for longer and capture something, in this case, in motion without blowing out the whole picture.

@Shon you really ought to consider adding an ND1000 filter to your kit. I got one a few weeks ago and they are not that expensive. Unfortunately, I still haven't had the opportunity to put it to the test. But a sufficiently dark ND filter will give you results close to the pictures Bret posted above.

Really? It’s a shame the element of the scene that might most benefit from an ND (allowing a slower shutter)- the water- is blown out to the point it’s indistinguishable from pure white.

The ND won’t help in instances where dynamic range exceeds the limits of the imaging system.

In this instance the only available option (absent HDR or exposure bending from multiple frames) would have been to reduce the exposures. Probably by at least 2.5 stops looking at the outcome.

If your looking for motion blur stacking multiple frames provides an option to ND’s.

 

[brett8883]

Really? It’s a shame the element of the scene that might most benefit from an ND (allowing a slower shutter)- the water- is blown out to the point it’s indistinguishable from pure white.

The ND won’t help in instances where dynamic range exceeds the limits of the imaging system.

In this instance the only available option (absent HDR or exposure bending from multiple frames) would have been to reduce the exposures. Probably by at least 2.5 stops looking at the outcome.

If your looking for motion blur stacking multiple frames provides an option to ND’s.

It isn’t outside the cameras range that’s what color it is and it’s not pure white. Here’s a good video on what a histogram is, what it does and how to use it so that when I say that’s the color of the water you can better understand that’s not my subjective opinion that’s what the objective information from the camera is telling me

 

[WithTheBirds]

It isn’t outside the cameras range that’s what color it is and it’s not pure white. Here’s a good video on what a histogram is, what it does and how to use it so that when I say that’s the color of the water you can better understand that’s not my subjective opinion that’s what the objective information from the camera is telling me

I will guess, with some confidence, you haven’t spent a lot of time shooting waterfalls. This is unquestionably classic overexposure.