How much ND Filter is too much?

[brett8883]

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.

You should use the histogram in every stage of the digital film or photo making process. It measures light and color and is independent of the settings on your screen when editing or the sun shining on your device while flying or your sleepy eyes. The histogram never lies.

Btw when you open a raw file in Lightroom what you are looking at is a processed jpeg preview. You can’t see a raw file because it’s not a picture and can’t be displayed on a screen because it doesn’t have pixels. The process and technique for editing a raw file is no different from editing a jpeg. The way Lightroom process it is different but for you it’s exactly the same.

That’s why I think it’s kinda funny when people say they don’t knows how to edit a raw file because if you know how to edit a jpeg you know how to edit a raw file.

 

[WithTheBirds]

You should use the histogram in every stage of the digital film or photo making process. It measures light and color and is independent of the settings on your screen when editing or the sun shining on your device while flying or your sleepy eyes. The histogram never lies.

Btw when you open a raw file in Lightroom what you are looking at is a processed jpeg preview. You can’t see a raw file because it’s not a picture and can’t be displayed on a screen because it doesn’t have pixels. The process and technique for editing a raw file is no different from editing a jpeg. The way Lightroom process it is different but for you it’s exactly the same.

That’s why I think it’s kinda funny when people say they don’t knows how to edit a raw file because if you know how to edit a jpeg you know how to edit a raw file.

When is the histogram most important? When acquiring the image. If the brightest elements of the scene are at or above the highest value the sensor can record they will render as pure white. There is no detail to recover no matter what the file type or what you try and do in processing.

Go back and have a good look at the water. There are areas that are completely blown out. No amount of highlight recovery will render any detail- nothing was recorded.

 

[brett8883]

When is the histogram most important? When acquiring the image. If the brightest elements of the scene are at or above the highest value the sensor can record they will render as pure white. There is no detail to recover no matter what the file type or what you try and do in processing.

Go back and have a good look at the water. There are areas that are completely blown out. No amount of highlight recovery will render any detail- nothing was recorded.

That’s true! It IS most important when shooting! Now you are getting it! I almost lost hope!

 

[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.

I missed this one. You are right in that there are only so many levels of luminance a camera can capture and HDR can help that but here we don’t have an instance of overexposure because there is no white in the image anywhere. What you are talking about is dynamic range not overexposure. Had he reduced exposure any further and we would have clipped the blacks.

HDR doesn’t increase the whiteness or blackness a camera can record, it increases the levels of brightness BETWEEN black and white.

In post we can use that to increase localized tonal width yes you are right about that but it doesn’t take away from the art of a single exposure photography.

We can do just about anything in post. I can make a sub average looking model look like Aphrodite herself but I still find photos that were are taken technically correct and balanced like this one to be great even though they don’t have the tonal width of an HDR because it’s genuine. This was the real water flowing not something done in post. I think there’s a lot of value in that.

 

[Meta4]

No that was due to the longer exposure which was a creative decision(if accidental). It’s not suppose to have detail! ..
It’s not white btw nor over exposed, it’s the water moving ...
Again there are no blown highlights this is a measurable thing. Look at the histogram

It's picked up some silkiness due to motion and slower exposure but then been burnt out by being exposed for too long.
The brightest areas are completely cooked but other parts of the image also look a little washed out as well.

The ND filter makes the camera use a longer shutter speed but does nothing to affect exposure.
It's just as easy to overexpose with an ND filter as it is without.
And this shot was significantly overexposed.

 

[Deleted member 94047]

This discussion has escalated to a level beyond my comprehension. I will disappear in to the shadows.

 

[WithTheBirds]

I missed this one. You are right in that there are only so many levels of luminance a camera can capture and HDR can help that but here we don’t have an instance of overexposure because there is no white in the image anywhere. What you are talking about is dynamic range not overexposure. Had he reduced exposure any further and we would have clipped the blacks.

HDR doesn’t increase the whiteness or blackness a camera can record, it increases the levels of brightness BETWEEN black and white.

In post we can use that to increase localized tonal width yes you are right about that but it doesn’t take away from the art of a single exposure photography.

We can do just about anything in post. I can make a sub average looking model look like Aphrodite herself but I still find photos that were are taken technically correct and balanced like this one to be great even though they don’t have the tonal width of an HDR because it’s genuine. This was the real water flowing not something done in post. I think there’s a lot of value in that.

It would be helpful if you might refrain from trying to tell me what I am talking about. I am talking about dynamic range AND overexposure. Certain areas of the flowing water are obviously grossly overexposed to the point that the luminosity has clearly exceeded the maximum value that the sensor is capable of recording.

Clipped blacks are almost always preferable to blown highlights. Dark shadow and blacks are less objectionable to an obvious absence of detail where it might be expected.

You have lost me on your claims re HDR. For any given scene multiple frames recorded at EV above and or below EV0 must provided for significantly brighter and darker areas in the scene to be accurately rendered than can be achieved in a single frame. You are significantly increasing the available dynamic range that can be captured for any camera with this technique.. Usually to the point that the resultant image needs to be compressed so that it might be printed or displayed on a monitor.


Single frame photography is absolutely an art and can be a significant challenge. It does often require compromises. This is a good example where to preserve the detail in the water the exposure would have needed to have been reduced. Lack of shadow detail is the tradeoff.

You might be able to make a model look better than a mythical being and perhaps perform other feats in post but you can't recover detail from an area of a frame where the maximum recordable luminance values the sensor might record have been exceeded.

 

[GoGracefully]

Thank you Brett8883 for sticking to the facts on this discussion and not slipping into personal reactions or hyperbole with respect to your opinions. You would make a good and patient photography teacher if you are not one already.

 

[brett8883]

Thank you Brett8883 for sticking to the facts on this discussion and not slipping into personal reactions or hyperbole with respect to your opinions. You would make a good and patient photography teacher if you are not one already.

Thank you! I needed to hear this after this thread.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Thank you Brett8883 for sticking to the facts on this discussion and not slipping into personal reactions or hyperbole with respect to your opinions. You would make a good and patient photography teacher if you are not one already.

Facts are more important than opinions with respect to the subject issues in this thread. If you know hyperbole when you see it the award should go to Brett8883 on this occasion.

 

[Shon]

One of the things this thread made me think about is my use of histograms when filming. I have often used them after the fact, in post production...but I have never really considered their use when it comes to live filming. Some on the Mavic Air for example, will even show where the shot is blown out and over exposed. These are certainly tools That I am under-utilizing.

 

[Deleted member 94047]

Facts are more important than opinions with respect to the subject issues in this thread. If you know hyperbole when you see it the award should go to Brett8883 on this occasion.

This is uncalled for. Just because you and brett8883 disagreed doesn't mean you get to call him names.I have found his advice on a number of other issues very useful and practical. I can't say the same about yours but I haven't had the occasion yet; so may be there will come a time when I will rely on your advice and experience too.

 

[brett8883]

This is uncalled for. Just because you and brett8883 disagreed doesn't mean you get to call him names.I have found his advice on a number of other issues very useful and practical. I can't say the same about yours but I haven't had the occasion yet; so may be there will come a time when I will rely on your advice and experience too.

He’s just trolling us I should have realized it earlier. I appreciate your support and happy I was able to help you!

 

[WithTheBirds]

This is uncalled for. Just because you and brett8883 disagreed doesn't mean you get to call him names.I have found his advice on a number of other issues very useful and practical. I can't say the same about yours but I haven't had the occasion yet; so may be there will come a time when I will rely on your advice and experience too.

Where did I call anyone names? I am only interested in whats true with the intent that the OP (in any thread) has an opportunity to get the most reliable information.

 

[WithTheBirds]

He’s just trolling us I should have realized it earlier. I appreciate your support and happy I was able to help you!

Now we are beyond ridiculous. Name calling and trolling? If you suspect anything I have said is incorrect and support it with evidence fair enough. If you are uncomfortable with being corrected think before you post. Your original claim based on, as you put it “scientific fact” that there were no blown highlights in the subject image was clearly wrong.

The OP (in my opinion) has a very good eye for composition. Clearly he knows how to frame a shot- that is arguably the most difficult aspect of photography to learn. He is looking for pointers on the technical aspects. Providing incorrect suggestions in this regard isn’t helpful.

 

[Shon]

Now we are beyond ridiculous. Name calling and trolling? If you suspect anything I have said is incorrect and support it with evidence fair enough. If you are uncomfortable with being corrected think before you post. Your original claim based on, as you put it “scientific fact” that there were no blown highlights in the subject image was clearly wrong.

The OP (in my opinion) has a very good eye for composition. Clearly he knows how to frame a shot- that is arguably the most difficult aspect of photography to learn. He is looking for pointers on the technical aspects. Providing incorrect suggestions in this regard isn’t helpful.

Ken Burns is a famous documentary film maker. He has made many award winning documentaries on very hot button topics like the American Civil War, Vietnam War, and American Prohibition. With all the experts he interviews that have vastly differing opinions on these various topics, he was once asked about the worst argument. Bar none, he said...an argument that almost became a brawl over the history of baseball.

I appreciate the various comments that were shared, and the differences in how various photographers approach these issues. It has given me quite a bit to think about. Thanks everyone!

 

[WithTheBirds]

Ken Burns is a famous documentary film maker. He has made many award winning documentaries on very hot button topics like the American Civil War, Vietnam War, and American Prohibition. With all the experts he interviews that have vastly differing opinions on these various topics, he was once asked about the worst argument. Bar none, he said...an argument that almost became a brawl over the history of baseball.

I appreciate the various comments that were shared, and the differences in how various photographers approach these issues. It has given me quite a bit to think about. Thanks everyone!

Your original take on the overexposure was likely well founded- that is certainly the case with respect to the image you posted. That seems to be the consensus having regard to the comments here. As has been pointed out- an ND filter will reduced the brightness of every element in the scene by the same proportion. It isn't your solution to the exposure issue.

I have shot a lot of waterfalls. Mr suggestions are as follows;

1. Aim to shoot in the early or late part of the day when the light is less harsh (colour rendition is warmer also).

2. If you don't have the luxury of timing when you are on location then and aim for overcast days. Direct sunlight and waterfalls never works.

3. If your intent on shooting single frames set your exposure for the brightest part of the scene. You have options in post for recovering shadow detail however grossly overexposed (clipped) areas provide no options other than taking components from other images, using content aware fill, cloning etc and replacing sections of the image. A skill in itself but a lot of work and it won't be the actual scene.

4. Consider HDR as an option, exposure blending and other techniques that combine multiple frames at varying exposures as an option for difficult lighting.

5. The ND's will certainly help get that smooth silky water depiction by allowing slower shutters to be employed. Don't dismiss stacking and blending to give you a similar effect either.

In scenarios like this shoot plenty of frames at various exposures. Its easy to delete the ones that you don't use in post but if you haven't got it there are no options.

Look forward to seeing what you produce. You obviously have access to some beautiful locations and the eye for producing a great image.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Ken Burns is a famous documentary film maker. He has made many award winning documentaries on very hot button topics like the American Civil War, Vietnam War, and American Prohibition. With all the experts he interviews that have vastly differing opinions on these various topics, he was once asked about the worst argument. Bar none, he said...an argument that almost became a brawl over the history of baseball.

I appreciate the various comments that were shared, and the differences in how various photographers approach these issues. It has given me quite a bit to think about. Thanks everyone!

Ken burns is clearly a smart guy....

The analogy probably doesn't apply as well to instances where the subject discussion relates to matters of known fact and clearly established principals- opinion is left with little to do.

You had it right to start with- it seems your sense you were getting overexposed images was spot on....

Happy shooting!

 

[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

Given your accusations of trolling please allow me to make thing very clear for you.

Aside from being obvious in the image itself your claim of "no blow highlights" is disproved by the histogram depicted in your Lightroom screenshot. As you may appreciate RHS is extreme highlights, vertical axis represents increasing image area. The fact you can't observe any clear area to the right of the histogram (the curve passes through the end) reveals that a small component of the image is clipped. This is what you are seeing in the image. That area will be displayed as pure white. Allpixels in that area are represented by the max luminance value the sensor can record. No opinion required here.

 

[GoGracefully]

Perhaps since there is so much fixation on the facts it may be wise to wax philosophic.

Consider this:
The argumentative defense of any proposition is inversely proportional to the truth contained.