When to use ND filter for photo.

[Atkas]

Well, maybe a reread of your post will see that you implied I didn't understand ND at post #17. And I'm pretty sure at post #14 I did explain why I use them. I don't need to explain any further to you, nor will I. This was a fun interchange and I do look forward to our next...which I'm sure we will have

 

[Meta4]

Well, maybe a reread of your post will see that you implied I didn't understand ND at post #17.

Your post was what implied that you don't understand much about ND filters.
It was very odd for someone who claims to have been a working photographer.

I don't need to explain any further to you,

You'd have to explain first before you could do it further.
I'd be most interested to hear what benefit you think it's giving you.
But it sounds like you're not one to share information.

 

[Atkas]

As for being a "keyboard warrior", I've been engaged in photography much longer than you have and even taught it.
I understand a lot more about ND filters than you apparently.

Sorry it too you so long to learn

Time in task means nothing for knowledge learnt, not even close.

I apologise for taking the bait for so long, job done.

But honestly, please relax. You didn't like my opinion, this is just the internet, please don't waste anymore time being responsive. As I have mentioned, there's way worse real bad guys out there, that many of us have had to deal with. This isn't worth the time...for either of us.

All the best Meta4...

Troy

 

[Meta4]

You didn't like my opinion,

What I didn't like was that you had no explanation of why you would use ND filters for shooting stills.
All they can do is force a slower shutter speed.
So why do you choose to do that?
I can't imagine there is any advantage but can think of definite disadvantages.
I'd be most interested if you ever get around to sharing your arcane wisdom on the topic.

 

[Cosmo0g]

No worries mate, been a paid photographer for nearly 20 years, part time while serving in Defence against real bad guys, not keyboard warriors. But by your logic, I can't believe DJI and all those camera manufacturers have anything longer than 1/5 sec exposures. And to imply that I don't understand is that sinking into the realm of lowest forms of insult. You might as well start swearing at me.

OP, feel free to Google mate, you'll find a lot of similar information, not my opinion, that I hope assists in your decision making. What I gave was my opinion and real world personal examples. As other members have also offered...and been criticized.

For other posters like Cosmo0g above, that also use ND filters often, please don't take offence and do what works for you...even if you don't understand it like I apparently don't

Like you, I've been a paid photographer for nearly 20 years. My opinions are not built on theories, but on real world experience. I've taken and sold a whole lot of nature photos, and would never take one without a polarizing filter. I like the way it makes the sky bluer, the clouds pop, and the colors richer. And, it adds a layer of protection over my $2,400 lens. I'm new to drone photography, but the basics are the same. So, the reason I like a little ND built into the CPL to slow the shutter down 2-3 stops is because I believe I get a better image. Hold your finger in front of your face, then open and close your eyes as fast as you can, You'll notice that not much is in focus. Now, do it again, but open and shut your eyes slowly, and you'll notice much more is in focus. A camera lens works the exact same way. Not the best example since there's no clouds, but here's one with and one without the ND8/PL filter. One is 1/250 shutter speed, and the other is 1/80. Another reason I like to slow the shutter is because I shoot a lot of shots with a river in them. If the shutter is too fast it freezes the water and looks unnatural. With a slower shutter it still has some movement, and I've experienced no blur in the rest of the photo. So, I could be wrong, but that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Meta4]

Like you, I've been a paid photographer for nearly 20 years. My opinions are not built on theories, but on real world experience.

I've only got 40 something years of real world experience and I understand the basic principles too.

I've taken and sold a whole lot of nature photos, and would never take one without a polarizing filter.

So you like a polarising filter, that's a different matter - it cuts the light level but does other things to your image too.

Hold your finger in front of your face, then open and close your eyes as fast as you can, You'll notice that not much is in focus. Now, do it again, but open and shut your eyes slowly, and you'll notice much more is in focus. A camera lens works the exact same way.

I'm having trouble following that.
Are you suggesting that the filter somehow increases the area that's in focus?

 

[MS Coast]

The personal jabs, sniping, and resume reviews aren't appropriate here. I'm not going to participate in that.

But I do have a serious interest in the benefits of ND filters (alone, not in combination with a polarizer) for still photography.

Motion blur is obvious, when it's a desirable effect in the scene, as with moving water. The reduction in light is obvious, too and requires compensation by reduced shutter speed, increased ISO, and/or wider aperture.

Let's neglect aperture for now, since it's not adjustable on many of the drones used by people on this forum and not significant for much drone photography.

I can't think of a case where an increase in ISO is beneficial. And slower shutter speeds made sharp images more difficult. Those are two negatives associated with ND filters.

Setting aside scenes where we want motion blur, what benefits do ND filters offer?

Increased opportunities for creativity were mentioned. How/what?

I'm interested in opinions, as long as they don't clash with the realities of photography. But, please go further than "I like it more." and explain what it is that's better about an image shot with an ND filter.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Keeping in mind this is posted in the Mavic 3 section . . . the variable aperture F2.8 - 11 the M3 has available does give that drone a lot more flexibility to run without ND filters anyway, and / or for slow shutter effects like water blur, an ND filter may not need to be as high / strong stop filter (or used at all) as for most other DJI consumer drones.

As mentioned above drone photography in particular, with the inevitable movement of the camera with vibration, minor wind shifting, really suits the fastest shutter speed possible for crisper images.
Really, the only exception is for those smooth waterfall / tidal movement shots, blurred night vehicle taillight type creative shots, etc.

I prefer running an MC-UV filter for daytime photography, more as a form of lens protection / keep dust etc off the lens, or in very rare cases a C-PL (which can be a pain on an M1P for sure).
Generally I video almost all my time aloft, and of course benefit greatly from using an appropriate ND filter for conditions.

 

[VinceEdward]

I seem to get mixed information. Some videos on YT indicate it is merely for motion blur in video. I am more of a photo imager. Is there a good use for my stock ND filters that came in the Fly More for the Mavic 3? Also any recommendations for the Freewiel that have polarizers? I dread buying them because I already paid for the ND filters in my Fly more package but they are polarized.

THANK YOU !!!

ND filters are for cutting the amount of light hitting the sensor without having to increase your shutter speed or close down your aperture which may be undesirable for a number of reasons. In stills photography you may not want to or be able to increase shutter speed for a number of reasons including a desire for some blur to show movement or more commonly for my personal photography needs because my cameras’ flash sync speed is 1/250.

You could stop down your lens by closing down your aperture, but that would increase your depth of field which may not be desirable depending on your intended look. So using an ND filter allows you to block stops of light without changing your camera settings.

In video the general guidance is to keep your shutter speed at 1/2xframe rate to retain a more natural motion blur. If the shutter speed is too fast everything looks bizarrely crisp though it can be used to creative effect. If you’re shooting 24fps or 60fps that means 1/50 or 1/120. On a bright day those are pretty slow shutter speeds even with an aperture of f8 so it forces you to choose between adjusting settings for a proper exposure by increasing shutter speed or maintaining natural looking movement. Enter ND filters, which allow you reduce exposure without sacrificing the shutter speed you need to match the 180 degree shutter rule. So a 5 stop ND can get you from 1/50 to the equivalent of 1/1600, which is more appropriate on a sunny day.

TL;DR: ND filters offer a way to reduce exposure in bright scenes without having to manipulate exposure settings and incurring the secondary effects of those settings, i.e., motion blur or DOF.

 

[VinceEdward]

The personal jabs, sniping, and resume reviews aren't appropriate here. I'm not going to participate in that.

But I do have a serious interest in the benefits of ND filters (alone, not in combination with a polarizer) for still photography.

Motion blur is obvious, when it's a desirable effect in the scene, as with moving water. The reduction in light is obvious, too and requires compensation by reduced shutter speed, increased ISO, and/or wider aperture.

Let's neglect aperture for now, since it's not adjustable on many of the drones used by people on this forum and not significant for much drone photography.

I can't think of a case where an increase in ISO is beneficial. And slower shutter speeds made sharp images more difficult. Those are two negatives associated with ND filters.

Setting aside scenes where we want motion blur, what benefits do ND filters offer?

Increased opportunities for creativity were mentioned. How/what?

I'm interested in opinions, as long as they don't clash with the realities of photography. But, please go further than "I like it more." and explain what it is that's better about an image shot with an ND filter.

Long exposure. I’m new to drone photography so don’t know how well you can achieve that with a drone in the air, but assuming the aircraft/gimbal is stable enough in the air you can use ND filters to allow a long enough exposure time to capture movement (clouds, water) without overexposing the image.

 

[MS Coast]

Long exposure. I’m new to drone photography so don’t know how well you can achieve that with a drone in the air, but assuming the aircraft/gimbal is stable enough in the air you can use ND filters to allow a long enough exposure time to capture movement (clouds, water) without overexposing the image.

Thanks. I definitely agree with you about using them to achieve slower shutter speeds and blur moving subjects. I've been astonished at how stable drones are in relatively still air and what good images are possible with slower shutter speeds in low light situations.

I was wondering about other benefits (beyond blurring motion) from ND filters that others see for still photography.

 

[VinceEdward]

Thanks. I definitely agree with you about using them to achieve slower shutter speeds and blur moving subjects. I've been astonished at how stable drones are in relatively still air and what good images are possible with slower shutter speeds in low light situations.

I was wondering about other benefits (beyond blurring motion) from ND filters that others see for still photography.

I replied to someone else above with more detail. The primary benefits for me in still photography are maintaining a shallow depth of field when using flash outdoors.

If I want shallow DOF during daylight, I might need to be at f1.8 and 1/4000 ISO100. I need flash on my subject to balance the exposure between them and the background, but most cameras sync somewhere between 1/160 and 1/250. My max sync speed for flash is 1/250 so an ND16 gets me to an equivalent of 1/4000 for a proper exposure in the scene without having to stop down past 1.8. Then I can adjust flash power and distance.

Also in studio without any ambient if you want a shallow DOF, sometimes a strobe is simply too powerful even on its lowest setting, so an ND will help with that.

There may be other good uses and graduated NDs obviously have more specific uses, but that’s how I make use of my NDs.

 

[MS Coast]

I replied to someone else above with more detail. The primary benefits for me in still photography are maintaining a shallow depth of field when using flash outdoors.

If I want shallow DOF during daylight, I might need to be at f1.8 and 1/4000 ISO100. I need flash on my subject to balance the exposure between them and the background, but most cameras sync somewhere between 1/160 and 1/250. My max sync speed for flash is 1/250 so an ND16 gets me to an equivalent of 1/4000 for a proper exposure in the scene without having to stop down past 1.8. Then I can adjust flash power and distance.

Also in studio without any ambient if you want a shallow DOF, sometimes a strobe is simply too powerful even on its lowest setting, so an ND will help with that.

There may be other good uses and graduated NDs obviously have more specific uses, but that’s how I make use of my NDs.

Agreed. I should have been more specific about being interested in ND filter benefits for drone still photography.

 

[VinceEdward]

Agreed. I should have been more specific about being interested in ND filter benefits for drone still photography.

No, we’re on a drone forum. That makes sense. I just kind of forgot where I was and started spouting off. Sorry!

 

[Meta4]

I was wondering about other benefits (beyond blurring motion) from ND filters that others see for still photography.

Don't be distracted by some who (despite claiming photographic experience) just don't understand what ND filters really do.
As I explained earlier in the thread, unless you have a particular reason to want to force a slower shutter speed, there is no reason to use, or benefit to be gained by using ND filters for shooting stills with a drone.

I replied to someone else above with more detail. The primary benefits for me in still photography are maintaining a shallow depth of field when using flash outdoors.

That's all very well with your SLR on the ground, but you won't be using flash with the drone, so that's not relevant and ...
The lens on the drone has so much depth of field at any aperture, that you cannot achieve shallow DoF by stopping down.
btw .. DJI drones are capable of producing quite good images with exposures up to around 2 seconds in still air, and even longer if you are lucky.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Long exposure . . . don’t know how well you can achieve that with a drone in the air

Generally wind effects, the minor vibrations and adjustments of the drone autonomous flight (hovering) do move the gimbal / camera very slightly.
Different drones have different levels of ability to cope with wind and vibration factors too I guess.

It's probably more about picking nice still air to shoot stills with longer shutter speed, and then a little bit of luck, perhaps shooting the same waterfall etc several times and picking the best result.

Many here get lucky with their shots, and post some nice water shots etc.

 

[Wade L.]

ND filters are for cutting the amount of light hitting the sensor without having to increase your shutter speed or close down your aperture which may be undesirable for a number of reasons. In stills photography you may not want to or be able to increase shutter speed for a number of reasons including a desire for some blur to show movement or more commonly for my personal photography needs because my cameras’ flash sync speed is 1/250.

You could stop down your lens by closing down your aperture, but that would increase your depth of field which may not be desirable depending on your intended look. So using an ND filter allows you to block stops of light without changing your camera settings.

In video the general guidance is to keep your shutter speed at 1/2xframe rate to retain a more natural motion blur. If the shutter speed is too fast everything looks bizarrely crisp though it can be used to creative effect. If you’re shooting 24fps or 60fps that means 1/50 or 1/120. On a bright day those are pretty slow shutter speeds even with an aperture of f8 so it forces you to choose between adjusting settings for a proper exposure by increasing shutter speed or maintaining natural looking movement. Enter ND filters, which allow you reduce exposure without sacrificing the shutter speed you need to match the 180 degree shutter rule. So a 5 stop ND can get you from 1/50 to the equivalent of 1/1600, which is more appropriate on a sunny day.

TL;DR: ND filters offer a way to reduce exposure in bright scenes without having to manipulate exposure settings and incurring the secondary effects of those settings, i.e., motion blur or DOF.

THANK YOU. What a great explanation. There are obviously a lot of opinions around ND filters, and that‘s great. I believe there’s something that can be taken from every opinion. But this one gives me that flash bulb moment, and now I get it. Well done.

 

[Meta4]

There are obviously a lot of opinions around ND filters, and that‘s great. I believe there’s something that can be taken from every opinion.

Opinions aren't worth anything when they aren't based on facts.