I've only got an ND3, but with that the best results have definitely been in low light. I'm not sure that you will get the result you're after in broad daylight?

Tugboat uses a ten stopper with good effect - he will have better advice than me.

Oh - and those look like they may have needed an ND grad to balance the sky and water?

Eeek you got a cheapie from trademe right? I got one of them and found the magenta cast it gave the images too difficult to remove and gave up on it after one use.
It looks to me like you're trying to shoot scenes that are too bright for the ND8. Try some shaded areas and creeks or at dawn/dusk to get better 'soft water' results because that will allow you to get the longer shutter speeds without the blown out effect you're getting. Also, the images look very flat and lacking in contrast. I feel that this is also due to the cheap filter and might be difficult to make up for unless you're good with photoshop/lightroom

ShortStuff wrote:Eeek you got a cheapie from trademe right?

Guilty as charged (no money left in the kitty after blowing my budget on my new camera!)

Re the ND Grad filter, Conners, I was thinking of getting one for the sunset snaps

Thanks for your feedback guys!

They're on the money, Avantibill. I use a Lee Big Stopper, and bright daylight is too much to run long exposures. Also, you probably want to be opening it up to f8 or wider to get the best out of your lens (requiring even darker scenes to get the long exposures). Have another try at dusk and chimp it until you get it looking about right.

...and here's an explanation of why diffraction kicks in to limit the sharpness you can achieve at smaller apertures (you are wanting the softness to come from movement, not softness of the whole image, as is likely to happen for many lenses at f22):
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/diffraction.htm

If you are set on your slowest ISO, have your lens stopped down to the smallest aperture that does not have excessive diffraction (f8 - f11), and have your ND filter in place, you just need a setting where highlight clipping is at an acceptable level at the slow shutter speeds you need to achieve the motion blur you are seeking. If your camera has a histogram, or displays highlight clipping on its lcd, you can take a shot that looks over-exposed, but check that it has not blown out too much, and still recover it in the software you use for post-processing (Note: In some images, it may be fine to have extensive highlight clipping).

The shutter speed you need will depend on how much movement there is, and how you want to capture it. Chimp the images to get it to where you are getting the effects you want within the constraints you want (composition, highlight clipping and sharpness), without worrying too much about how the chimped exposure looks. As long as the data is there (not too much clipping), you can bring the exposure back down in post-processing to make the image viewable.

I would suggest getting used to the ND filter and what it takes to produce the images you are after before adding a ND grad filter on top of it. Although that would help pull the exposure down a bit, you should be able to get close to what you are after from the ND filter first. Try to get the simplest set-up working before adding more modifying complications.

I hope that babble makes sense. Despite these suggestions, you may achieve images you really like by breaking all of these 'rules'. The greatest thing of the digital age is how easy / cheap it is to experiment - just try to be a little systematic so that you can remember what got you the results you like. Most of all, take photo's - It's hard to make a good image out of a shot that was never taken.

A simple rule of thumb in regards to exposure time, is that it will double for every stop of filter (assuming of course that sensitivity and aperture remain constant). So if your meter is suggesting 1/200 with no filters attached, the addition of a 3-stop ND8 will bring the exposure time down to 1/25.

Basic equation is to take the exposure time with no filters and to multiply by the ND#.

For example: if no filter meters at 1/200 and you add an ND8 then 0.005 x 8 = 0.04 (1/25).
Or if you added a 10-stop ND1024 then 0.005 x 1024 = 5.12secs. Although it is simpler to just multiply by 1,000 if working with a 10-stop.

Ah yes - I knew I was confused. Mine is an ND8 (3 stop)....

Thanks Eoin and tugboat. it is almost rocket science. Thank goodness it is the digital age, as I would would hate to using 35mm film, paying for each print and not seeing the results instantly (I remember when the Polaroid instant photos was a luxury to see the results) straight away!)

Here is a pic I took with my point and shoot 5 megapixel Kodak circa 2005...

Quick one from this morning.


Sumner Dawn by robjdickinson, on Flickr

That's beautiful, Rob. Was it a vertical stitch on the TS-E?

Another dragonfly...

EoinC wrote:That's beautiful, Rob. Was it a vertical stitch on the TS-E?

Yep. Loving that part of the lens!

Having reduced my lens count, I was planning on picking up a Zeiss ZE21, but now I'm leaning towards the TS-E 24 II. I've always craved for a tilt-shift, and it strikes me as the most beautifulest of the 17 / 24 / 45 / 90 offerings. You've come up with some great compositions with your knob twirling, Rob, and I'm looking forward to that never-ending learning curve - bring on the hills!

2 sea eagles dropped by for breakfast this morning, followed by a couple of paddlers (crappy pp, but I was in a rush)...