Variable ND filters

[Vieri]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My new push-on holder arrived on Friday. Good decision to buy one, methinks.

 

Thanks for the guidance.

 

Gary

 

Sure thing Gary, I am glad my article was helpful  

 

Best,

 

Vieri

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Vieri]

Negatives offer a good dynamic range and it's almost impossible to blow out the highlights, which makes GND less needed. I shoot 4x5 too, both negative B&W and color E6 and with the E6 I use GNDs because the dynamic range is limited and because E6 files are not always easy to deal with in post processing and having the exposure right and close to perfection in camera makes a difference. 

 

With respect to the S, I agree with Vieri. I too strongly prefer to have the file as much as possible good out of the camera than to make it work in post-processing. The digital file is less stressed if the light is balanced out without having to recover a lot of shadows or highlights at risk of over processing the image. The camera also records more information with a GND that you can play with afterwards.  

 

I generally have a shot without filters for any of the pictures where I end up using filters. That's because I always start without filters to find the right exposure, composition etc.. I then check with the spot meter the difference in brightness between sky and ground and if it is more than 2 stops I then use a GND to see whether I can get the light more balanced. Afterwards in post processing you can compare the two files and determined what's best. Generally in those situations the one with the GNDs lead to a better final image and print. 

 

I personally don't like HDR and I would use it only in extreme light situations. If you're in the field and you're working hard because of that particular light situation you're facing, then it's good to have a plan B and a plan C and so it's worth having a HDR image too. But generally, even in those situations the HDR file is not the one that I end up liking the most. 

 

My two cents. 

 

Lorenzo, I have never used 4x5 film, but I used MF for a long time, and I completely agree with you on your exposure considerations. B&W film has the most latitude, of course, especially if developed in a developer such as 510 Pyro; colour negatives are OK, and E6 is the worse. With digital, my rationale for using filters is to get the flattest exposure possible, so to speak; adding contrast to a flat exposure is very easy, taking it out from too contrasty an image much less so and it introduces problems pretty much all the time, despite the shadow latitude of modern digital cameras. Latitude which, by the way, is still there even if you use GND filters. I, too, aways do also a bracketed shot just in case, but end up never using it for HDR; I generally choose one to work on, and only with extremely difficult exposures I use two images, not to do HDR with any software but to use a portion of one to "fix" a portion of the other, so to speak.

 

Best,

 

Vieri

[djmay]

Negatives offer a good dynamic range and it's almost impossible to blow out the highlights, which makes GND less needed. I shoot 4x5 too, both negative B&W and color E6 and with the E6 I use GNDs because the dynamic range is limited and because E6 files are not always easy to deal with in post processing and having the exposure right and close to perfection in camera makes a difference.

 

With respect to the S, I agree with Vieri. I too strongly prefer to have the file as much as possible good out of the camera than to make it work in post-processing. The digital file is less stressed if the light is balanced out without having to recover a lot of shadows or highlights at risk of over processing the image. The camera also records more information with a GND that you can play with afterwards.

 

I generally have a shot without filters for any of the pictures where I end up using filters. That's because I always start without filters to find the right exposure, composition etc.. I then check with the spot meter the difference in brightness between sky and ground and if it is more than 2 stops I then use a GND to see whether I can get the light more balanced. Afterwards in post processing you can compare the two files and determined what's best. Generally in those situations the one with the GNDs lead to a better final image and print.

 

I personally don't like HDR and I would use it only in extreme light situations. If you're in the field and you're working hard because of that particular light situation you're facing, then it's good to have a plan B and a plan C and so it's worth having a HDR image too. But generally, even in those situations the HDR file is not the one that I end up liking the most.

 

My two cents.

I will have to do some testing to compare. I do not frequently shoot scenes where there is a "convenient" horizon.

 

Jesse

 

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850L using Tapatalk

[LorenzoLandini]

I will have to do some testing to compare. I do not frequently shoot scenes where there is a "convenient" horizon.

 

Jesse

 

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850L using Tapatalk

 

that's the reason why there are soft edge ND filters.... so that one can use filters even without a convenient horizon.. 

[djmay]

that's the reason why there are soft edge ND filters.... so that one can use filters even without a convenient horizon.. 

This is what I mean by horizons that are not convenient.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[LorenzoLandini]

This is what I mean by horizons that are not convenient.

Lowres-1006628-2. 

 

In that specific case there is probably no ND that can be used. In fact, there is no horizon whatsoever in that picture for what matters. You need to have some horizon to work with. However, there are other architectural/cityscape images where a GND can be used if it has a soft edge. 

 

Going back to your picture - for illustrative purposes - you still has a few stops difference between the upper portion of the left side of the street (together with the tower in the center) and the wall on the right. The wall on the right has probably a one-stop difference between top and bottom. I would have tried a GND diagonally and see whether that would have improved the light balance if that was your intent. You would end up with the bottom right portion probably a bit too dark, perhaps within one stop from the bottom left side. That being said, your picture is overall already balanced with a good contrast and the sky is not clipped at all and it is actually pretty dark already and with texture. Perhaps the only clip of the highlights are the windows of the upper floors on the building on the left side. 

 

Austria? 

 

Cheers

[djmay]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In that specific case there is probably no ND that can be used. In fact, there is no horizon whatsoever in that picture for what matters. You need to have some horizon to work with. However, there are other architectural/cityscape images where a GND can be used if it has a soft edge. 

 

Going back to your picture - for illustrative purposes - you still has a few stops difference between the upper portion of the left side of the street (together with the tower in the center) and the wall on the right. The wall on the right has probably a one-stop difference between top and bottom. I would have tried a GND diagonally and see whether that would have improved the light balance if that was your intent. You would end up with the bottom right portion probably a bit too dark, perhaps within one stop from the bottom left side. That being said, your picture is overall already balanced with a good contrast and the sky is not clipped at all and it is actually pretty dark already and with texture. Perhaps the only clip of the highlights are the windows of the upper floors on the building on the left side. 

 

Austria? 

 

Cheers

Yes, it is Austria. Salzburg to be specific.

 

This image is an example of a frequent situation. With my view camera and film, I could handle the dynamic range easily. The S is quite good too. The bright wall is actually not clipped; that is the result of a low resolution file. I see your point about a diagonal grad. I also have yet to do an HDR version, which I anticipated with three shots one stop apart.

 

A few days before this shot, I made several test shots in the mountains for the purpose of comparing dynamic range image quality. One was in harsh light, shooting in the direction of the high sun. I plan to compare a single shot with no grad, a shot with grad and HDR (no grad).

 

Jesse

[LorenzoLandini]

Yes, it is Austria. Salzburg to be specific.

 

This image is an example of a frequent situation. With my view camera and film, I could handle the dynamic range easily. The S is quite good too. The bright wall is actually not clipped; that is the result of a low resolution file. I see your point about a diagonal grad. I also have yet to do an HDR version, which I anticipated with three shots one stop apart.

 

A few days before this shot, I made several test shots in the mountains for the purpose of comparing dynamic range image quality. One was in harsh light, shooting in the direction of the high sun. I plan to compare a single shot with no grad, a shot with grad and HDR (no grad).

 

Jesse

 

I miss Europe... 

 

I found that Leica S sensor has a decent dynamic range to retrieve details from the shadows leading to better results without HDR, which I did try for comparison purposes without being particularly impressed. In my experience shooting both with a 4x5 view camera and the Leica S as you do, it is indeed quite different what you would do in the same situation in terms of exposure, particularly if you shoot B&W negatives. Digital is more similar to shooting E6 with a narrower dynamic range and an attention to the highlight. E6 are worse though because in post processing it is more challenging to retrieve details in the shadows, the Leica S files are more forgiving providing a greater latitude. 

 

Cheers