Graduated ND filters and the M8?

[Gentleman Villain]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just wondering; if anyone around here has experience using graduated neutral density filters with the M8?

 

I understand that the rangefinder platform is not ideal for using these types of filters. But there's gotta be some people around that have figured out a system to it that works...just wondering what are the thoughts? What size filters work best? 3x3, 4x4 etc. Are there any recommended filter holders? Any filter combinations that work well with certain lenses? Any problems with flare or vignetting on certain lenses? How much of the viewfinder do square filters block?

 

Thanks for any info

[perb]

Just wondering; if anyone around here has experience using graduated neutral density filters with the M8?

 

Thanks for any info

 

I vaguely remembered seeing something about this, so I did a search and found the thread below:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/60655-just-got-my-lee-rf75-filter.html

 

Regards

Per

[Advertisement]

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

[Gentleman Villain]

Thanks for the link...The RF75 seems to be the right filter holder. It should cover up to 67mm and fit the TriElmar 16-18-21. BH special orders them for $180:

LEE Filters | RF75 Rangefinder Filter Holder System | RF75HOLD

 

That filter holder appears to be exactly what I'm looking for...The only problem is putting Lee filters in front of Leica glass. I'd rather use a filter with with high quality glass like schott or something

 

Lee's filter holder is 75mm x 90mm

 

B+W makes a graduated neutral density schott glass filter in 75mm x 128mm....I wonder if that would work?

[andybarton]

All the landscape photographers in all the mags who love these things seem to use Lee. They are a decent quality, if this is what you want. Do Schott do a similar system?

[Gentleman Villain]

...if Lee is the only game in town then I'd be willing to give it a try...It might be worth the compromise in IQ just to shoot in certain lighting conditions that can only be dealt with by graduated ND.

 

But I'd rather have good glass

[gwelland]

Having used LEE filters for many many years on everything from LF, MF, plus MF digital and DSLR I can pretty much state that you will never see any image degradation through the use of these filters for GND. The only problems I've ever had have been my own ineptitude with the filter transition sometimes ...

 

They have absolutely minimal impact on your captured images and they are the system of choice for most large format photographers for decades. If you can see image degradation then it's not the filter! Using the correct filter holders I've never run into reflection problems and the filters are over-sized so that you can position them easily - the RF75 looks very similar. These are very well made, color neutral GND's and so long as you keep them clean and scratch free they will last a long time and be essentially optically transparent.

 

With an outfit like this glass filters end up being a liability vs advantage. I've had the square glass polarizer's crack before in their storage wallet. I've never had an acrylic one break.

 

As a mainly landscape shooter I looked at the RF75 system myself but concluded it's a pretty expensive system! If you are shooting handheld then obviously there's a lot of benefit but when shooting from the tripod I concluded that I'd stick to bracketing and digitally combining the exposures. That said, getting it right in camera is definitely the right way to do it. Bear in mind though that you'll have to estimate the grad position even with this system and it's tough to gauge whether it's correct on the LCD.

 

Let us know how you get on with the system though!

[ndjambrose]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...the only problem is putting Lee filters in front of Leica glass. I'd rather use a filter with with high quality glass like schott or something...

 

Lee filters are excellent quality. I've used them extensively on medium format for years. For GND filters they're about the best you can get.

[Gentleman Villain]

Thanks everybody - I'd be willing to give them a try

[chris_tribble]

Consider Lightroom - the Graduated Filter tool is worth it's weight in gold... Consider the attached. Version 1, original - shooting direct into the sun with a view to not blowing everything. Second with LR graduated filters applied. Works for me (and in the conditions I wasn't too keen on trying to screw filters on and off...)

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!

[Photoskeptic]

Chris, with all due respect, the LR filter ruined your shot! For me, the shot was fine just the way you shot it.

Regards, John

[Gentleman Villain]

gotta agree with photoskeptic

 

The original shot is very nice on it's own

[tashley]

I agree with Chris in principle. I have a bag load of Lee filters and they're great quality, as are the mounts and adaptors and so on. I used them when I was shooting 4x5 film but now I have a P45+ back I have abandoned them with relish. Photo mags are all full of 'Top Gear' style horrid shots with nasty tobacco skies and graduations in the wrong places. I prefer my own brand of overcooked drama achieved in LR, where you can vary the angle, position and if you MUST, the colour of the graduation. You can also combine it with graduated saturation, contrast, clarity, whatever, and then if you get it wrong you can use other tools to paint it subtly away.

 

With the proviso that the camera must be capable of enough DR to hold detail in the areas you want to graduate darker, I much much much prefer the results. And you are never committed to them for good, as you are with a filter on the lens!

 

Here's a rather extreme example...

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!

[tashley]

And here's what the RAW file looked like with no jiggling....

 

 

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!

[perb]

...The only problem is putting Lee filters in front of Leica glass

 

Well, not only can you buy glass, but they even come with UV/IR absorbtion for your Leica M8:

 

"Also available for the RF75 are the exciting ProGlass Neutral Density Filters. These filters are glass neutral density standard filters that absorb visible, UV and IR radiation making them ideal for digital sensors as well as giving a crisp, punchy result on film."

 

The above quote was taken from:

 

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/images/pages/RF%20Brochure.pdf

 

 

Actually, for many years now astronomers have abandoned glass filters for mylar and similar. After all, once you have optically clear material, the important thing is to minimize refraction. The best I know is this:

 

Baader Planetarium AstroSolar™ Safety Film

 

Regards

Per

[Gentleman Villain]

Photo mags are all full of 'Top Gear' style horrid shots with nasty tobacco skies and graduations in the wrong places.

 

I certainly agree with you about that

 

Unfortunately, I'm still too much of a purist to completely abandon filters over the lens for PP. Digital just don't look the same IMHO

 

props for the venice gallery...it's one of the reasons I became interested in Leica

 

Well, not only can you buy glass, but they even come with UV/IR absorbtion for your Leica M8:

Per

 

Cool - Thanks very much for pointing that out

[chris_tribble]

Chris, with all due respect, the LR filter ruined your shot! For me, the shot was fine just the way you shot it.

Regards, John

 

WOOPS - ladies and gentleman - to give both LR and my own skills some credit - the FIRST shot was with LR graduated filter applied - the second one was the original!

 

That'll teach me to check my posts! LR Graduated Filter is very useful IMHO (as are the Brush filters - there was an ugly reflection in the original version which it was possible to eliminate in the final cut.

 

Best!

[ChrisC]

.... I'm still too much of a purist to completely abandon filters over the lens........

 

This thread worries me.

 

The almost exclusive use of graduated filters with film was for transparency work which, because of it's inherent contrast could give [e.g.] unforgivingly bright skies when mid-ground subject matter was well exposed. Transparency film was primarily a medium designed for print [off-set] reproduction, I always considered it an expedient though extremely compromised medium which I had to use but with distaste [filters and all], but when I had choice [such as in my personal work] I always chose negative film for it's superior image finishing in darkroom printing. Using a grad to control [e.g.] sky effects is a crude and blunt instrument when there are vastly superior tools at ones disposal to do a better job; i.e. craftsmanship darkroom printing of negative film, or Photoshop tools with digital.

 

I associate graduated filters with dark horizons and the crude tell-tale dark band across the near horizon - it's a horrible low standard look. Digital, with good exposure, has made it so much easier to do a far better job in post production than with the now redundant grads [especially with rangefinder cameras]. Photoshop layering and masking techniques combined with controllable use of the Grad Tool is a huge step forward for image finishing compared to the crude palette we had available with transparency film and Graduated Filters. I'd suggest forgetting the anachronistic use of grad's in favour of choosing the superior Photoshop tools for image control.

 

.................Chris

[petewayne]

My take on this is if you learn how to use the filter system on camera then you will minimise the time required for PP which is a big plus if you intend to use the images commercially ie less time behind the computer more time in the field .

 

Ultimately a filter system is another tool......learn how to use it well and your images will not detract; use it badly and it will ruin the image; the same applies to PP as there are a lot of images posted across the internet where the degree of PP goes well beyond my personal tastes........I guess it is "horses for courses"

[Gentleman Villain]

Good points Chris...but I've already been down that route. I was an early adapter to digital and didn't hesitate to fork over $20,000 for the DCS520 back in the late 90s when it was one of the first viable DSLRs for commercial work. Nothing intimidates me about PP, but I've noticed (over time) that there are still plenty of reasons to do things the old fashioned way. For example, I'm a huge fan of warming filters as opposed to digital warming. I like how the light reacts to the filter before it hits the lens and then covers the subject naturally. There is a chemistry that happens between the light and the physical filter over the lens that doesn't exist in digital warming in PP. I see a similar effect in many graduated neutral density photographs. Of course, there are plenty of wannabes that have abused the graduated ND look but there are just as many whom have abused the digital techniques too (especially HDR). Tone mapping and other forms of PP are still great techniques for certain subjects. But sometimes, a good old fashioned graduated ND is perfect for job....especially for a landscape work that contains a subject that is not perfectly motionless (like human beings or foliage blowing gently on a breezy day) Unfortunately, I often find that the majority of photographic abuses that occur in the current age are too often coming from students of the digital school.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tashley]

This thread worries me.

 

The almost exclusive use of graduated filters with film was for transparency work which, because of it's inherent contrast could give [e.g.] unforgivingly bright skies when mid-ground subject matter was well exposed. Transparency film was primarily a medium designed for print [off-set] reproduction, I always considered it an expedient though extremely compromised medium which I had to use but with distaste [filters and all], but when I had choice [such as in my personal work] I always chose negative film for it's superior image finishing in darkroom printing. Using a grad to control [e.g.] sky effects is a crude and blunt instrument when there are vastly superior tools at ones disposal to do a better job; i.e. craftsmanship darkroom printing of negative film, or Photoshop tools with digital.

 

I associate graduated filters with dark horizons and the crude tell-tale dark band across the near horizon - it's a horrible low standard look. Digital, with good exposure, has made it so much easier to do a far better job in post production than with the now redundant grads [especially with rangefinder cameras]. Photoshop layering and masking techniques combined with controllable use of the Grad Tool is a huge step forward for image finishing compared to the crude palette we had available with transparency film and Graduated Filters. I'd suggest forgetting the anachronistic use of grad's in favour of choosing the superior Photoshop tools for image control.

 

.................Chris

 

Well said Chris - I really don't see grad filters on the lens as 'purist' at all. It's the least pure and most compromised way of doing it.