[mattt]

Oh ya, back in the good ol' days you'd use those 2 or 3 stop filters for shooting wide open with film on a sunny day

[baro-nite]

When I look through it, it's about the same as looking through 2 CP filters

Are you sure it doesn't say ND1.0? At any rate, if you can see anything at all when looking through it, it certainly isn't a 10-stop filter.

[narual]

ND10 is about 3 stops. It's not the same as a 10 stop filter. That's an ND 1000 (technically 1024). It's like welding glass, except it's expensive.

A moderately cheap variable ND filter can get you 8-9 stops at its darkest setting while still being useful for other stuff. Makes it a lot easier to focus when you can focus, then twist tip it hits the maximum darkness, instead of having to focus then put a filter on.

[Michael Piziak]

ND8 is three stops - (2x2x2)

I shot the smoke stack above with ND400 (9stops) and ND8 stacked. Aperture was ƒ16 and shutter was 90 seconds on Bulb mode. I also covered the viewfinder as I've experienced light leaks there in the past with my Kr.

Here is another streaking cloud shot - overlooking the Detroit River

So an ND10 filter certainly isn't a 10 stop nd filter.
I wonder if this filter can at least do waterfalls

---

Last edited by Michael Piziak; 07-11-2014 at 01:18 PM.

[MPrince]

I like to use ND filters in conjunction with off camera flash for outdoor portraits.

[baro-nite]

I wonder if this filter can at least do waterfalls

Yes, easily. You don't need particularly long exposures to get pleasing results (I prefer exposures in the 1/6s to 1/2s range for closer shots, shorter still for longer shots).

[mikeSF]

[adwb]

Michael you might find this helpful as well
ND Filters Long Exposure Quick Reference Charts and Cheat Sheets | Fine Art Landscape and Travel Photography by Ilya Genkin

Also it's very detailed explanation about ND filters

"The Ultimate Guide To Neutral Density Filters" by Peter Hill | Redbubble

[interested_observer]

So an ND10 filter certainly isn't a 10 stop nd filter.
I wonder if this filter can at least do waterfalls

I don't see why not. It really depends on the light situation. You can use ISO 200 or 100 (extended range on the Kr) and that will add a stop - which translates into additional time / slower shutter speed. Most lenses are going to have their sweet spot at f8. Waterfalls are a form of landscapes, so go to f11 - that will provide both excellent depth of field and give you an additional stop. Take an image for comparison, and see what the scene meters at for a shutter speed. Then put on the filter and meter the scene again, which should produce a substantially slower shutter speed.

In this way, you are slowing everything down, to essentially produce the longest shutter speed that you can get. If there is still a lot of light, and you want an even slower shutter speed - longer exposure. Wait till later in the afternoon or early evening.

There isn't a single setting that will produce the best image. Its a matter of some experimentation to find the right combination.

You can also use the filter for ocean/beach scenes - lakes with the waves/water level going up and down. The filter softens all of this. You can try it out on city lights - traffic along freeway overpasses to get the light trails of the head/tail lights. Anything with motion and lights over time.

[mikeSF]

right, as long as the waterfall is not in direct sunlight, often a filter is not needed at all for a smooth water effect. This was late day shade with no filter, 3sec exposure:

[hoopsontoast]

Clouds and a waterfall:

[panoguy]

right, as long as the waterfall is not in direct sunlight, often a filter is not needed at all for a smooth water effect. This was late day shade with no filter, 3sec exposure:

Ummm... that's just a big ol' bag of gorgeousness, Mike!
Love how the scale is somewhat indeterminable, and you pumped up the shady colors just right.

I could stock up on ND filters and welder's glass and variable-this-and-that, but until you tell me where that is, buy us two plane tickets so you come along to tell me exactly what to do with my damn camera... I will stick with retouching my panoramas!

[interested_observer]

right, as long as the waterfall is not in direct sunlight, often a filter is not needed at all for a smooth water effect. This was late day shade with no filter, 3sec exposure:

Something tells me that its not in the San Francisco area. Wonderful image!!!

[mikeSF]

Ummm... that's just a big ol' bag of gorgeousness, Mike!
Love how the scale is somewhat indeterminable, and you pumped up the shady colors just right.

I could stock up on ND filters and welder's glass and variable-this-and-that, but until you tell me where that is, buy us two plane tickets so you come along to tell me exactly what to do with my damn camera... I will stick with retouching my panoramas!

oh thanks and glad you like that. This waterfall pic was shot before I got my 645D so now I want to return to re shoot it, so c'mon over!

Something tells me that its not in the San Francisco area. Wonderful image!!!

Mossbrae Falls in Dunsmuir, CA...google it and find tons of images. it is splendid though a little off the beaten path. These falls run off the south slope of Mt Shasta.

---------- Post added 07-12-2014 at 09:20 PM ----------

hey, can you see this video? let me know:

http://mikeoria.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v86/o728401435/c2/p1559969316-210.mp4

[panoguy]

oh thanks and glad you like that. This waterfall pic was shot before I got my 645D so now I want to return to re shoot it, so c'mon over!

I'll be right over... as soon as Ricoh Canada hands me a 645Z for the weekend!

hey, can you see this video? let me know:

http://mikeoria.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v86/o728401435/c2/p1559969316-210.mp4

Yep! Looks like a "target rich environment" for landscapes and even macros!