Nature Capturing the Flow with ND Filter Simulation

coolmast · 11-27-2014, 02:02 PM - **1 Like**

I just recently got my first DSLR - a K-3. The image below was taken near Garching (Germany, Munich). I used the multi-exposure feature (averaging) to simulate a ND filter (as I do not own one yet) - 10(?) images each with 1/20s. I do not remember which aperture I used - should be something like f/8.
I used an old 50mm/1.4 Pentacon lens. I really like this lens (mainly because I was able to fix the broken aperture by myself). It's MF and manual aperture only but at the moment (at least from f/2.8 onwards) respecting the bokeh it clearly outperforms the 18-55 kit lens I got. I do not want to judge over it's sharpness because it could be me not getting the right point.

However, what do you think about it? I especially do not like the insects which were flying in the middle of the image but obviously I couldn't prevent them from doing so. Any additional ideas how my trial of a ND filter simulation could even get better? What else could be improved?

AlexBW · 11-27-2014, 05:16 PM

I think it looks nice, and a pretty neat trick that I had never read about. I don't own a ND filter, so will give this a go myself!
I do think the photo lacks some details in the shadows, especially the large rock on the left, but this could be a JPEG conversion issue (or my poor laptop screen).
Was the averaging done on your computer or in-camera?

Na Horuk · 11-27-2014, 06:25 PM

Well overall the photo looks fairly good, even if discerning eyes could notice the difference between a blend and ND filter. So youre definitely on the right track!

**jheu02** · 11-27-2014, 09:11 PM

Having recently gotten a set of ND filters, the main difference I see is there's still too much fine detail in the water. Your shutter speed still captured drops vs. the smooth effect created by a slower shutter. You've managed some of it, but you still need a slower shutter speed. If you have a polarizing filter, that will cut some light entering, as will going to f/16, 22, or higher. No need to worry about diffraction as you're trying for the motion blur vs maximum resolution. Neat effort and idea though.

gildedfool · 11-27-2014, 09:43 PM

I shot this a couple of days ago with the 18-55mm kit lens on a K50. EXIF says it was at 50mm f22 for 1.2 seconds with no filters. Only a slight touchup (highlights, straightening, cropping out unwanted bits, and some minor vibrance boosting and saturation clipping) in Lightroom.

I own a ND filter, I think it's a 6-stop, adjustable job from Tiffen or one of the other cheap vendors. It is ok, but I have yet to yield any results that I like. Not saying that ND filters couldn't or don't have anything to offer, I don't think I could say that at any rate as I've not much experience with them. I have taken to tightening up the aperture, setting up a tripod or other sturdy surface, adjusting ISO for the conditions, and going from there- usually in Bulb mode. I've had more success with this method than any I tried with my cheapo ND filter.

Multiple exposure stacking to fake the "ND look" has always seemed like too much work for minimal payoff. Your mileage, as always, may vary.

coolmast · 11-28-2014, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by AlexBW

Was the averaging done on your computer or in-camera?

The photo is actually right out of camera. I was simply too lazy to average 20 images (I think I got this wrong in my first post - should have been 20) by hand so I used the in-camera possibilities. Tripod + intervall method (2s interval) to minimize shake from the shutter so that the images will be well aligned.
I actually wanted to combine even more images but unfortunately I was running out of time and the light changed that much that it would not have been interesting at all.

**jheu02** · 11-28-2014, 03:32 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by gildedfool

I own a ND filter, I think it's a 6-stop, adjustable job from Tiffen or one of the other cheap vendors. It is ok, but I have yet to yield any results that I like. Not saying that ND filters couldn't or don't have anything to offer, I don't think I could say that at any rate as I've not much experience with them. I have taken to tightening up the aperture, setting up a tripod or other sturdy surface, adjusting ISO for the conditions, and going from there- usually in Bulb mode. I've had more success with this method than any I tried with my cheapo ND filter.

Here's what they can do:

carpents · 11-28-2014, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by gildedfool

I shot this a couple of days ago with the 18-55mm kit lens on a K50. EXIF says it was at 50mm f22 for 1.2 seconds with no filters. Only a slight touchup (highlights, straightening, cropping out unwanted bits, and some minor vibrance boosting and saturation clipping) in Lightroom.

f/22 is going to soften up everything a bit - maybe within your tolerance, or maybe not. Also, with that 6-stop ND filter, you could have taken this at f/11 (sharper) for a longer time, smoothing out the waves in the background. They're pretty easy to use!

gildedfool · 11-28-2014, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by jheu02

Here's what they can do:

Hey, Rainbow Falls! That's just up the street from here, love that place! Nice shots, also. Might have to dust my old ND filter off and see what I can't do...

---------- Post added 11-28-14 at 13:23 ----------

Originally posted by carpents

f/22 is going to soften up everything a bit - maybe within your tolerance, or maybe not. Also, with that 6-stop ND filter, you could have taken this at f/11 (sharper) for a longer time, smoothing out the waves in the background. They're pretty easy to use!

I like it, will have to try it out.

nomadkng · 12-01-2014, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by gildedfool

.. I own a ND filter, I think it's a 6-stop, adjustable job from Tiffen or one of the other cheap vendors. It is ok, but I have yet to yield any results that I like....my cheapo ND filter...

If cheap, inexpensive or any other variation of those words applies to your filter, UV/CPL/ND or other you won't get results, period. I don't like the variable filters to begin with, add "cheap" to the equation and they are better off as coasters.

Get a "real" ND, spend the $100 (depending on size) for a 3 stop-ish one and find out what they can really do. Then spend another $300 on a Cokin system, get a set of Graduated ND filters and see what they can do. My portfolio is filled with ND and GND images and trust me, no single filter I use is under $100. It feels as if I've spent almost as much in filters as I have in lenses.

gildedfool · 12-02-2014, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by nomadkng

If cheap, inexpensive or any other variation of those words applies to your filter, UV/CPL/ND or other you won't get results, period. I don't like the variable filters to begin with, add "cheap" to the equation and they are better off as coasters.

Get a "real" ND, spend the $100 (depending on size) for a 3 stop-ish one and find out what they can really do. Then spend another $300 on a Cokin system, get a set of Graduated ND filters and see what they can do. My portfolio is filled with ND and GND images and trust me, no single filter I use is under $100. It feels as if I've spent almost as much in filters as I have in lenses.

Here's an update:

I did manage to locate my cheap (<$20) rotating ND filter from Fotasy, and snapped a good deal of shots this weekend. The image below happens to be one of my favorites. While I don't doubt the "real" ND filters may render some notable results, what I have serves my purposes for now.

coolmast · 12-03-2014, 02:13 AM - **1 Like**

Thanks to all of you showing what a real ND filter is capable of doing. I think there is still room for improvement for me.

11-27-2014, 02:02 PM - 1 Like	#1
coolmast New Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 18	Capturing the Flow with ND Filter Simulation Lens: 50mm/1.4 Pentacon Camera: Pentax K-3 Photo Location: Garching, Germany I just recently got my first DSLR - a K-3. The image below was taken near Garching (Germany, Munich). I used the multi-exposure feature (averaging) to simulate a ND filter (as I do not own one yet) - 10(?) images each with 1/20s. I do not remember which aperture I used - should be something like f/8. I used an old 50mm/1.4 Pentacon lens. I really like this lens (mainly because I was able to fix the broken aperture by myself). It's MF and manual aperture only but at the moment (at least from f/2.8 onwards) respecting the bokeh it clearly outperforms the 18-55 kit lens I got. I do not want to judge over it's sharpness because it could be me not getting the right point. However, what do you think about it? I especially do not like the insects which were flying in the middle of the image but obviously I couldn't prevent them from doing so. Any additional ideas how my trial of a ND filter simulation could even get better? What else could be improved?

11-27-2014, 05:16 PM	#2
AlexBW Pentaxian Join Date: May 2014 Location: Oslo Photos: Albums Posts: 394	I think it looks nice, and a pretty neat trick that I had never read about. I don't own a ND filter, so will give this a go myself! I do think the photo lacks some details in the shadows, especially the large rock on the left, but this could be a JPEG conversion issue (or my poor laptop screen). Was the averaging done on your computer or in-camera? Last edited by AlexBW; 11-27-2014 at 05:21 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Questions about the Mechanics of a Variable ND Filter	whk1992	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	15	09-12-2014 04:56 PM
For Sale - Sold: Galen Rowell Filter set ND-2G-HS and ND-2G-SS P size 84mm x 120mm	davidgreen3003	Sold Items	2	12-30-2013 02:05 PM
Built-in AA filter like ND filter???	mythguy9	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	08-30-2013 04:31 AM
which nd filter to deal with 1/1000 max shutter speed?	loco	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	29	07-21-2013 07:13 PM
Variable ND Filter - Fader ND mark II	yusuf	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	11-16-2010 11:39 AM

11-27-2014, 06:25 PM	#3
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Well overall the photo looks fairly good, even if discerning eyes could notice the difference between a blend and ND filter. So youre definitely on the right track!

11-27-2014, 09:11 PM	#4
jheu02 Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,027	Having recently gotten a set of ND filters, the main difference I see is there's still too much fine detail in the water. Your shutter speed still captured drops vs. the smooth effect created by a slower shutter. You've managed some of it, but you still need a slower shutter speed. If you have a polarizing filter, that will cut some light entering, as will going to f/16, 22, or higher. No need to worry about diffraction as you're trying for the motion blur vs maximum resolution. Neat effort and idea though.

11-28-2014, 12:53 AM	#6
coolmast New Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 18 Original Poster	Originally posted by AlexBW Was the averaging done on your computer or in-camera? The photo is actually right out of camera. I was simply too lazy to average 20 images (I think I got this wrong in my first post - should have been 20) by hand so I used the in-camera possibilities. Tripod + intervall method (2s interval) to minimize shake from the shutter so that the images will be well aligned. I actually wanted to combine even more images but unfortunately I was running out of time and the light changed that much that it would not have been interesting at all.

11-28-2014, 03:32 PM - 1 Like	#7
jheu02 Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,027	Originally posted by gildedfool I own a ND filter, I think it's a 6-stop, adjustable job from Tiffen or one of the other cheap vendors. It is ok, but I have yet to yield any results that I like. Not saying that ND filters couldn't or don't have anything to offer, I don't think I could say that at any rate as I've not much experience with them. I have taken to tightening up the aperture, setting up a tripod or other sturdy surface, adjusting ISO for the conditions, and going from there- usually in Bulb mode. I've had more success with this method than any I tried with my cheapo ND filter. Here's what they can do:

11-28-2014, 04:05 PM	#8
carpents Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: West Chester, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,420	Originally posted by gildedfool I shot this a couple of days ago with the 18-55mm kit lens on a K50. EXIF says it was at 50mm f22 for 1.2 seconds with no filters. Only a slight touchup (highlights, straightening, cropping out unwanted bits, and some minor vibrance boosting and saturation clipping) in Lightroom. f/22 is going to soften up everything a bit - maybe within your tolerance, or maybe not. Also, with that 6-stop ND filter, you could have taken this at f/11 (sharper) for a longer time, smoothing out the waves in the background. They're pretty easy to use!

11-28-2014, 04:21 PM	#9
gildedfool Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 315	Originally posted by jheu02 Here's what they can do: Hey, Rainbow Falls! That's just up the street from here, love that place! Nice shots, also. Might have to dust my old ND filter off and see what I can't do... ---------- Post added 11-28-14 at 13:23 ---------- Originally posted by carpents f/22 is going to soften up everything a bit - maybe within your tolerance, or maybe not. Also, with that 6-stop ND filter, you could have taken this at f/11 (sharper) for a longer time, smoothing out the waves in the background. They're pretty easy to use! I like it, will have to try it out.

12-01-2014, 11:49 AM	#10
nomadkng Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,448	Originally posted by gildedfool .. I own a ND filter, I think it's a 6-stop, adjustable job from Tiffen or one of the other cheap vendors. It is ok, but I have yet to yield any results that I like....my cheapo ND filter... If cheap, inexpensive or any other variation of those words applies to your filter, UV/CPL/ND or other you won't get results, period. I don't like the variable filters to begin with, add "cheap" to the equation and they are better off as coasters. Get a "real" ND, spend the $100 (depending on size) for a 3 stop-ish one and find out what they can really do. Then spend another $300 on a Cokin system, get a set of Graduated ND filters and see what they can do. My portfolio is filled with ND and GND images and trust me, no single filter I use is under $100. It feels as if I've spent almost as much in filters as I have in lenses.

12-03-2014, 02:13 AM - 1 Like	#12
coolmast New Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 18 Original Poster	Thanks to all of you showing what a real ND filter is capable of doing. I think there is still room for improvement for me.