First shots with new ND 1000 (10stop) filter

[allymac123]

So I got my new filter and wanted to give it a testdrive so cycled upto the reservoirs to fire some shots off.

I can just tell I'm going to be using this a fair absolutely love it!!! Only thing is that you have to remove so you can can see whenever you want to compose and focus... I spose it's a good thing though as that, along with the fact it takes ages to expose the image ensures that you compose very carefully which is deffinately a good thing

'Nuff rambling so here you go...

#1 - I call this lightfall as that's what I think it looks like!!!

16mm | F7.1 | 194s

#2

10mm | F9 | 30s

#3 - This rock was actually square in shape but as I was so low and close as you see it's shape is no longer square!!!

10mm | F11 | 58s

#4 - These two I was trying to get some cloud movement...

10mm | F22 | 75s

#5

10mm | F22 | 140s

Wasn't particurarly nice light or anything infact it was drizzling for part of the time which was a nightmare especially as I was taking the filter on and off!!

C&C most welcome.

[grantsteve]

Nice work Ally, looks like there is a knack to using the thing.

Have you got a linky for where you bought it? I've tried all the usual suspects and have drawn a blank.

[Tobers]

Excellent - more info about the filter please. Is it a square type thing (Cokin) or a screw in.

#1 is tops for me - great light on the water. Also I like #4 as the sky is more dramatic compared to #5 which looks a tad overexposed. I'd be interested to see the lake shots with a polariser on to "see" under the water a bit more.

Very interesting....

[Liquid101]

Certainly seems to be an effective and high quality filter. The shots are nice, but the compositions don't do much for me. 4 and 5 would have suited a portrait format shot a little better perhaps. As you say, the light wasn;t up to it either, but look forward to seeing some more with this baby.

[tontoshorse]

Agree with Tobers. #1 is stunning (feel like getting a stick to remove that branch though!)

great filter.

[vulkan75]

nice ally..love the first one..and I also have the same q's as Tobers

[allymac123]

Bought it from warehouse express (their site seems down @the mo). It's made by B&W and is a circular screw in.

I'd be interested to see the lake shots with a polarizer on to "see" under the water a bit more.

Tell you what - you buy me a CPL and I'll retake the shots for you OK?
Am I just about the only person that doesn't own a CPL? Should I buy one? I didn't really think I'd have all that much use for one as I only try to shoot at dawn/dusk (with a few exceptions admittedly). The other thing that put me off buying one is that I wouldn't be able to use below 12mm whenever I had another filter on (which I probably would have).

Maybe I should try and wangle a free one from warehouse express if all you lot are going to buy an ND1000 now!!! I seemed to have done a fair bit of recommending of the place I bought my wireless flash triggers from too!!!

[Tobers]

For landscapes you will find a circular polariser to be a superb addition. Skies pop, nasty reflections & glare on foliage & water are eliminated, everything looks more vibrant. Yes, they are expensive, but you N E E D one

How did you manage getting the exposure right? Did you compose & focus, then put the filter on, then meter the light. Assume you were in manual mode? More details please.

Ta!

[GaryK26]

Quality images ally.

#3 "This rock was actually square in shape but...." the exposure was so long that the water eroded the rock into a rectangular shape

I'll get my jacket

[jonnypb]

Really nice shots, you certainly have a good eye for photography. Tempting to buy one!

I love my CPL filter. Really helps on a bright sunny day for landscapes. I picked up a hoya 77mm one on here for £15-20 (can't remember how much exactly)

I think you'd like one!

[allymac123]

Originally Posted by Tobers

For landscapes you will find a circular polariser to be a superb addition. Skies pop, nasty reflections & glare on foliage & water are eliminated, everything looks more vibrant. Yes, they are expensive, but you N E E D one

hhhmm Maybe its time to start watching the classifieds again. Unless you all fancy chipping in and buying me one?

Originally Posted by Tobers

How did you manage getting the exposure right? Did you compose & focus, then put the filter on, then meter the light. Assume you were in manual mode? More details please.

Ta!

Right...

Do everything exactly the same as you would for anyother shot (ie. compose focus etc)

Then put on the filter,

Then put on the viewfinder thingymagiggy that will block out the light from the viewfinder. (it's important you do this both for the metering and so that light does not seep in around the mirror when it has flipped up.)

Then in Manual mode (obviously ) set the shutter to 30s and see where the meter reading is. If it's at -2 then you know you'll need to expose for 2stops above 30s which would be ~120s.

If the meter reading's not on the scale then adjust the aperture/ISO so that it is. Obviously you can adjust the aperture how you want to vary DOF and exposure length.

I always tend to overexpose a bit aswell as the meter tends to underexpose the image at these exposure length's.

[jonnypb]

Originally Posted by allymac123

Then in Manual mode (obviously ) set the shutter to 30s and see where the meter reading is. If it's at -2 then you know you'll need to expose for 2stops above 30s which would be ~120s.

I understand having to expose for 2 stops if it's -2 but how is 120s 2 stops above 30s - Is it off a standard chart or something you need to work out

sorry still learning!

Thanks

[horribleman]

In terms of time, you just double or half the value to get the next full stop up or down.

Same as with ISO actually.

Aperture is a bit different. What's the relationship? Inverse square or something?

[jonnypb]

Originally Posted by horribleman

In terms of time, you just double or half the value to get the next full stop up or down.

easy when you know how!

cheers

[allymac123]

Originally Posted by horribleman

Aperture is a bit different. What's the relationship? Inverse square or something?

No idea!!! I've just learnt them: 1 ... 1.4 ... 2 ... 2.8 ... 4 ... 5.6 ... 8 ... 11 ... 16 ... 22 ...