polarizing filter or natural density 0.6?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by James Cloud, Jun 22, 2004.

  1. James Cloud

    James Cloud Guest

    I am a photography newbie. I am looking for a filter to use when
    shooting under bright afternoon sun in high altitude. Which one do
    you prefer?

    James
     
    James Cloud, Jun 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. James Cloud

    Nick Zentena Guest


    A warming filter? Why do you want the ND? Are you using film that's too
    fast? An older camera with a slow top shutter? I guess what I'm asking is
    what are you trying to get the filter to do for you?

    Nick
     
    Nick Zentena, Jun 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. James Cloud

    Slingblade Guest

    Take both with you. The polarizer will give you dramatic skies while
    reducing the light transmission, but the ND will reduce without
    changing the color of the sky. Also, you can stack both of them if
    you need to to further reduce light transmission.
     
    Slingblade, Jun 22, 2004
    #3
  4. James Cloud

    Alan Browne Guest


    Hmmm...

    If anything, a "haze" filter which is a strong UV filter (more UV
    filtration than a basic "UV" filter.) This will filter UV
    light, but not all reflected light from haze. This will increase
    the contrast a bit.

    To work reflections from sky haze, water, ice, glass, etc., then
    a polarizing filter can be used seperately. If your camera is
    autofocus, then a circular polarize is usually required (and
    should be indicated in the manual). With this filter you can
    increase the sky blue saturation quite a bit. With wide angle
    lenses, the resulting image will show the effect of the filter
    being different at extremes of the image.

    Polarizer Trick: Make a "gun" with your thumb up and index
    finger out (such that they are 90 deg. to each other.) Point
    your thumb at the sun. Anywhere your index finger can point
    while your thumb points at the sun, is the direction that the
    polarizer will have maximum effect at reducing reflections
    (reduce haze).

    An ND ("neutral", not 'natural') filter will not affect color
    (unless it is crap), it will just increase the exposure
    requirement. (longer time, fatter aperture, faster film).
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 22, 2004
    #4
  5. James Cloud

    James Cloud Guest

    Nick, I am thinking of shooting at f/8 or lower of street performers
    in bright sun. For landscape shots, I guess the ND won't help much,
    will it?
    James
     
    James Cloud, Jun 23, 2004
    #5
  6. James Cloud

    Nick Zentena Guest


    Depends. If you're taking a photo of moving water and want the water to be
    moving in the photo you need a slow shutter speed. So you'd want the ND. Or
    if you didn't want a lot of DOF for some reason you might want one.

    I think you said something about high altitude to. I'd look for a warming
    filter for the street performers. It'll use up a light light. Will help warm
    up the blue light from the altitude.

    This one covers colour temp it doesn't have anything on altitude

    http://www.fototreks.com/Pages/ARTICLES/Technical-Info/colortemp-jz.html

    I can't find one on how the temps change with altitude.

    Nick
     
    Nick Zentena, Jun 23, 2004
    #6
  7. James Cloud

    TP Guest


    I am sure everyone would dearly love to know how you get the water
    "to be moving" in a still picture.
     
    TP, Jun 23, 2004
    #7
  8. James Cloud

    Nick Zentena Guest


    The difference between perception and reality. We've come pretty far in
    the world. You can even get 3d movies now. Soon I hear we'll be getting
    colour film!!! Can you imagine? I'm not sure I'll believe it.

    You might want to go out and look at a photograph or a painting. It's
    amazing what people can do today.

    Nick
     
    Nick Zentena, Jun 23, 2004
    #8
  9. James Cloud

    TP Guest


    The difference between the English language and BS, more like.
     
    TP, Jun 23, 2004
    #9
  10. James Cloud

    Alan Browne Guest

    ....moving in the photo? There's a trick! I think you mean
    'blurred' in the photo.
    ....not much with a 0.6 ND. An ND 4 (2 stops) or ND 8 (4 stops),
    etc. is more like it.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 23, 2004
    #10
  11. James Cloud

    Nick Zentena Guest


    0.6 is two stops isn't it? 0.3 is one.


    Nick
     
    Nick Zentena, Jun 23, 2004
    #11
  12. James Cloud

    Nick Zentena Guest


    Photographs are worth 1000 words. Not sure what language they use. It
    seems you've never seen one. Right?

    Nick
     
    Nick Zentena, Jun 23, 2004
    #12
  13. James Cloud

    Nick Zentena Guest


    Missed this. You mean motion blur? Right?

    Nick
     
    Nick Zentena, Jun 23, 2004
    #13
  14. James Cloud

    Alan Browne Guest

    OOPS! ND 8 (3 stops).
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 23, 2004
    #14
  15. James Cloud

    Alan Browne Guest

    ooops ND 8 (3 stops).
    Yes, or rather you're right and I'm right... the confusion stems
    as follows:

    In the B+W numbering scheme, for example,
    the model 103 is labeled: "103 0.9 - 3 BL 8x"
    Not sure what the BL is all about, but the 8x is what is common
    with the other filters. (Tiffen, Heliopan ND's are also numbered
    0.3, 0.6, 0.9). When ordered the B+W I focused on the filter
    factor (8x) to be sure I knew what I would be getting.

    In the Hoya numbering scheme the same would simply be an NDx8 for
    a 3 stop filter. Similar numbering for Cokin, Sunpak and Nikon
    ND filters. I keep the old Hoya catalog as it has a useful color
    temp chart as well as a filter factor chart. Convenient.

    Sorry for the confusion. I don't know why the filter
    manufacturers don't number ND's by stops (EV). That would be the
    least ambiguous, most helpful way.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 23, 2004
    #15
  16. James Cloud

    James Cloud Guest

    0.6 ND is the same as ND 4, no?

    Thanks for all your advise.
     
    James Cloud, Jun 23, 2004
    #16
  17. James Cloud

    Alan Browne Guest

    James Cloud wrote:

    Yep, my confusion, see other reply to Nick regarding numbering
    scheme used by different manufs.
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 24, 2004
    #17
  18. James Cloud

    Matt Clara Guest

    What you need is fill flash.
     
    Matt Clara, Jun 25, 2004
    #18
  19. James Cloud

    Matt Clara Guest

    I'll say it one more time, as a direct reply in this thread--to shoot the
    group of performers you describe, outdoors with direct sunlight, I'd try to
    use fill flash to help fill in the shadows, and not use any filter at all.
     
    Matt Clara, Jun 25, 2004
    #19
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.