Neutral Density Gels vs Filters

[forestkeeper]

Hello everyone. As I went shooting at the coast in the last couple of days, I had a problem shooting long shutter speeds. Even though I set the aperture to f/22, the shutter to 1/4000, my photos were over exposed. Not having a ND filter, I through on the polarized filter but still the photos were washed out.
Do I need a good ND graduated filter? I was trying for the silky, heavenly look but got the white, nothing but white look.

The only thing that concerns me is the price. ND filters are way beyond my budget, at least till I strike it rich. Are there any truth in those Do It Yourself YouTube videos about making your own ND filters using Neutral Density gels? And if there is, what gels are the right ones? Does Pro Photo NW carry them?

Thanks!!!

Will

[BrianEdwards]

Well, alot goes into shooting silky water. You've got the F stop cranked all the way in, check. Use the smallest ISO such as ISO 100.

Because a neutral density filter is just a shaded lens, you can get away with using an inexpensive one more so then say a polarizer/CPL. Multi-coated ones are nice for reducing glare, but I've rarely had an issue with the sun and a cheap ND filter.

I've bought cheap Neutral Density Filters on ebay and had great luck. Select US only, buy it now, and cheapest first. I usually purchase the 3rd or 4th cheapest one, whichever has a ton of purchases by others, etc.

Here's a sample search

Also, Neutral Density filters have ratings. ND4, ND8, etc. Higher is darker. 8 is darker then 4.

Good luck!

[justpeachy]

I haven't used anything except a neutral density filter on my lens, so I can't speak to the other options. But I echo what Brian said about checking your ISO. It sounds like it might be set too high. When doing long exposures (except for some night stuff), it helps to have the ISO as low as it'll go.

[forestkeeper]

Thank you Cheryl and Brian! I'm making the move from amateur to semi pro, not realizing that my pocketbook is still in the amateur zone.

[Lurch]

Haven't tried it myself (yet), but I've seen people have pretty good success with some cheap DIY options. Of course it takes more work, and more post processing to really pull it off, but you *can* manage a pretty intense 10 stop ND filter with a $10 piece of welding glass

[forestkeeper]

Hmmmmmm............ Great idea!

[Bosterson]

Even though I set the aperture to f/22, the shutter to 1/4000, my photos were over exposed.

What were you trying to take a picture of? 1/4000 and f/22 is LV21 at ISO 100. Anything above LV18 is basically a blown out reflection of full sunlight on water or snow or something. So unless you were trying to take a picture of reflected highlights on water, or shooting directly into the sun (in which case it might be reduced contrast from lens flare), I would check your ISO.

ND filters shouldn't be necessary unless you're trying to take a long exposure (like longer than a second) of, say, moving water in the daytime. (But cotton candy water doesn't look good in contrasty light anyway!) Alternately an ND filter would be a good way to avoid having to use f/22 (which is most likely to soften your image due to diffraction), but again, why not just shoot under different and more advantageous light conditions?

Anyway, I would recommend getting down the basics of exposure and composition before you start messing with filters.

[forestkeeper]

I'll try to rephrase what I was trying to accomplish. I have no problem with exposure, lighting, etc under normal shooting. But I want to try special effects to really get those awesome shots. So I'd like to go from here:

to this:

I don't have any problem with shooting long exposures at night, such as this:

But during the day, I have quite different end results.

Will

[justpeachy]

A neutral density filter (or something like it) will help you get the silky water effect but it's also very helpful to not take those kinds of photos in broad daylight. An overcast days is your best friend when it comes to long exposures of ocean waves, creeks, waterfalls, etc. Night also works, which is when that second photo appears to have been taken (I see stars), at which point you don't need to the neutral density filter anymore.

[mdvaden]

I'll try to rephrase what I was trying to accomplish. I have no problem with exposure, lighting, etc under normal shooting. But I want to try special effects to really get those awesome shots. So I'd like to go from here:

9730594031_0d4a98c1c9_c.jpg

to this:

So ... wanting to go from "here" to "this" ... if the "this", had you considered that the "this" was accomplished by how early or late in the day the photo was taken?

And to what degree the "this" was enhanced in Lightroom and Photoshop?

The water look indicates long exposure. But the stars in the sky lead me to believe that was maybe 5:30am or 9pm at night kind of shooting.