Time Flows By

[JimFox]

A couple of weeks ago when I was up at Yosemite at Tunnel View at sunset, as Twilight hit it dawned on me that the clouds were moving pretty fast in the background. And so I took a couple of 30 second exposures, this was the second one, and just as I was thinking on putting on a 10 stop so I could take a much longer exposure as I thought the clouds were streaking pretty nicely, the clouds dried up and the sky became clear. So this shot was it.

All comments are welcome,

Jim

 

[Ben Egbert]

I like it, I need to try this.

 

[JimFox]

I like it, I need to try this.

Thanks Ben!

Yeah, I don't think about this enough. If I had simply thought about it 5 mins sooner I could have potentially had clouds streaking across the whole sky. Now that may or may not have looked better then this. So I am trying to recognize more often when the clouds are moving at a fast enough pace to make for cool long exposures.

Do you have a 10 stop ND? I would guess so.

 

[AlanLichty]

I grabbed an 8 stop ND filter before I went on my road trips but never really had an opportunity to use it.... I like the result here.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Thanks Ben!

Yeah, I don't think about this enough. If I had simply thought about it 5 mins sooner I could have potentially had clouds streaking across the whole sky. Now that may or may not have looked better then this. So I am trying to recognize more often when the clouds are moving at a fast enough pace to make for cool long exposures.

Do you have a 10 stop ND? I would guess so.

juat a 6 stop. I use it mostly for waterfalls.

 

[JimFox]

I grabbed an 8 stop ND filter before I went on my road trips but never really had an opportunity to use it.... I like the result here.

I know that feeling.

I am starting to get better at thinking about using it, but I still miss lots of opportunities. The one key that I have focused on that is now better at jarring my memory is simply fast moving clouds. So when I see them I will evaluate whether the clouds are moving in a direction that will work with the composition. I for sure won’t shoot them with an ND if they are running totally horizontal. They need to have at least some angle towards me, with usually coming straight at me being the best in my thinking.

 

[JimFox]

juat a 6 stop. I use it mostly for waterfalls.

I would think a 6 stop would be too much for waterfalls. A polarizer with a 2 or 3 stop still let’s you see through it and adjust the polarizer.

And now with the Nikon D810 and D850 having native ISO 64, 99% of the time I just need a polarizer and enough light gets cut to be able to shoot in 1/5th or so range even in daylight.

 

[Ben Egbert]

Yes, I have ISO50 and a polarizer is good for 1/5, but I wanted to try some longer ones. I also use it to smooth lakes in windy situations.

 

[AlanLichty]

I would think a 6 stop would be too much for waterfalls. A polarizer with a 2 or 3 stop still let’s you see through it and adjust the polarizer.

And now with the Nikon D810 and D850 having native ISO 64, 99% of the time I just need a polarizer and enough light gets cut to be able to shoot in 1/5th or so range even in daylight.

I once bought a Singh-Ray Vari-ND for waterfalls which is 4-8 stops but as of how I shoot waterfalls now I am more in Jim's camp and only yank out a 1.5 stop polarizer if I have to and most of the time I don't need it even at ISO 100. Jim's 1/5th number is usually my starting point for a new water flow and I adjust according to what I see with the results. The Vari-ND is basically shelfware and travels in my camera luggage but less frequently gets included in my hiking photo gear collection anymore.

I recently bought a cheap 8 stop ND recently from B&H when I had to get a replacement shoulder suspender support and the price of the filter was also the cost of shipping for the Think Tank part but gave me a sale total that got me free shipping. No clue what I will use another 8 stops worth of filter for but its unlikely I will ever use it for waterfalls. I was thinking more along the lines of scenes like the one Jim has presented here but have not tried this yet.

 

[JimFox]

Yes, I have ISO50 and a polarizer is good for 1/5, but I wanted to try some longer ones. I also use it to smooth lakes in windy situations.

Yeah, that 6 stop would be good for smoothing lakes. And I also will shoot some longer shutter speeds at waterfalls once in a while too. It's always fun to play around and experiment as each waterfall is different and then even more different depending on flow. But I would say 95% of my waterfall shots are around the 1/5th of a shutter speed.

 

[JimFox]

I once bought a Singh-Ray Vari-ND for waterfalls which is 4-8 stops but as of how I shoot waterfalls now I am more in Jim's camp and only yank out a 1.5 stop polarizer if I have to and most of the time I don't need it even at ISO 100. Jim's 1/5th number is usually my starting point for a new water flow and I adjust according to what I see with the results. The Vari-ND is basically shelfware and travels in my camera luggage but less frequently gets included in my hiking photo gear collection anymore.

I recently bought a cheap 8 stop ND recently from B&H when I had to get a replacement shoulder suspender support and the price of the filter was also the cost of shipping for the Think Tank part but gave me a sale total that got me free shipping. No clue what I will use another 8 stops worth of filter for but its unlikely I will ever use it for waterfalls. I was thinking more along the lines of scenes like the one Jim has presented here but have not tried this yet.

The biggest issue with any Vari-ND is they don't work with WA lenses. Put one on a 16mm and before you have the Vari-ND turned even halfway a "X" pattern develops in it, which obviously leads to really bad shots. If I recall correctly Vari-ND's won't start working properly without that X artifact showing unless you are shooting 70mm or tighter. I don't recall exactly as it's been a while since I tried it. But I know for me, it was way tighter then I would normally shoot.

 

[JimFox]

For anyone following along, there are several apps out there that can help one figure out the correct exposure while shooting with a very dark ND like a 10 stop. I have found one that's put out by Lee, it's called "LEE Stopper" and it's super easy to find out what exposure you should be setting your camera at. There is nothing worse then shooting a 5 min shot to only find out you underexposed it by 4 mins...

 

[AlanLichty]

The biggest issue with any Vari-ND is they don't work with WA lenses. Put one on a 16mm and before you have the Vari-ND turned even halfway a "X" pattern develops in it, which obviously leads to really bad shots. If I recall correctly Vari-ND's won't start working properly without that X artifact showing unless you are shooting 70mm or tighter. I don't recall exactly as it's been a while since I tried it. But I know for me, it was way tighter then I would normally shoot.

For me the X shows up anytime you really get close to an 8 stop setting. I didn't have issues with that in the 4-7 stop range with Canon lenses but I can only speak to how my own images with this filter came out with my camera body/lens combinations. The extension of the Various-ND creates a problem for full wide open on any of my zoom lenses - WA or not. Set your 17-40mm to a focal length of 17 and you will have corner artifacts. That's true for anything less than 20mm for that specific lens. This is true for all of my zoom lens at the minimum focal length. (All Canon - 17-40mm L, 24-105mm L, 24-70mm L, 100-400mm L)

 

[JimFox]

For me the X shows up anytime you really get close to an 8 stop setting. I didn't have issues with that in the 4-7 stop range with Canon lenses but I can only speak to how my own images with this filter came out with my camera body/lens combinations. The extension of the Various-ND creates a problem for full wide open on any of my zoom lenses - WA or not. Set your 17-40mm to a focal length of 17 and you will have corner artifacts. That's true for anything less than 20mm for that specific lens. This is true for all of my zoom lens at the minimum focal length. (All Canon - 17-40mm L, 24-105mm L, 24-70mm L, 100-400mm L)

The X pattern is based on the Focal Length. The wider you are, the more it will appear. There is a specific focal length (I don't recall which it is, like I said somewhere are 70mm) where the X will no longer be an issue. I would say you need to test your 100-400mm again, as I would think it would not be an issue at 100mm. I have tested it, and also confirmed it with Singh Ray as I called them several years ago when I had purchased one only to then return it with such a limitation.

No matter what, for me, it wasn't worth the hassle even though the principle was a cool idea to be able to dial in an ND setting, or to be able to open it up, focus, and then rotate it back to a heavier ND. For me, it's just easier to use a 3 stop ND or use the 10 stop and not have to worry what focal length I am at.

Maybe your testing was different then mine? What would be interesting since you still have the Vari-ND is to put it on the 24-105mm and see at what focal length the X artifacting disappears. Shoot against a White board so the pattern clearly shows up. I would think the 17-40mm would be unusable, that at 17mm it would be horrible, and 40mm would be marginal but would still be able to be seen with a close inspection.

And of course if you do that level of testing, it would certainly make for a good resource and article for anyone who is looking into a Vari-ND to read. (Hint)

 

[AlanLichty]

I don't think I had the 24-105 back when I got the Vari-ND but all of my testing was with real world conditions and for me what mattered was when I could see the artifact on those images and left me abandoning those captures. As I found less and less uses for the filter in the first place my interest level waned and it turned into a shelf ornament.

When I bought it the filter seemed like A Really Good Thing(TM) and it turned out to be a solution to a problem I didn't actually have in the first place

 

[JimFox]

I don't think I had the 24-105 back when I got the Vari-ND but all of my testing was with real world conditions and for me what mattered was when I could see the artifact on those images and left me abandoning those captures. As I found less and less uses for the filter in the first place my interest level waned and it turned into a shelf ornament.

When I bought it the filter seemed like A Really Good Thing(TM) and it turned out to be a solution to a problem I didn't actually have in the first place

Ha ha, now isn't the truth!

 

[Jameel Hyder]

Lovely Clouds Jim. I've played around with NDs and clouds - never with results this good.

 

[Douglas Sherman]

This is really nice, Jim.