Another Filter Question

I'm looking into ND filters and am wondering which I should I get. ....0.3 or .06 or 0.9. Which do you find to be the most useful in the field for most occasions? I will use this mostly for a slower shutter speed, especially in bright light. While I use a Grad ND frequently, I've never usd a ND...pretty crazy, Huh...Thanks for the suggestions.

Beth, I hardly ever use one either. Normally a 2-stop (0.6) or 3-stop (0.9) combined with stopping down the aperture will give you sufficiently slow shutter for things like water motion. Personally I find fuzzy water images in bright light a bit odd though

Guy

Thanks, Guy. You've basically stated what I wanted to hear. If I need, I'll go with the 0.6 (2 stop) and see how it works.

I've got 0.3, 0.6 and 0.9 ND's, though the 0.6 is the only one to make the move from the studio and find a permanent home in my field bag. Can't say why I ever bought the 0.3, and in most of my circumstances the 0.9 is too much. In a "twist" I use the 0.6, and sometimes the 0.6 stacked with a CP to extend indoor exposures and outdoor evening exposures long enough to let people walk through a scene without registering (unless they stop, of course). The 0.9 is useful without the CP, but I'm happy with the stack rather than carrying yet another filter.

I don't have any ND filters except for the grads. The few, rare times I do need a "plain" ND filter to slow down shutter speed, I generally just use my polarizer. It eats up about 2 stops. I never go for the "silky" water look. It's been done for 150 years. My POV is it's time to move on and do something more original.


Kent in SD

No less than 0.6 is my opinion. I usually use a 0.6 gnd, which is barely adequate in bright light. I haven't used an ND either. Usually find the circular polarizer works fine; sometimes stack a gnd on it depending on the scene. But I like Hank's tip about the street scenes and the usefulness of the ND for that. Thanks, Hank.

we have never used a nd filter nor do we own one. we have a centerfilter for very wide angle lenses, that has a +2 stop effect.
georg

Thanks all for the suggestions. I do use the polarizer often and just wanted to know about the usage of the ND. Thanks.

On literally one lone occasion, three years ago, I found myself wishing I had a ND filter, to achieve a singular effect in a unique lighting situation; I specifically did not want to polarize the scene or there wouldn't have been an issue. As luck would have it, one of three other people I was photographing with had a two-stop that was the right size. I used it and got the shot, thanked him profusely...and have been waiting ever since for another such occurrence. It's been more than 1000 days and counting.

Every time I look at the price of one of the SR adjustable neutral density filters I recall what a luxury it would be given my photographic proclivities.

Are you ever right about that filter, Kerry! I can probably find more use for it in my world than in general nature photography, but $340. Yikes!

Worth throwing out an important use for ND's- In bright light situations when you need shallow DOF, but without high shutter speeds for whatever reason (i.e., full sunlight @ ISO 100 yields a SS of 1/4000 @ f/2.8, but you can slow the shutter speed successively with ND's).

I have a 0.9 ND. I use it rarely, but when I do it's because I really want to slow the shutterspeed down. With a three-stop filter, if it's too much, you can open up from f22 to f16 or f11. With a two-stop ND, if you are at your smallest aperture, thats the best you're going to do. I occasionally like very long exposures - 10 to 30 seconds. I''ve never wished I had gotten a 0.6 ND instead of the 0.9.

Good point Buck.

I find myself thinking more and more about packing my 0.9 these days, especially for stacking with the 0.6. Sound crazy? Think about keeping your aperture at or below f/11 for digital shooting, then adding fill flash for bright days. Flash sync of 1/250 can turn ND into a real friend.