Best ND filter for long exposures of water that will work on my T3?

I am looking for a Circular ND filter that I can use with my T3 and 24-105 to do long exposures of water during the bright sunlight. What is the best one to get? Could you provide me links? Sorry for all the questions.

No, you don't need a "Circular" ND... just a good ND filter.

Only polarizers come in circular and linear varieties (and you need circular with an autofocus camera and some camera metering systems).

Just figure out the exposures you want and then how many stops of light you'll need to reduce to get to that exposure. For example, if shooting in midday sun we can usually apply the "Sunny 16" rule as an approximation. That says that at ISO 100 you need to use f16 and 1/100 shutter speed. If you want to use f11, which doubles the light passing through the lens, you would need to use twice as fast shutter speed or 1/200. If you set f22, you'd need to use 1/50 shutter speed.

Now, in this case you want to use slower shutter speeds and your limit on iSO is 100. That's as low as you can set the camera. To avoid diffraction issues due to too small an aperture, you probably want to keep to f16 at the smallest. So the next questions are how fast is the water moving and how much do you want to blur it? This will decide how slow a shutter speed you need, and that in turn tells you what density of filter, how many stops reduction in light you need.

Let's say you want 1/25, for example. With f16 and ISO 100 set, you'll need at least a two stop ND filter (1/100 > 1/50 > 1/25). But that will just barely get you to 1/25. And you might want to be able to use a slower shutter to get more blur, or you might want to use a larger aperture for various reasons. So, you probably will want a four, five or six stop ND filter. Eventually... because it isn't sunny every day or at times you might want to shoot in the shade or have other reasons to use a weaker filter... you might end up with a couple different ND filters, and may be able to stack them to achieve different effects. Or combine them with another type of filter, such as a Circular Polarizer.

A C-Pol is also a pretty strong filter, though it's variable depending upon how it's set. At its minimum setting a C-Pol reduces about one stop of light, and can be close to two stops at it's strongest setting. A C-Pol is also valuable controllling or reducing reflections off water and foliage, to get more color saturation in many situations.

So you might want to combine a three or four stop ND with a C-Pol, in bright sunlight. In shade or overcast, you might need a one or two stop ND instead, along with the C-Pol.

You'll have to experiment with shutter speeds to learn the various effects possible. It will be different with slow moving water, than with fast moving.

There are variable ND filters, where you can dial in various strengths as needed. However, the more affordable ones (eg., Polaroid) tend to be blotchy and cause color casts in images... and the good ones (Singh-Ray) cost a whole lot of money.

Single strength ND filters are usually more even and good ones are very neutral, don't add ugly tints. I'm partial to multi-coated B+W MRC filters personally, but there are other good brands such as Hoya, Marumi, Heliopan and more. You need a 77mm ND for your lens.... here's a search for Hoya I did at BH Photo: http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …&InitialSearch=​yes&sts=ma and another at Amazon: http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …&InitialSearch=​yes&sts=ma

B+W offers and rates the strength of their ND filters in the following manner:

0.3 = one stop
0.6 = two stops
0.9 = three stops
1.6 = six stops
3.0 = ten stops

Other manufacturers might use different designations and offer different strengths.

You shouldn't need more expensive "slim" filters on your lens, especially using it on a crop camera.

I have and use the B+W MRC C-Pol and the B+W Kaesemann. Both are very good. The Kaesemann gives slightly smoother gradations and is better sealed against moisture intrusion.

Note: when searching for ND filters, you are also going to come across graduated ND filters. ND Grads are only partially grayed down and serve a different purpose, to balance an overly bright sky with fore and middle ground, for example. I do not recommend screw-in ND Grads at all. Those put the horizon line right across the middle of the filter, always. Rectangular filters fitted to special holders that attach to your lens are better because they can be adjusted up and down to match the horizon in your image, as needed. You can get solid ND filters in this type, too... or combine the rectangular ND Grads with screw-in ND filters.... to have both effects in a single image. FYI: Here is a search for one brand of these rectangular filters, in Cokin P series size (which is the smallest size that's big enough to accomodate your lens): http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …kin+filter+p&N=​4291218879

But, Graduated ND filters aren't really a necessity with digital photography. ForInstead you can make two exposures... one with the correct exposure settings for the fore and middle ground, the other adjusted to properly expose the sky, then combine the two in Photoshop. Alternatively, take a single shot as a RAW file, then double process it: once adjusted for the fore and middle ground, and a second time optimized for the sky, then combine the correct part from each in Photoshop. Since horizons often aren't just a straight line, these techniques often can give better results than a graduated ND filter of any type.

Hope this helps!

amfoto1 wrote in post #14596782
No, you don't need a "Circular" ND... just a good ND filter.

Only polarizers come in circular and linear varieties (and you need circular with an autofocus camera and some camera metering systems).

Just figure out the exposures you want and then how many stops of light you'll need to reduce to get to that exposure. For example, if shooting in midday sun we can usually apply the "Sunny 16" rule as an approximation. That says that at ISO 100 you need to use f16 and 1/100 shutter speed. If you want to use f11, which doubles the light passing through the lens, you would need to use twice as fast shutter speed or 1/200. If you set f22, you'd need to use 1/50 shutter speed.

Now, in this case you want to use slower shutter speeds and your limit on iSO is 100. That's as low as you can set the camera. To avoid diffraction issues due to too small an aperture, you probably want to keep to f16 at the smallest. So the next questions are how fast is the water moving and how much do you want to blur it? This will decide how slow a shutter speed you need, and that in turn tells you what density of filter, how many stops reduction in light you need.

Let's say you want 1/25, for example. With f16 and ISO 100 set, you'll need at least a two stop ND filter (1/100 > 1/50 > 1/25). But that will just barely get you to 1/25. And you might want to be able to use a slower shutter to get more blur, or you might want to use a larger aperture for various reasons. So, you probably will want a four, five or six stop ND filter. Eventually... because it isn't sunny every day or at times you might want to shoot in the shade or have other reasons to use a weaker filter... you might end up with a couple different ND filters, and may be able to stack them to achieve different effects. Or combine them with another type of filter, such as a Circular Polarizer.

A C-Pol is also a pretty strong filter, though it's variable depending upon how it's set. At its minimum setting a C-Pol reduces about one stop of light, and can be close to two stops at it's strongest setting. A C-Pol is also valuable controllling or reducing reflections off water and foliage, to get more color saturation in many situations.

So you might want to combine a three or four stop ND with a C-Pol, in bright sunlight. In shade or overcast, you might need a one or two stop ND instead, along with the C-Pol.

You'll have to experiment with shutter speeds to learn the various effects possible. It will be different with slow moving water, than with fast moving.

There are variable ND filters, where you can dial in various strengths as needed. However, the more affordable ones (eg., Polaroid) tend to be blotchy and cause color casts in images... and the good ones (Singh-Ray) cost a whole lot of money.

Single strength ND filters are usually more even and good ones are very neutral, don't add ugly tints. I'm partial to multi-coated B+W MRC filters personally, but there are other good brands such as Hoya, Marumi, Heliopan and more. You need a 77mm ND for your lens.... here's a search for Hoya I did at BH Photo: http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …&InitialSearch=​yes&sts=ma and another at Amazon: http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …&InitialSearch=​yes&sts=ma

B+W offers and rates the strength of their ND filters in the following manner:

0.3 = one stop
0.6 = two stops
0.9 = three stops
1.6 = six stops
3.0 = ten stops

Other manufacturers might use different designations and offer different strengths.

You shouldn't need more expensive "slim" filters on your lens, especially using it on a crop camera.

I have and use the B+W MRC C-Pol and the B+W Kaesemann. Both are very good. The Kaesemann gives slightly smoother gradations and is better sealed against moisture intrusion.

Hope this helps!

Thank you so much for taking the time out and posting this for me. I have a hoya 77mm c-pol that I bought for 46.00 off of B&h...I need to research ND filters a bit more..

Would it be best to just get 1.6 ND filter since I am going to be shooting in Midday during the sun? I want the water to look like cotton if that is a good description of how I want it to look.

Yes, you'll need a fairly strong filter like the 1.6 to get shutter speeds slow enough to blur that much midday. If you want less blur, you can open up the aperture to f11, f8 or more... and/or you can bump up iSO to 200, 400, etc.

Alternatively, you might find a 0.9 in combination with your C-Pol to be strong enough (test your C-Pol to see how strong it is at it's weakest and strongest settings, to see how much light it's costing... you can do that simply by checking the meter in your camera without the filter and with it set at it's extremes... there's always some variation depending upon where the sun is in relation to the direction you are shooting).

Hoya makes a good line of filters, too, if you prefer. I just referenced the B+W because they are what I use and am more familiar with.

mustang0672, don't lose sight of what we explained to you a week ago at the thread at https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1193678.

As far as an ND 1.6, each 0.3 in ND corresponds to a 1 stop reduction in light, so an ND1.6 would be slightly more than 5 stops of light reduction. As another example, the 0.9 ND would be 3 stops.

So if you were shooting cloudy bright at ASA 100, the exposure wiithout any filter would be around 1/100 sec at f/11. Five stops, each stop being a doubling, and only taking into account solely the exposure time would yield a sequence of...

1 stop 1/50 sec
2nd stop 1/25 sec
3rd stop 1/12 sec
4th stop 1/6 sec
5th stop 1/3 sec
all these are based at f/11 and ISO = 100.

So using the general rule that something longer than 1/15 sec will give you the look you desire, then "yes" the ND1.6 should work well.

Using ISO = 400 you can develop a similar series. The exposure for cloudy bright would be about 1/400 at f/11. So the series to get to what a ND1.6 would yield is

1 stop 1/200 sec
2nd stop 1/100 sec
3rd stop 1/50 sec
4th stop 1/25 sec
5th stop 1/12 sec
all these are based at f/11 at ISO = 400.

So using the general rule that something longer than 1/15 sec will give you the look you desire, then with ISO set at 400, the ND1.6 is marginal.

John from PA wrote in post #14596965
mustang0672, don't lose sight of what we explained to you a week ago at the thread at https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1193678.

As far as an ND 1.6, each 0.3 in ND corresponds to a 1 stop reduction in light, so an ND1.6 would be slightly more than 5 stops of light reduction. As another example, the 0.9 ND would be 3 stops.

So if you were shooting cloudy bright at ASA 100, the exposure wiithout any filter would be around 1/100 sec at f/11. Five stops, each stop being a doubling, and only taking into account solely the exposure time would yield a sequence of...

1 stop 1/50 sec
2nd stop 1/25 sec
3rd stop 1/12 sec
4th stop 1/6 sec
5th stop 1/3 sec
all these are based at f/11 and ISO = 100.

So using the general rule that something longer than 1/15 sec will give you the look you desire, then "yes" the ND1.6 should work well.

Using ISO = 400 you can develop a similar series. The exposure for cloudy bright would be about 1/400 at f/11. So the series to get to what a ND1.6 would yield is

1 stop 1/200 sec
2nd stop 1/100 sec
3rd stop 1/50 sec
4th stop 1/25 sec
5th stop 1/12 sec
all these are based at f/11 at ISO = 400.

So using the general rule that something longer than 1/15 sec will give you the look you desire, then with ISO set at 400, the ND1.6 is marginal.

Thank you for helping me out with this info..I guess it takes going out and experimenting and practicing. I live near Galveston which doesn't have the best looking water but i can experiment there...I do not know of any waterfalls around my area, LOL.
I tried shooting at f/11 and ISO 100 on a sunny day without a ND filter and it didn't exactly work out too well. The easiest way I guess is to simply get a ND filter..

Would bulb mode be the best way to accomplish these settings? Excuse my ignorance I have A LOT TO STILL LEARN.

I tried shooting at f/11 and ISO 100 on a sunny day without a ND filter and it didn't exactly work out too well.

There isn't any reason why this would have worked out, at least as far as delivering the blurry water effect! Let's look at what went wrong. First of all those key words sunny day. Many years ago there was what was termed the "sunny 16 rule"; that meant that at 1/ASA and f/16 the shutter speed was the ASA (film speed). Today we use ISO, essentially similar to ASA but digital film speed. Anyway for ISO 100 on a sunny day the shutter speed for a properly exposed image would have been 1/100 sec at f/16. You went open one stop to f/11 or doubled the amount of light needed and to keep things equal the camera likely went to 1/200 sec. But for the flowing water effect we need 1/15 sec or longer so you were way off target, the target being the flowing water with the blurry motion.