I'm confused: ND or CP filter

I've read the sticky on filters but I'm still a little confused. I'm trying to shoot birds as they land on my feeder but it is in the bright sun when they visit. I want a fast shutter to freeze their movement but there is still too much sun and usually part of their body gets blown out. Will one of these filters help? I also shoot a lot in the bright sun (I live in FL) and run into the same thing. I'm not looking to stop the flow of water with a slow shutter, just trying to block some of that bright light.

If I was to want to slow the waves in the ocean, I think the ND filter would be the correct accessory. This is the one I was looking for in that application: Hoya 77mm Neutral Density ND-400 X, 9 Stop Multi-Coated Glass Filter. Would that be a good choice?

Is there a specific focal length that works best with these filters? Or can I used any of these? I have a 400mm, a 70-200, and a 17-55.

Thanks for your input.
Chris

First of all, can you stop down? If you are getting blown areas in your shots even with very high shuter speeds, maybe you can try to shoot at a smaller aperture if you can?

If you are already at a small aperture, then I would consider a 3 stop filter. The 9 stop filter that you have shown will reduce your light by a factor of 2^9, which is 512. That's a lot. That will take a 1/1000 exposure to a 1/2 exposure. You will be better off with a 2 stop or 3 stop ND filter that will just cut your shutter speed by a factor of 4 or 8.

By the way, as an Oregonian, can I state that I hate your and your first world problems? Too much light, what a concept...

A cpl will give you 3 stops and add some saturation.

Scrumhalf--Ha Ha. I'm sorry for your lack of sunshine. It's a trade off though. We get stifling humidity along the coast in the summer which doesn't make it easy to carry around a lot of heavy equipment to shoot.

I would like to keep a nice bokeh at the feeder so stopping down would eliminate that.

chrisr09 wrote in post #16752791
Scrumhalf--Ha Ha. I'm sorry for your lack of sunshine. It's a trade off though. We get stifling humidity along the coast in the summer which doesn't make it easy to carry around a lot of heavy equipment to shoot.

I would like to keep a nice bokeh at the feeder so stopping down would eliminate that.

Then a 2-3 stop ND or maybe a trying a CPL would help. Also from Oregon I am not really sure what to much sun would even look like. I have yet to shoot at the highest shutter speed my camera has lol.

Then again we can blur water here without a filter at all

I'm not really understanding why you would be having this problem to be honest. I live in Texas and never have problems with highlights on the birds, the background may be blown out but there's not much you can do about that really other than planning your setup around it.

What ISO are you shooting at? What's the f-stop?

This was taken at noon in full sunlight, there were trees but the sun was overhead...
T1i
f/7.1
1/320
200iso

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/cordesj/1257574​1424/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/cordesj/8598519​529/

I just have to add that you have a great photostream

Thank you, juscuz. I need to get some more pictures up on Flickr. It's been a while.

I think I will go with a CPL since we have so much sun. At least that will get rid of the glare when shooting on ponds and brighten the blown out sky. My photo budget is limited so I have to be sure before I buy something. I appreciate your advice everyone.

Chris

chrisr09 wrote in post #16755122
I think I will go with a CPL since we have so much sun. At least that will get rid of the glare when shooting on ponds and brighten the blown out sky.

Chris, a polarizing filter will not "brighten the blown out sky".

Under the right conditions (the right sky conditions and where the camera is pointing relative to the sun), a polarizing filter can darken the blue of a sky, but "blown out" is usually referring to an overexposure situation and a filter won't correct that.

Have you tried raising your shutter speed and lowering your ISO? I don't see how a filter will help in this situation. I would look at the direction of light. If significant portions of the body are in direct sunlight and other parts not, that could explain your problem. I would try to have uniform light shining on the feeder, either shade or direct sunlight. You may also try a different time of day when the light is lower. Birds tend to feed in the morning and late afternoon anyway, when the sunlight is likely to be softer.

If the sky is what you are having issues with, there's really not a lot you can do if your subject is also being exposed against that sky. A graduated filter will help, but only if your subject isn't against that same sky.

I'll usually paint the sky with an exposure brush in lightroom to lower the exposure in that area. Another option, not one I go for too often, is merging 2 exposures.....have one exposure for the sky (without your subject in it) and another exposing for your subject, then merging them together in photoshop. That's what I did in this example....

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I am also confused and finding it hard to believe that even at 1/2000 or 1/4000 at ISO100 how there would be blown out highlights. I am not an experienced bird shooter, but I far too often deal with not enough light (when shooting at f/5.6).

Read her response in post 4, guys. She wants to shoot wide open to get nice BG blur, so making comparsions to F/7.1 or F/5.6 is irrelevant. Maybe she does have too much light coming in, even at 100 ISO. Until she says otherwise, I will assume (based on her Flickr page) that she knows the exposure triangle and how to meter her scene.

Ahhhh.....I missed that part, yea, wide open then I'd just go with a ND filter, altho I'd think with that using that 400mm, even at 7.1 would blur out the background nicely.

Heck, even the hummingbird example I posted above, that was using my 100mm f2.8L macro at f/8.

I've just uploaded a few more pictures to my Flickr feed. The first pelican in flight (with his wings up) has a part of his head blown out. What would you suggest I should have used to help with that -- a ND or CFL -- or would neither have made a difference? This is typically the problem I run into, where a part of the bird/butterfly is blown out. But if I underexpose to compensate, the dark parts of the photo lose detail.