8 vs 9 vs 10 stop ND Filter

Was checking out the thread on 9-10 stop ND filter photos, wow so dreamy makes me want to step to the ocean and try my hand.

Was going to give the 9 stop ND500 from lightcraftworkshop a shot. The price is right, at $73. Does that one stop difference really make a difference in real world usage? Will the water/clouds etc. not be as milky?

To take it further, I noticed they had a Fader ND which goes from 1 stop to 8 stops. Now this sounds great because I want to mess around with video so this would effectively allow perfect shutter speeds for the most part even in bright conditions.

So that got me thinking, can I achieve these effects on 8 stops? The Fader is only $30 bucks more so if I can, I think this serves many purposes and would be great. Also, i would love to be able to make cars and people dissappear as I've seen that described

It all depends what kind of light you're working with, I have a 4 stop ND filter and it works well during the day in relatively bright conditions. The fader would be cool and really a 1 stop difference is correctable in photoshop if you need to.

jdang307 wrote in post #9911456
Was checking out the thread on 9-10 stop ND filter photos, wow so dreamy makes me want to step to the ocean and try my hand.

Was going to give the 9 stop ND500 from lightcraftworkshop a shot. The price is right, at $73. Does that one stop difference really make a difference in real world usage? Will the water/clouds etc. not be as milky?

To take it further, I noticed they had a Fader ND which goes from 1 stop to 8 stops. Now this sounds great because I want to mess around with video so this would effectively allow perfect shutter speeds for the most part even in bright conditions.

So that got me thinking, can I achieve these effects on 8 stops? The Fader is only $30 bucks more so if I can, I think this serves many purposes and would be great. Also, i would love to be able to make cars and people dissappear as I've seen that described

The one-stop difference will account for either a doubling, or halving, of the shutter speed (depending which way you go). Assume that you're shooting at the Sunny 16 rule for ISO 100 (f/16 , 1/100). A 9-stop filter will reduce the shutter speed to about 5 seconds; the 10-stop will double that, to a shutter of about 10 seconds. You may be able to account for the stop difference by adjusting ISO and/or aperture prior to taking the shot. If that isn't possible (such as when you are at the lowest ISO setting and can't go to a smaller aperture), the only way to get the shutter slower is through more light reduction (more ND). If you have a decent polarizer, you can get more ND reduction by stacking the filter with the 9-stop ND. This will, in effect, give you about 11-stops total of light reduction depending on how much polarization you have dialed in. Assuming the same conditions as above, this would give you a 20-second shutter speed. Most of the shots you see with smooth as glass water in the "9 and 10 stop thread" were taken at much longer shutter speeds.

The ND and polarizer are similar in that their effects cannot be duplicated in photoshop. If you're trying to get more blur on a water surface, you could try adding a Gaussian blur to it in photoshop, but IMO it just wouldn't look natural. I added a few test shots below that I took when trying out the 10-stop filter...the first image is an example of a test shot that I took before adding the 10-stop filter to the lens. The water on the right side of the picture is natural; on the left side, I added a light Gaussian blur layer to smooth the water and then backed off on the opacity...you might be able to get by with it, but to me it just doesn't look right. The second image was taken with a filter stack that consisted of the B+W 10-stop ND and a Singh-Ray Gold/Blue polarizer...this gave a total of 12-stops light reduction and required an 82-second shutter speed in very bright conditions. To my eye, 'cheating' by adding the Gaussian blur effect doesn't even come close to the ethereal effect that the filtration gives. But as I mentioned earlier...if you have a good polarizer, don't be afraid to stack it with your ND filter to get a longer shutter speed...just be mindful of vignetting depending on your focal length.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Ok, I think I can get by with the fader 1-8 stop, plus a Marumi 82mm Circular polarizer, which should approximate 10 stops (I'll have to run tests of course to lock down actual stop reduction).

The Fader from Lightcraftworkshop fits 77mm lenses, but is actually an 82mm filter on a built in 77mm step up ring. So that means my 77mm Circular polarizer won't fit. I guess I'll have to sell it and get a 82mm one, but I'm not sure that's such a bad thing, it should help reduce some vignetting perhaps.

I have a Singh 10 stop variable ND and it works great. A bit pricey but the control is excellent.

Oh trust me, if I had the funds, I'd jump on the Singh rays which look to be top of the class. But seeing as I just got my offer accepted on my first house this week (yesterday actually), I don't think my lady would approve of that right now! Lol. I'm sneaking in the last few accessories I've been putting off because I'm not sure when I'll be in the market again

My guess is you will be earning income for quite some time ... it's a great product and actually goes past 10 into uncharted darkness, maybe 13 stops who knows it's no longer given a scale and eventually you get back to wide open.

jetcode wrote in post #9914066
I have a Singh 10 stop variable ND and it works great. A bit pricey but the control is excellent.

I also shoot with the Singh-Ray Vari-N-Duo...its an 8-stop variable ND mated to a warming polarizer, and gives about 10-stops total at max density and polarization. The Vari-ND version (no built-in polarizer) only gets to 8-stops, at least per S-R's specs.

argyle wrote in post #9914415
I also shoot with the Singh-Ray Vari-N-Duo...its an 8-stop variable ND mated to a warming polarizer, and gives about 10-stops total at max density and polarization. The Vari-ND version (no built-in polarizer) only gets to 8-stops, at least per S-R's specs.

It appears the scale goes to 8 stops however in my experience this filter will get a whole lot darker in the short space beyond the end of the scale and I have used that portion before though I never bothered to measure it precisely.

jetcode wrote in post #9914774
It appears the scale goes to 8 stops however in my experience this filter will get a whole lot darker in the short space beyond the end of the scale and I have used that portion before though I never bothered to measure it precisely.

Wow...I'll have to check my Vari-N-Duo as well. Several shooters on FM though have often mentioned that the 8-stops of ND is actually somewhat less than 8. I guess the only way to tell for sure is to check it out oneself. Interesting...

argyle wrote in post #9914816
Wow...I'll have to check my Vari-N-Duo as well. Several shooters on FM though have often mentioned that the 8-stops of ND is actually somewhat less than 8. I guess the only way to tell for sure is to check it out oneself. Interesting...

I have not done a real analysis of this filter but it works great. It may not reach 8 stops on the calibrated scale but I rarely use this filter in such precise terms. I crank it down until I get the kind of Av/Tv I want in a scene. Does your filter go beyond the scale at the max end? I suppose it does but I am wondering how the polarizer works with the ND, whether you have control over each element. That would make sense.

argyle wrote in post #9912232
The one-stop difference will account for either a doubling, or halving, of the shutter speed (depending which way you go). Assume that you're shooting at the Sunny 16 rule for ISO 100 (f/16 , 1/100). A 9-stop filter will reduce the shutter speed to about 5 seconds; the 10-stop will double that, to a shutter of about 10 seconds. You may be able to account for the stop difference by adjusting ISO and/or aperture prior to taking the shot. If that isn't possible (such as when you are at the lowest ISO setting and can't go to a smaller aperture), the only way to get the shutter slower is through more light reduction (more ND). If you have a decent polarizer, you can get more ND reduction by stacking the filter with the 9-stop ND. This will, in effect, give you about 11-stops total of light reduction depending on how much polarization you have dialed in. Assuming the same conditions as above, this would give you a 20-second shutter speed. Most of the shots you see with smooth as glass water in the "9 and 10 stop thread" were taken at much longer shutter speeds.

The ND and polarizer are similar in that their effects cannot be duplicated in photoshop. If you're trying to get more blur on a water surface, you could try adding a Gaussian blur to it in photoshop, but IMO it just wouldn't look natural. I added a few test shots below that I took when trying out the 10-stop filter...the first image is an example of a test shot that I took before adding the 10-stop filter to the lens. The water on the right side of the picture is natural; on the left side, I added a light Gaussian blur layer to smooth the water and then backed off on the opacity...you might be able to get by with it, but to me it just doesn't look right. The second image was taken with a filter stack that consisted of the B+W 10-stop ND and a Singh-Ray Gold/Blue polarizer...this gave a total of 12-stops light reduction and required an 82-second shutter speed in very bright conditions. To my eye, 'cheating' by adding the Gaussian blur effect doesn't even come close to the ethereal effect that the filtration gives. But as I mentioned earlier...if you have a good polarizer, don't be afraid to stack it with your ND filter to get a longer shutter speed...just be mindful of vignetting depending on your focal length.

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I'm really digging the smooth water effect in the second pic but there is a lot of magenta in that pic now, what do you think could have accounted for that? Personally I use Lee's filters in a matte box when taking any ND shots, what kind were those?

My pet theory for magenta casts on strong ND filters is that IR starts having an impact on the image with the long exposures. But then there's Cokin filters where it starts sooner than on anybody else's.

nduralt wrote in post #9915597
I'm really digging the smooth water effect in the second pic but there is a lot of magenta in that pic now, what do you think could have accounted for that? Personally I use Lee's filters in a matte box when taking any ND shots, what kind were those?

Select the lake, desaturate the color, and modify the hue to match the original.

jetcode wrote in post #9915720
Select the lake, desaturate the color, and modify the hue to match the original.

Understood, but even the roughage in the BG is showing a lot of magenta that I'm not really digging, that's why I'm asking about which filter, my hunch is it is the Corkin.