I need an ND filter

[DIW35]

Thought I would have a go at attaching the camera to the car to get one of those blurred scenery type shots. Sort of half way succeeded, but even with at f/22 with ISO set at 100, the shutter speed was still too quick to get the amount of blur I was hoping for.

Looks like I'll be investing in some ND filters soon.

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

Buy a polariser first - it's very useful in its own right, but can also function as a 1.6 stop ND.

[DIW35]

That sounds like a good idea, 'cos I do like my polarising filters. Just haven't got one to fit the DSLR at the moment.

[_dobbo_]

I actually quite like that photo anyway, a polariser would help in two ways, first to get you a longer exposure and second to eliminate some of the reflections in the window.

This was shot in shade yesterday at about 19:00, with just a polariser at f/22



I bought a cheap 8 stop ND on ebay, and whilst it works it does seem to rob a fair bit of contrast from the final image. Nothing that can't be recovered but it does mean from the camera the images look very flat.

This was shot with both an 8 stop and a 4 stop ND filter, at around 9:00am in direct sunlight;

Edited by _dobbo_ on Monday 14th July 19:31

[Simpo Two]

DIW35 said:

even with at f/22 with ISO set at 100, the shutter speed was still too quick to get the amount of blur I was hoping for.

Drive faster?

[DIW35]

Simpo Two said:

DIW35 said:

even with at f/22 with ISO set at 100, the shutter speed was still too quick to get the amount of blur I was hoping for.

Drive faster?

I did think about that, but I was worried about camera shake at higher speeds. Think that one was taken at about 30mph.

[GetCarter]

You don't need a ND filter, or a polariser, or indeed to drive faster.

You need a slower shutter speed (and some very smooth tarmac - with the engine off)

This was taken at about 2 mph

Edited by GetCarter on Monday 14th July 20:11

[Simpo Two]

Agreed, but the inference was that the OP was unable to get a sufficiently slow shutter speed with his camera for the amount of light.

[GetCarter]

Well, point taken, but the simple solution is not to take a photo with lots of blue/white sky.

He could either spend loads of money on ND and polarisers, or get some smooth tarmac, wait for a bit of cloud and take a long exposure. (Cloud is, I believe, not a problem this summer)

[Simpo Two]

Yep, sunlight can be a bugger at times.

[paul911]

Well I thought I would seize the moment and go and have a go! And its not as easy as you guys are making out. How many seconds do you recommend for the shutter? This is the best pic I could manage at 4 seconds, but its still way to bleary. Any other tips please guys?

[_dobbo_]

Not sure what you mean by bleary? Looks ok to me.

[paul911]

I was travelling at about 1 - 2 mph and it looks like I‘m doing 100 mph! (but I suppose thats what I was trying to achieve!) The pics above are more defined and are letting in more foliage detail than mine. What shutter speed do you use / recommend?

[_dobbo_]

If you are talking about mine - the first one is 1.3 seconds and the second one is 2 seconds. Both are being pushed so less than 1mph speed.

In my (somewhat) limited experience any more than 2 seconds is a waste except if you are looking to catch light trails.

Possibly the reason you can see more clearly defined foliage is that certain parts of the image are moving less relative to the camera than others?

[Rochester TVR]

DIW35 said:

YHM.. totally off topic.