|
Post by kenc on Aug 17, 2014 21:45:22 GMT
Trying out a new ND filter down by the creek ...
|
|
|
Post by nickjohnson on Aug 18, 2014 20:21:29 GMT
I like this Ken. I know there is an awful lot of this sort of work about at the moment - most of it poor IMHO - because of a bad choice of shutter speed. Lots of folks max it out and go for the full on cotton wool look. I think you've not fallen into that trap. Yours has nice movement and no cotton wool in sight. Bravo!
|
|
|
Post by kenc on Aug 19, 2014 13:22:47 GMT
Thanks Nick. I think the "cotton wool" look can work sometimes, but I agree that it wouldn't here. In any event, I'd need a denser ND filter to get it. This one is a three-stop and the longest exposures I had were not even ten seconds. I could have pushed it by going down to f32 or so, but you know, diffraction effects and all ...
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Aug 19, 2014 14:10:41 GMT
Actually, I find diffraction issues to be minimal in long exposures. I often wait until later afternoon, (an hour before sunset) and set the aperture to 32 or higher if I can get it, the ISO 50, use a polarizer with a .9 GND on a Lee frame and expose for 8 to 10 seconds with little or no aberration. The Downward Spiral and Upward Mobility shots recently posted are good examples of this.
|
|
|
Post by nickjohnson on Aug 19, 2014 14:31:54 GMT
+1 on diffraction. I've only ever seen it when looking for it @100% on screen. In a print at a proper viewing distance I don't think you will see it.
|
|
|
Post by kenc on Aug 20, 2014 12:07:05 GMT
Interesting. I've seen it on screen starting at about f20 or so (with my 100/2.8 macro, which is usually what I use at such small apertures). I think it was visible at less than 100%, but probably not at normal viewing distance. I will try to take advantage of this, as I always avoided F32, assuming from what I read that it would be visibly soft.
|
|