look at the following two pics. first one I shot without any filter on,1/15,F/22,ISO100, second one I put B+W ND 3.0(10 stops),30s,F/11,ISO100
the second one seems lots of color casting and hard to recorrect in post-process. what's going on to 2nd pics? is that inherent side-effect of Neutrial Density 3.0 filter?
#1.
I am not an expert on this gear, but I will take a guess.
It's likely that the colors in the first image were muted because the things with color were less exposed. When you add the ND, the brightness of the snow was reduced so you were able to expose the weeds and trees more, giving you more overall color in the image.
It could also be a combination of that effect and whatever mechanism you are using to handle white balancing.
Either way, I wouldn't blame the filter without a much more controlled test.
The colors do look off in the second pic. The water looks almost muddy. If you could reshoot, it would be interesting to use a polarizing filter instead of just an ND. Maybe you would find the white balance easier then, but it's just a guess. I live in CA and don't get to shoot in the snow too often. ;-)
the reason I used ND is, I wanna get milky water. it seems the ND3.0 are too strong...CPL can only reduce the 2 stops shutter speed, and won't be enough to make milky water in the middle of the day time.
Hmm. Did you consider just stopping down the lens? You are only using f/11. You can likely get the effect you want around f/22, if you don't like the effect of the ND filter. The diffraction shouldn't affect this type of shot too much -- no direct light sources.
James Grimm wrote:
Hmm. Did you consider just stopping down the lens? You are only using f/11. You can likely get the effect you want around f/22, if you don't like the effect of the ND filter. The diffraction shouldn't affect this type of shot too much -- no direct light sources.
the first pic 's exif: 1/15,F/22,ISO100
F/22 is the smallest aperture for 30/1.4L, for milky water, 1/15 is not even close. should be at least 5".
Okay, that kills that idea!
So, you're left with putting a filter in front of the lens.
Or, a radical idea: take several shots and average them together. Obviously requires a tripod, remote shutter release, mirror lock-up, post processing skills, etc., but if you just can't stand the color cast of the ND filter, it's another way to do it.
There are a bunch of things going on in the picture that would affect a color cast.
Most people shoot with auto w/b. Its likely you did and the camera switched automatically. If you want a comparison, fix the w/b to one setting. Changing clouds will cause the w/b to switch causing this affect.
The first is at 1/15 vs 30s for 2nd. The settings of the camera come in discrete units above 5s so its likely that the 2nd was more exposed. More exposed will get different colors. In addition, shooting at 30s is likley to introduce considerable blur in grass and trees and cloud because of wind and changing clouds. So the average exposure will be different.
Incidently, I would not personally go above f11 on 1.6frame camera because of defraction. Defraction will make the picture noisy. Although in this example, the wind movement is likely to be as significant as the defraction noise evening the quality out.
Shoot in raw ? and the white balance is far easier to correct in photoshop.
hope you get this . . . i've been away from this site for the better part of a year and just returned. no one appeared to have touched on my response to your two pictures. i liked the 2nd picture (and liked it very much) because it has accent which identifies a subject (the trees hanging onto waters edge). the first picture is too equally busy throughout for my liking.
