Excellent CHEAP 10-stop.

Phil Young said:
Does it? Those were the settings needed to get the shutter speed I wanted...
Click to expand...

So u had a ten stop on and then had to boost the shutter speed... why not shoot iso 100 at like f16 without a filter :s
 
barratt1988 said:
So u had a ten stop on and then had to boost the shutter speed... why not shoot iso 100 at like f16 without a filter :s
Click to expand...
Like I said, it was just to upload to the thread to show color cast (or lack of) and sharpness.

Here's one that might make you a little more satisfied ;)

Relatively sunny day.


Canary wharf back side by PhilYoung1, on Flickr
 
barratt1988 said:
Very nice. But to show cast you need a long exposure
Click to expand...
So be it...

Both @ 30s:

1527120_10153763476530305_1105402870_n.jpg


64568_10153763476540305_1044333251_n.jpg
 
I quite like them non the less. The effect of making the people and other vehicles more or less disappear whilst still having the bus sharp is pretty good, especially with it being red too. Makes for a nice focal point.
 
Phil Young said:
I don't know what that is but if you want a RAW I can upload one.
Click to expand...

No need Phil, what I think happens is in most cases the noise reduction of the RAW minimises the trait for stills use.

Funniest case of IR contamination I have seen was a performer's hairpiece which was invisible to the naked eye and on the camera's live output but showed up as hard transition line like Friar Tuck to fine purple noise on the back of their head when seen off the camera's RAW files compared to their own hair.
 
Hi I see there are two versions of this filter (standard and ultra slim). Is the ultra slim worth the extra?
 
Ive been after a BW one but thats 4 times the cost of this new so might give this a shot! Now deciding whether to get one for the 10-22mm or 24-105mm mmm
 
Tom Tom said:
Ive been after a BW one but thats 4 times the cost of this new so might give this a shot! Now deciding whether to get one for the 10-22mm or 24-105mm mmm
Click to expand...

You only need one, both those lenses have the same filter thread size
 
glad i looked at this thread think i'll have a punt at a 72mm one
 
Just ordered mine today, looking forward to getting out and trying some long exposures.
 
Had a test of mine today, posting an example to show a 100% crop from RAW. Only went for a walk in the garden so nothing exactly exciting I'm afraid, looking forwards to taking it out somewhere scenic.

Very happy with the filter itself, pleased with the sharpness too, especially as the example below was taken with an ND grad stacked on top of it, these are the results, with crop shown in second image. Exposure time was 111 seconds, was a little windy so excuse the slight motion blur.

View attachment 5223

View attachment 5224

Details for those of you that are curious:

Lens used: Sigma 10-20
Filter size used: 72mm
Exposure Length: 111 seconds
Aperture: f/18
ISO Speed: 100
 
Last edited:
So Phil's, Chris' and mine are all good IQ and colour cast wise.

3/3 isn't bad.

Any other good or bad reviews on these?
 
Ok ok I'm sold.. just ordered one off e-bay.. all I require now is a castle overlooking an ocean and some rocks at the front :)
 
Phil Young said:
1606867_750455298311840_587850223_n.jpg


Nuff' said!
Click to expand...


Been following this thread and might well get one :)

Phil hope you do not mind me asking about setting and processing for this image?
 
Nice waterfall shot Phil.

I've been following this too and received a 10-stop on Saturday. Just need to get out and give it a whirl now..
 
RKC said:
Phil hope you do not mind me asking about setting and processing for this image?
Click to expand...
Not at all.

Settings were;
20mm (I think), f5.6, 30s, ISO100.

For processing, I adjusted the EV and highlights etc to make it even. Boosted clarity, vibrance down saturation up then boosted the greens and brought down the blues a bit.

Then in photoshop, I made a new layer and applied topaz adjust, didn't do anything other than boost the detail and then erased the parts that I didn't want to be sharp and detailed such as the water.

Hope that helps :)
 
Thanks Phil, Wanted to try out long exposures but did not want to go out and spend £100 mark for a trial, these pictures look great and something to aspire to.

Cheers for the tip and I have just purchased.
 
Tintin124 said:
Thanks Phil, Wanted to try out long exposures but did not want to go out and spend £100 mark for a trial, these pictures look great and something to aspire to.

Cheers for the tip and I have just purchased.
Click to expand...
Thanks :)

The mind seriously boggles one why someone would spend over £100 on a filter when there are just as good, if not better cheaper alternatives...
 
Phil Young said:
Thanks :)

The mind seriously boggles one why someone would spend over £100 on a filter when there are just as good, if not better cheaper alternatives...
Click to expand...

Because a lot of people believe the adage "You get what you pay for", so they'll pay £100 for a £60 filter with a £40 name on it.
 
Phil Young said:
And the phrase is usually correct...but to spend that without researching what else there is or to dismiss something can be good if it's cheap - that's what baffles me.
Click to expand...

B+W's multi-coated ten stopper is the best ND filter I've tested, and that includes most of them. Most accurate colours (after neutralising in post processing), least infrared pollution, best coatings (flare resistance, water resistance).

Whether that's worth the extra cost is another question. For most folks, probably not.
 
HoppyUK said:
B+W's multi-coated ten stopper is the best ND filter I've tested, and that includes most of them. Most accurate colours (after neutralising in post processing), least infrared pollution, best coatings (flare resistance, water resistance).

Whether that's worth the extra cost is another question, but for most folks, probably not.
Click to expand...
Curious to know if you've tested the one in question???
 
Phil Young said:
Curious to know if you've tested the one in question???
Click to expand...

No. And TBH, there are now so many of these things about (many of them probably the same glass under different brand names) there are quite a few I've not tried. But it won't be better than the B+W, if only because it's not coated. That doesn't mean the Camdiox isn't very capable, as this thread proves. I'm just pointing out what you get for the extra money with B+W.
 
HoppyUK said:
No. And TBH, there are now so many of these things about (many of them probably the same glass under different brand names) there are quite a few I've not tried. But it won't be better than the B+W, if only because it's not coated. That doesn't mean the Camdiox isn't very capable, as this thread proves. I'm just pointing out what you get for the extra money with B+W.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

For me, I don't think there's anything another filter could give me to justify an extra £80...but that's me :)
 
[quoit does help:)e="Phil Young, post: 6099682, member: 39200"]Not at all.

Settings were;
20mm (I think), f5.6, 30s, ISO100.

For processing, I adjusted the EV and highlights etc to make it even. Boosted clarity, vibrance down saturation up then boosted the greens and brought down the blues a bit.

Then in photoshop, I made a new layer and applied topaz adjust, didn't do anything other than boost the detail and then erased the parts that I didn't want to be sharp and detailed such as the water.

Hope that helps :)[/quote]

Thank you Phil, very nice image, not too much processing then, interesting to see what you did,Yes it did help :)
 
Thanks added one to my ever increasing watch list!

A
 
There's one on its way, I have fancied a play for years, but with the amount of use it'd get there was no point in me buying a Lee or similar.
 
Looking at getting into a bit of slow shutter speed photography this year, I have a Sigma 10-20mm. Is that ok for Slow Shutter speeds? I was told that by adding filters to the front of a wide angle lens it would bring vignetting to the photo and make for a bad image??
 
Jack Schmitt said:
Looking at getting into a bit of slow shutter speed photography this year, I have a Sigma 10-20mm. Is that ok for Slow Shutter speeds? I was told that by adding filters to the front of a wide angle lens it would bring vignetting to the photo and make for a bad image??
Click to expand...
It's all subjective. Try it and see, 10 stops give a bit of vignette anyway but you'll be at base iso so can easily correct if you need to :)
 
Jack Schmitt said:
Looking at getting into a bit of slow shutter speed photography this year, I have a Sigma 10-20mm. Is that ok for Slow Shutter speeds? I was told that by adding filters to the front of a wide angle lens it would bring vignetting to the photo and make for a bad image??
Click to expand...

I am using one of these filters with a Sigma 10-20mm. I have found vignetting to only be very slight. Even when stacked with an ND grad on top. Easily correctable in pp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top