Filters

[Poider]

G'day, I am wanting to take moving water pictures, and some longer exposed shots, I have a Nikon P100, I guess it is considered a point and shoot, Can I assume that if I get some kind of filter to block out a little sun that I will get away with some decent shots.
I went out to the coast the other day and tried different ISO and shutter/aperture combinations, most were over exposed?
This is the best of the group.[IMG][/IMG]
Will a filter help?
Here is the added EXIF Data
Nikon coolpix P100
F Stop f/7.1
Exposure 1/50 sec
ISO - 160
exposure bias; 0 step
focal length;19 mm
max aperture; 3
Metering mode; Pattern

[prince]

I don't use a lot of filters myself so can't help much in that regard, but I've read that a CPL (Circular polarizing filter) will help with reflections. However, if you post the exif info, we might have a better suggestion. In short, you will have to have a slower shutter speed to get a blurr in the water stream and close the aperture to not overexpose the photo...

[navcom]

What you are looking for is called a neutral density filter, or ND filter for short. Basically it darkens the shot for just the reasons you are looking for. It won't affect the light at all except for making it darker. They come in different "powers" depending on how dark you want it.

A circular polarizer, while it will reduce the light a little bit, will also modify the light. It's designed to remove reflections mostly. If you want to remove reflections, use both a polarizer and a ND filter.

Since you have a point and shoot, it will be a bit strange but you can get a ND filter and just hold it in front of the lens.

Hope that helps!

[Poider]

Thanks, I will look for a ND filter and give it a go.
The only thing in the properties on EXIF is: EXIF version 0220.
What is EXIF?
Peter

[navcom]

EXIF is data that is embedded in your photo file. It includes info such as ISO, aperture, shutter speed, lens, camera used, etc. You should be able to access this data using software that came with your computer. You can also see it with Photoshop or any number of editing software programs.

[David Taylor]

Along with the recommendation of the polarizer and/or ND filter, I'd recommend a change in camera settings. For moving water (to make it look like cotton candy), you'll need a tripod, then set the ISO as low as you can go (ex: ISO 160, 100, or 50 if your camera allows it). This makes the sensor less sensitive to light, allowing longer exposures. Then set your aperture to around f16 or f18. I'm not familiar with your camera, or if this is even possible with your camera - but if you can set your aperture manually (or in Aperture Priority mode), set it about as high as it will go (large number = small opening/aperture). This will reduce the amount of light coming through the lens and force your camera to use the slowest shutter speed possible. Hope this helps, and please feel free to ask me to explain more if you need it. I love this stuff!

[Poider]

Thank you David,
The smallest ISO with my Camera is 160
smallest aperture is F8.0
I will try these settings next time I am down by the water.
Although I dare say that I will probably need a DSLR, Unfortunately I have just recenlty updated to my Nikon P100 and will not be able to afford a DSLR for some time, Having said that I will be determined to get some good shots with this camera, I am going to the UK for a 22 day tour in 18 months and hope to get it all with my Nikon maybe when I get back I will try to get a DSLR
Thanks
Peter

[Photologyst]

Changing camera settings is good advice. I don’t believe you can set yours above ISO 400. Also try the exposure compensation buttons.

With today’s digicams there is little need to use filters other than a UV to protect the lens.

You can add filters post processing with Lightroom, etc. That photo can be improved with post shoot processing.

Filters restrict you. Once you use one it’s a pain to remove the effects if you don’t like them. Whereas adding them post processing gives you lots of flexibility. I don’t even use star filters any longer. There are plenty of filter brushes that one can download from the net and use in Photoshop.

[navcom]

Originally Posted by Photologyst

Changing camera settings is good advice. I don’t believe you can set yours above ISO 400. Also try the exposure compensation buttons.

With today’s digicams there is little need to use filters other than a UV to protect the lens.

You can add filters post processing with Lightroom, etc. That photo can be improved with post shoot processing.

Filters restrict you. Once you use one it’s a pain to remove the effects if you don’t like them. Whereas adding them post processing gives you lots of flexibility. I don’t even use star filters any longer. There are plenty of filter brushes that one can download from the net and use in Photoshop.

Hi Lumico! I might beg to differ on this one. While using post-processing to add filters is certainly an option and the current technology is great and there are times when post processing is the only option, most of the time a filter in front of the lens will yield better image quality than post-processing. This is because you are modifying the original light, not pixels later. While in many cases it's not much difference, it's always best to try and get the best out of the camera.

I've been doing landscape photography for over 20 years and have used Photoshop much of that time. I still prefer a filter whenever I can. I've done multiple tests with sunrise photos determining if there is any real difference between using an ND grad or just adding it in post processing. In just about every case, the filter creates a better image. In many cases, it's light years better. It produces better color rendition than PP. The colors simply aren't there when the sky is overexposed and then an attempt is made to reign it in with a plugin or software function later. You can try HDR techniques, which can help a bit, but the HDR process still reduces some of the image quality and can produce unrealistic results. With the filter, I get exactly what I want with the best quality possible and it saves a ton of time in front of the computer as well.

And there are many things you can do with a filter that you can't do with post processing...this thread is one example. You need a ND filter to slow down the shutter speed to do time lapse during the day. That's because an ND filter is functional, not enhancement. The same goes for a circular polarizer. I've never seen a plugin or software function that can effectively duplicate it's effect. On both accounts, you can't enhance what you didn't record.

As for UV filters, that is a preference. Personally, I've done away with using a UV filter for lens protection. I discovered that they were the cause of many anomalies that didn't occur with it was left off. It never made sense to use a cheap piece of glass in front of a $1000 lens, thus reducing the quality of the images that you bought the expensive glass for in the first place. And I haven't damaged a lens yet. UV filters can work well to reduce CA in some lenses. If you need the filter for what it was intended, go for it. My opinion is UV filters weren't designed to protect lenses. My opinion though.

My two cents.

[David Taylor]

I agree with Navcom - in most cases a filter used in the field is superior to post processing. Circular polarizers are a great example. There is no way to duplicate a cpl in post. I'm not a fan of HDR images - they typically look way to flat to me (but that's only my opinion), although I do a lot of "blended" images when I'm shooting wide angle landscapes. 1 exposure for the sky/mountains and 1 for the foreground - then blend them together in PS using a graduated mask. If there is action in the scene, I will usually use a grad nd filter instead. But I find that I move faster and get better quality by blending two exposures in post using the grad mask in post method.
There has been good evidence that most UV filters actually interfere (however slightly) with digital sensors and can produce ghosting. Especially the "cheap" ones. I use my lens hood and/or lens cap to protect my lens.