Variable Neutral Density Filter

[fitzperry]

I use one that's around $20 on Amazon. Total off brand, but it's fine for fireworks.

I have reviews of a number of ND filters on my blog.

Wish I'd known this before I smashed a $200 one in Grand Cayman

 

[BirdsOfPreyDave]

Wish I'd known this before I smashed a $200 one in Grand Cayman

Did it at least sacrifice itself to save a $1500 lens?

 

[fitzperry]

Did it at least sacrifice itself to save a $1500 lens?

Lol! That at least would've eased the pain, but the truth is I just stupidly knocked the filter off a table. And I only got to use it at Disney once! I'll definitely be picking up a cheaper version before our fall trip

 

[GrillMouster]

To the OP, what exactly are you hoping the ND filter will do for you? I ask because you posted the following shot as the reason you want an ND filter, but you didn't explain what about that shot you want to improve.

Wishes by Leo, on Flickr

For fireworks photography, an ND filter is mainly going to get you really, really long exposures so you can get a lot of fireworks blasts in the same frame. You can accomplish the same thing just putting the camera in bulb mode and using the black card technique (or a hat will work). In the picture you gave as reference, your shutter speed was 3 seconds, the aperture was f11, and the ISO was 200. You could have had a much longer exposure by dropping the ISO and using a smaller aperture. Shooting at ISO 100 and f16 would have given you a 12 second exposure, if that's what you're looking for. Stop down even more, and you can get even longer exposures.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that before you buy new gear hoping it will improve your photography, you should really have an understanding of exactly why your photos aren't "doing it" for you, how your existing gear is failing you in that regard, and what the new gear will do to help that situation.

 

[Pixel Dust]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that before you buy new gear hoping it will improve your photography, you should really have an understanding of exactly why your photos aren't "doing it" for you, how your existing gear is failing you in that regard, and what the new gear will do to help that situation.

Grill, I do agree with you that, one should understand their photo's shortcomings and how to achieve what they want. Not just go out and buy gear in hopes that it will solve everything.

An ND filter will help with fireworks photos. The issue is that some of the burst are super bright. You will get over exposed bursts, even at the camera's base settings. Some cameras have a base ISO of 200 or may lack the dynamic range to retain bright detail. I like to stay at f/11. Going to f/16, 22 or higher would cause diffraction and make the image softer. Shutter speed is only going to matter for the number of bursts you want, not brightness of the burst. Why? You have to remember, fireworks are actually tiny balls of fire that MOVE across the sky, exposing a new part of the sensor. With the camera at the lowest settings I want to use, the burst are still going to be over exposed. And that's where an ND filter comes in, to reduce the intensity of the bursts.

Example:

Same camera (D7000), same settings, same fireworks burst sequence. The only difference was the usage of an ND filter.

ISO 100, f/11, 4 seconds, NO FILTER


ISO 100, f/11, 4 seconds, ND 0.9 (3 Stops)


Without a filter, the bursts on the sides of the castle (coming from the ground) is completely washed out, in the first photo. All detail is lost into white blobs. By using an ND filter, the intensity is reduced, in the second photo. Now we have proper exposure of those bursts. We can see individual streaks, and what color they are.

Yes, ND filters can help with one burst set. But, they will also greatly improve multiple burst sets.

 

[GrillMouster]

Thanks for posting photos that clearly demonstrate your point, Pixel Dust. The images taken with the ND filter do look better. The ND filter cuts the light, decreasing the exposure. You could do the same by stopping down the aperture. You mention the issue of diffraction, which I think is often overblown. I've seen lots of stellar image taken at f/16, f/22, and f/32. That's not to say that diffraction doesn't exist, but is its impact on image quality equal to or significantly worse than that of a filter in front of the lens (multiple surfaces)? Would either of those make a noticeable difference at "normal" viewing sizes or distance (not pixel-peeping)? I think that's something each photographer will have to decide for him/herself. Again, I'm not saying that ND filters aren't useful for fireworks photography, just that it's not the only way. Most of the great fireworks shots I see were taken without an ND filter; it's only been the last couple of years in communities such as this one that ND filters have become fashionable for fireworks.

 

[NJGuy3]

To the OP, what exactly are you hoping the ND filter will do for you? I ask because you posted the following shot as the reason you want an ND filter, but you didn't explain what about that shot you want to improve.


For fireworks photography, an ND filter is mainly going to get you really, really long exposures so you can get a lot of fireworks blasts in the same frame. You can accomplish the same thing just putting the camera in bulb mode and using the black card technique (or a hat will work). In the picture you gave as reference, your shutter speed was 3 seconds, the aperture was f11, and the ISO was 200. You could have had a much longer exposure by dropping the ISO and using a smaller aperture. Shooting at ISO 100 and f16 would have given you a 12 second exposure, if that's what you're looking for. Stop down even more, and you can get even longer exposures.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that before you buy new gear hoping it will improve your photography, you should really have an understanding of exactly why your photos aren't "doing it" for you, how your existing gear is failing you in that regard, and what the new gear will do to help that situation.

Basically, I'm trying to achieve 'tighter' and more vibrant streams of fireworks...reduce the intensity of the burts.
And as it was pointed out to me in an earlier reply, I could achive that simply by seting aperture to f/16 vs the f/11 I had used for that shot.
I have heard of it many times but never used the black card or hat technique but definetly something I will try next time! Thanks!

Grill, I do agree with you that, one should understand their photo's shortcomings and how to achieve what they want. Not just go out and buy gear in hopes that it will solve everything.

An ND filter will help with fireworks photos. The issue is that some of the burst are super bright. You will get over exposed bursts, even at the camera's base settings. Some cameras have a base ISO of 200 or may lack the dynamic range to retain bright detail. I like to stay at f/11. Going to f/16, 22 or higher would cause diffraction and make the image softer. Shutter speed is only going to matter for the number of bursts you want, not brightness of the burst. Why? You have to remember, fireworks are actually tiny balls of fire that MOVE across the sky, exposing a new part of the sensor. With the camera at the lowest settings I want to use, the burst are still going to be over exposed. And that's where an ND filter comes in, to reduce the intensity of the bursts.

Without a filter, the bursts on the sides of the castle (coming from the ground) is completely washed out, in the first photo. All detail is lost into white blobs. By using an ND filter, the intensity is reduced, in the second photo. Now we have proper exposure of those bursts. We can see individual streaks, and what color they are.

Yes, ND filters can help with one burst set. But, they will also greatly improve multiple burst sets.

Great shots and good examples of an nd filter. I wasn't sure if I could achieve this without an nd filter, but will try with the settings people, including you, have mentioned. I definetly would like to reduce the intensity of the bursts so that more color and streams look better. Thanks!

 

[GrillMouster]

Basically, I'm trying to achieve 'tighter' and more vibrant streams of fireworks...reduce the intensity of the burts.
And as it was pointed out to me in an earlier reply, I could achive that simply by seting aperture to f/16 vs the f/11 I had used for that shot....

To be clear, when you say "tighter" and "reduced intensity" you're basically talking about decreasing the exposure. I just want that to be clear because some folks think that the ND filter is doing something special to make the fireworks tighter and less intense. It's not; it's just lowering the exposure-- reducing the amount of light that's hitting the sensor. As you said, stopping down the aperture to F/16 will do that. If f/16 doesn't lower the exposure enough for you, then try f/22 and f/32 (judge for yourself how the images look at those settings). However, before stopping down the aperture any more I'd lower your ISO. In the photo you posted the ISO was 200, but I think your model camera goes down to ISO 100, so that's where you should be.

Here's the basic exposure steps for fireworks:
1) Hit the floor on your ISO. You're exposing for the fireworks, not the dark sky. Fireworks are bright; they don't need a high ISO. You want the sky to be dark and have low noise, and a low ISO is your best shot at achieving that.
2) Find the shutter speed that gets you the full burst and long trails (start at a few seconds, then adjust).
3) After all of that is done, then adjust the aperture to get the exposure you want. Start around f/11, then adjust.

Consider an ND filter when you've stopped the aperture down to the point that you deem unacceptable (based your own observation, not on someone else's comments online).

Also, while I'm a proponent of getting as much "right" in-camera, just about every image gets finessed in post-processing. A lot of "tightening" and color-boosting can be done quickly and easily with a couple sliders.

I just don't want people to think that they can't do something because they don't own a particular piece of gear, especially when people have been doing it for years without said piece of gear.

 

[Experiment_626]

Thanks for posting photos that clearly demonstrate your point, Pixel Dust. The images taken with the ND filter do look better. The ND filter cuts the light, decreasing the exposure. You could do the same by stopping down the aperture.

In some cases, yes. However, there is no way I could get this image just by stopping down (I have tried and got naught but a completely white apocalyptic blown-out blast over the castle, even at minimum aperture and ISO):


How Charming ... A Finale! by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr

Scott