Florida Birds with Panasonic S1H

[Doug Jensen]

Just to be clear, I never mentioned Variable ND (VND). I was talking about graduated ND filters that start out clear on one edge and gradually fade to a darker density on the opposite edge of the filter. There are different options for how dark they fade to, the smoothness of the gradation, and even color tinting. But you have to have a filter holder that can slide vertically in order to place the gradient where you want it -- which a screw-in filter cannot do.

BTW, the windshields on most cars are basically ND grads.

[Gary Huff]

First, those “artifacts” are color shifting (usually a green cast), a dark X-shaped shade across the image, and polarization effects. High quality (expensive) variable ND filters, such as the Polar Pro or the B+W XS-Pro are very resistant to the first two issues and are excellent options. As for the third, these filters are made from stacking polarizers so you will get those effects (such as reduced reflections) and that may be or not be to your liking. It’s really something you’d have to play with a judge for yourself. There’s no question a good Variable ND filter is really convenient.

[Gordon Hoffman]

Thanks Gary. I'll have to take a look as those filters.

Gordon

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

There’s no question a good Variable ND filter is really convenient.

Convenient, yes, but at the cost of image quality. You won't find any high-end productions using variable NDs. They are the lazy way of controlling exposure. What does it take, 15 seconds to swap one ND filter for another when lighting changes? If it is worth shooting, it is worth shooting right.

[Doug Jensen]

"The advantage of this approach (variable ND) is reduced bulk and expenses, but one drawback is a loss of image quality caused by both using two elements together and by combining two polarizing filters. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutra...density_filter

https://jonasraskphotography.com/201...t-go-variable/

https://www.diyphotography.net/probl...till-relevant/

Or just just do your own testing if you want to see for yourself that VND is not the way to go if you care about image quality.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Convenient, yes, but at the cost of image quality.

There is no "cost" of image quality with high end filters, such as those I mentioned. No need to spread FUD here.

You won't find any high-end productions using variable NDs.

You don't work on "high-end productions", Doug, nor is anyone else viewing this. These "high end productions" also don't use an S1H either.

They are the lazy way of controlling exposure.

As "lazy" as when you used the built NDs on your FS7? Seems hypocritical to me, Doug.

If it is worth shooting, it is worth shooting right.

And using a high-end variable ND doesn't mean you're not shooting it right. That you have no experience or knowledge with using a high-end VND like a Polar Pro or a B+W doesn't make them bad or worthless.

[Doug Jensen]

You always have to make everything personal, don't you. I won't take your bait.
Have a nice day.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

No need to spread FUD here.

No need to build a strawman, either.

You went fishing for something specifically out of context and used it as an excuse for confrontation.

Not only does that particular type of logical fallacy go against the general spirit of the proceedings here, but it's also a very poor way to argue.

It's as if you don't really care what your argument is even about... just as long as you get to argue.

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

You don't work on "high-end productions", Doug.

You don't know that.

I will point out here that Doug's work is seen from time to time by a nation-wide audience on broadcast television; that program is CBS Sunday Morning. It's most definitely a high-end production and it currently averages close to six million viewers.

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

nor is anyone else viewing this.

Ha!

*snort*

You don't know that, either.

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

As "lazy" as when you used the built NDs on your FS7? Seems hypocritical to me, Doug.

Strawman. Not the same thing or even the same context, and that you do know.

This ain't Kansas. Go build your scarecrows somewhere else.

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

you have no experience or knowledge with using a high-end VND.

And you don't know that.

Please try to show a little restraint and stick to topics you know.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

You went fishing for something specifically out of context and used it as an excuse for confrontation.

It was neither out of context nor used as an excuse.

I will point out here that Doug's work is seen from time to time by a nation-wide audience on broadcast television; that program is CBS Sunday Morning.

That CBS Sunday Morning may have purchased a piece of stock footage that he shot to use in a project is not the same thing as being hired by CBS Sunday Morning to provide an entire segment. And you know that. Also, having had experience in the news, I would not consider even that to be a "high-end production." And you know that.

Please try to show a little restraint and stick to topics you know.

I'll let you get back to being the "Ryan Elder Board".

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

It was neither out of context nor used as an excuse.

It was out of context. In the referred post he was talking about graduated NDs, not variable -- two different things.

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

... CBS Sunday Morning may have purchased a piece of stock footage...

I talked to Doug about this at NAB last year and that's *not* how it works.

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

I'll let you get back to being the "Ryan Elder Board".

That's funny, but not in the way you intended. The difference between his posts and yours is actually far greater than you realize.

[Mark Williams]

I have learned a lot from Doug's posts over the years. Gary's posts just make me cringe.

[Gordon Hoffman]

Gentlemen I have to step in here.
My post #15
"Thanks Doug it does. Yes I've read that a lot of people do not like VND because of those issues."
was in response to Doug's reply to me in post #12

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

I hope that answers your question. BTW, I'm against the use of variable ND filters because they have artifacts. Real ND filters are just fine.

I have no idea how anything I said it my post even relates to post 14 but some how Doug seems to think it did so make the comment.

"Just to be clear, I never mentioned Variable ND (VND). I was talking about graduated ND filters"
which I was not and then this whole mess started.

Gordon

[Doug Jensen]

Gordon, you said the following in your post #15 immediately after I had ONLY been talking about graduated ND filters in my post #14:

Originally Posted by Gordon Hoffman

"Thanks Doug it does. Yes I've read that a lot of people do not like VND because of those issues.
Thanks again. Gordon "

Why would you bring up the topic of VND in your post if you say now that you knew I wasn't talking about VND? It makes no sense. So my post #16 was just to clarify to make sure we weren't talking about two different things. I make no apologies. It is a common courtesy when someone posts a non sequitur for one person to make sure the the other person understands what was being said.

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Gordon Hoffman

Gentlemen I have to step in here.
My post #15
"Thanks Doug it does. Yes I've read that a lot of people do not like VND because of those issues."
was in response to Doug's reply to me in post #12

Then why didn't you quote my post #12 if that's what you were replying to???
When you post a new comment immediately below someone else's most recent post (my #14), without quoting anything at all, it is understood that you are replying to the message immediately above it and not some other previous comment. That is Forum 101 protocol. I was trying to clarify for YOUR benefit. Instead, I get dumped on.

[Donald McPherson]

Sorry I asked now about the filter.