Kinderdijk, Holland. Came back from visiting family and could not resist the urge to fly for a short moment.

wow! (were you using an ND filter or not?)

JAgraphics Posted at 12-4 06:49
wow! (were you using an ND filter or not?)

No, i dont own filters, but I am thinking of buying, but still in doubt

Hi and good day GhostWolf010. Thank you for sharing this awesome picture from Holland. Cool shot.

Always good to see The Netherlands as well. Nice picture. Thanks for sharing

GhostWolf010 Posted at 12-4 06:47
[view_image]

Very nice.
You will fine  ND filters will improve your shots.  Just my opinion.

GhostWolf010 Posted at 12-4 06:47
[view_image]

Good job GhostWolf010.

GhostWolf010 Posted at 12-4 06:47
[view_image]

Nice shot!

Nice shot. I recommend using ND filters.

Nice to see some of NL here.
ND filters won't help you here.
This is just lowering the overall light that hits the sensor.
Here you have a situation where the sky is very bright and the ground is not.
This is called : high contrast. And the tiny DJI sensors don't handle that very well.
There are 3 things you can do about it.
1. Shoot in RAW (if possible) with low contrast profile settings. (won't be enough for these situations, but the best you can get with 1 capture)
2. Shoot a AEB sequence and merge these later in post. (this is my preferred method, I use Affinity Photo for the HDR merge)
3. Use GRADUATE ND filter to lower the exposure on the sky. (graduate ND filters are dark in the top part and 'clear' in the bottom part)

B1houdini Posted at 12-4 09:53
Very nice.
You will fine  ND filters will improve your shots.  Just my opinion.

See my answer above

Jair Fonseca Posted at 12-5 00:00
Nice shot. I recommend using ND filters.

See my answer above.

GhostWolf010 Posted at 12-4 06:51
No, i dont own filters, but I am thinking of buying, but still in doubt

IT would make quite a difference to your images.

Montfrooij Posted at 12-5 00:44
Nice to see some of NL here.
ND filters won't help you here.
This is just lowering the overall light that hits the sensor.

Thanks all.
I always shoot in raw, you can edit it way better then. How do you mean aeb sequence? Like a manual hdr picture?

GhostWolf010 Posted at 12-6 07:21
Thanks all.
I always shoot in raw, you can edit it way better then. How do you mean aeb sequence? Like a manual hdr picture?

Auto Exposure Bracketing.
That is an option in the camera modes.
Choose 5 if there is a lot of contrast.
The MP will take 5 pictures in a very short time and you merge them later in post (I use Affinity Photo for that, they have a very good HDR merge function, better than Photoshop and that can do practically everything Ps can for a fraction of the price)

Auto Exposure Bracketing.
That is an option in the camera modes.
Choose 5 if there is a lot of contrast.
The MP will take 5 pictures in a very short time and you merge them later in post (I use Affinity Photo for that, they have a very good HDR merge function, better than Photoshop and that can do practically everything Ps can for a fraction of the price)

JAgraphics Posted at 12-5 00:50
IT would make quite a difference to your images.

Only if you are doing long exposure photography. ND filters are designed to control the motion blur in video footage without over exposure. For stills that do not require motion ND's are indeed pointless as Monty correctly stated - the exposure can be controlled with the shutter speed only. If the colour of the footage is enhanced in anyway due to the ND then the ND is not fit for purpose - NEUTRAL density - meaning it should have no impact on colour grading.  

Montfrooij Posted at 12-5 00:44
Nice to see some of NL here.
ND filters won't help you here.
This is just lowering the overall light that hits the sensor.

Spot on mate!

A CW Posted at 12-7 05:56
Spot on mate!

So often you read about people thinking ND filters will help with high contrast scenario's.

Montfrooij Posted at 12-7 12:50
So often you read about people thinking ND filters will help with high contrast scenario's.

A lot of people think it is purely to control exposure settings like placing sun glasses on your lens and do not understand the actual purpose that they are designed for. If you are taking a normal landscape still image you simply do not need any ND filters.

A CW Posted at 12-7 13:06
A lot of people think it is purely to control exposure settings like placing sun glasses on your lens and do not understand the actual purpose that they are designed for. If you are taking a normal landscape still image you simply do not need any ND filters.

Very true.
Only reason would be video for me.
Otherwise you need these graduate ND filters, but that is not my cup of tea, since they have a fixed horizon when they are up in the air.
(you can't change them while flying)
And that is not how I work (coming back, adjusting the filter, starting all over again).
Good thing we have AEB bracketing.

Montfrooij Posted at 12-7 13:11
Very true.
Only reason would be video for me.
Otherwise you need these graduate ND filters, but that is not my cup of tea, since they have a fixed horizon when they are up in the air.

I'm not fan of grads either. Using ND's on a drone is very difficult unless flying in straight lines to/from the sun.

A CW Posted at 12-7 13:17
I'm not fan of grads either. Using ND's on a drone is very difficult unless flying in straight lines to/from the sun.

And PL filters also never leave the bag for the same reason.

Montfrooij Posted at 12-7 13:21
And PL filters also never leave the bag for the same reason.

I don't bother with PL's anymore.

Montfrooij Posted at 12-5 00:44
Nice to see some of NL here.
ND filters won't help you here.
This is just lowering the overall light that hits the sensor.

an ND filter will  help you IF you can't shoot a fast enough shutter to not overexpose a portion of the image.... otheriwise you will burn away details in the highlight porition of the historgram

with most consumer drones.. your aperture is fixed.. can't change it.

with most consumer drones, 100 iso is as slow as you can go sensor wise...
therfore.. your only control is shutter speed

if you are shooting in high light situations like beaches and snow.. there is no way to shoot a fast enough shutter to not overexpose without using ND filters

you ARE correct in saying it won't help increase DYNAMIC range.. the sensors ability to differentiate levels is a fixed constant...

ND filters are also very necessary if you don't want a really fast shutter.. since shutter is the only leg of the exposure triangle you can use in bright light situations.. shooting with a very high shutter gives you a very shallow depth of field and a very narrow area of sharp focus.. if you want to increase depth of field and improve focus range within a shot, shooting a slower shutter helps.. a longer exposure helps

there are many more benefits in digital photography for not using really fast shutters.. and this is only talking still shots

ND filters are almost mandatory to get good smooth video again by getting shutter rates as close to 2x framerate as possible to improve motion blur, stutter, jello, etc...

A CW Posted at 12-7 05:55
Only if you are doing long exposure photography. ND filters are designed to control the motion blur in video footage without over exposure. For stills that do not require motion ND's are indeed pointless as Monty correctly stated - the exposure can be controlled with the shutter speed only. If the colour of the footage is enhanced in anyway due to the ND then the ND is not fit for purpose - NEUTRAL density - meaning it should have no impact on colour grading.

I concur  

DeuceDriv3r Posted at 12-7 13:28
an ND filter will  help you IF you can't shoot a fast enough shutter to not overexpose a portion of the image.... otheriwise you will burn away details in the highlight porition of the historgram

with most consumer drones.. your aperture is fixed.. can't change it.

I agree on the video part. But still, if I fly slow enough at 60fps, I don't see too much stuttering.
Only when something moves fast through a frame (car, train etc. ) but otherwise I'm fine without ND's.

For the stills part I never needed ND filters on my MP.
Even at 12:00 on a summer day the shutterspeed was more than enough to get a good exposure (-1 EV)

Maybe snow, I have not tried that (we don't have too much snow here in NL), but otherwise I'm fine without it.
For stills I want my shutterspeed to be as fast as possible anyway (low ISO of course) to minimize motion blur.

So yes, there might be (rare) occasions where you need an ND filter because your shutterspeed can't go faster, but I have not encountered those yet.

And for the video part : it is not worth the effort for me.
I tried them a couple of times, but the video was not that much better and the gimbal had (even more) alignment issues.
(I have a set of Polar Pro ND filters)
I like to travel light and be able to react fast to what I see.
I found that adding a ND filter is slowing me down too much and not worth it for me.

But that is very personal of course.

A CW Posted at 12-7 13:27
I don't bother with PL's anymore.

yeah.... pls are impossible on a drone because you don't know which way the light is going to be polarized before you take off.. thats why they rotate so when looking through a viewfinder they can be rotated to either cut glare or improve color saturation /contrast in the scene ...

A CW Posted at 12-7 13:27
I don't bother with PL's anymore.

Me neither.
Maybe I will try them again one day if I have nothing else to shoot.
Compare with and without.
Really compare them.

Montfrooij Posted at 12-7 13:38
I agree on the video part. But still, if I fly slow enough at 60fps, I don't see too much stuttering.
Only when something moves fast through a frame (car, train etc. ) but otherwise I'm fine without ND's.

absolutely .. everyone likes to shoot a certain way and like their photos to come out a certain way..

with my canon DSLRs I don't like a shutter above about 1/500  . I just loose too much detail.. unless I am shooting something really fast that I want to freeze of course but even shooting race cars etc. I want motion blur around the car so I still don't use a real high shutter for that either...

I find on cameras with cheaper sensors especially, a properly exposed image at 1/160 and shot at 1/1000 .. the 1/160 will be much more pleasing and require less work in post..

DeuceDriv3r Posted at 12-7 13:44
absolutely .. everyone likes to shoot a certain way and like their photos to come out a certain way..

with my canon DSLRs I don't like a shutter above about 1/500  . I just loose too much detail.. unless I am shooting something really fast that I want to freeze of course but even shooting race cars etc. I want motion blur around the car so I still don't use a real high shutter for that either...

Thanks for the tip.
When I have the time, I will investigate this.
Never thought about shutterspeed that way.
(that it would decrease your image quality)

Montfrooij Posted at 12-7 13:48
Thanks for the tip.
When I have the time, I will investigate this.
Never thought about shutterspeed that way.

there is no free lunch so to speak.. otherwise every camera on the planet would be programmed to shoot the fastest shutter speed possible..

in a real DSLR a photographer uses aperture and shutter speed to control the overall quality of the shot to get the depth, lack of depth, bokeh, etc..

and most cameras quality start to suffer at real high shutter speeds.. in my opinion anyway..

Montfrooij Posted at 12-7 13:48
Thanks for the tip.
When I have the time, I will investigate this.
Never thought about shutterspeed that way.

thats why photography is art.. if everyone did it the same way it would be boring ...

Montfrooij Posted at 12-7 13:48
Thanks for the tip.
When I have the time, I will investigate this.
Never thought about shutterspeed that way.

the other thing to take into account is that the mavic pro I believe is a cmos sensor not ccd so it suffers the dreaded rolling shutter issues with either fast moving subjects, pans or vibrations when at high shutter speeds..

DeuceDriv3r Posted at 12-7 13:39
yeah.... pls are impossible on a drone because you don't know which way the light is going to be polarized before you take off.. thats why they rotate so when looking through a viewfinder they can be rotated to either cut glare or improve color saturation /contrast in the scene ...

I found that they created a kind of banding at certain angles and ruined the image - good for cutting through reflectivity such as water surfaces when flying in straight lines but not much else.

Montfrooij Posted at 12-7 13:40
Me neither.
Maybe I will try them again one day if I have nothing else to shoot.
Compare with and without.

Be good to see your results Monty

A CW Posted at 12-8 00:05
I found that they created a kind of banding at certain angles and ruined the image - good for cutting through reflectivity such as water surfaces when flying in straight lines but not much else.

I have used them in some rare circumstances in land photography... shooting through plate glass windows with lots of glare, over water even some foliage...

I would rather see a stacked filter for drones that are a combo or ND and UV/haze

DeuceDriv3r Posted at 12-8 07:07
I have used them in some rare circumstances in land photography... shooting through plate glass windows with lots of glare, over water even some foliage...

I would rather see a stacked filter for drones that are a combo or ND and UV/haze

PL's have a purpose but a limited one at best mate. I agree that ND combo's are better.

DeuceDriv3r Posted at 12-7 13:54
thats why photography is art.. if everyone did it the same way it would be boring ...

100% true!