B+W ND110 is amazing. I have used it on many landscape shots and it never stops amazing me. If you get a 10 stop you have to try it on a waterfall. The way the water looks is just surreal(sp). Like some have said there is going to be a color cast but its never been something I could not correct on post. Hope this helps.
~Cheers

I've still been pleased with the workable results I get with the B+W in color. The effect on water is very nice.

I use the Hoya 400x filter (not quite 10 stops but its up there) which was the only multicoated ND filter I found when I got mine, and it works as intended. There is a slight color cast as with many other filters, which I find reasonable for the amount of attenuation I'm getting- just playing with the color balance is usually enough to get what I want, which I often do even in normal conditions.

ON Flicker you will find a group dedicated to the ND110

I use a B+W to smooth water by using long exposures. like all 10 stop ND filters, it will produce a colour cast and this is clearly explained on B+W web site, but provided you shoot in RAW its nothing that cannot be aliviated in post production, although don't expect to get colour quite as good, as if you had not used it the first place. A lot of people like Graphic natured, tend to turn the results into Black and white

Graphicnatured said:
I love my B+W 10 stop. Living near the ocean helps and it sure does come in handy when you're looking for something to do at high noon.

Here's a sample:

Now this is what I'm talking about.

Oh, damn. Thanks Drab! Good idea.

I love my B+W 10 stop. Living near the ocean helps and it sure does come in handy when you're looking for something to do at high noon.

Here's a sample:

Couldn't wait ... Just found the old linear polarizer and stacked the 2 as you said . And MAGIC - I have an infinite ND filter ! !

Now I can go back to trying those things that made me buy the the cokin set in the first place .

Thanks again for the valuable ( and priceless ! ) information ! ! As I keep saying - 30 years with photography and still learning something every day .

Thanks Drab , I had no idea .

It will be the first thing I'll check when I go out to shoot . And if it works , my plastic piece of crap NDs can leave my photobag forever .

jonnyapple said:
Drab, two CP filters should work with some rigging—specifically, some way to mount the front filter backward. In that configuration you would have quarter wave plate - lin polarizer - lin polarizer - quarter wave plate, which should let you cross the two linear polarizers.

Just thought of something, wouldn't this (QWP-LP-LP-QWP) effectively "scramble" the light before your LP chain, effectively removing the selective nature of a single polarizer and giving one ONLY the variable ND effect? (As opposed to the chain I describe in the post above which will also have the selective pass character we all associate with polarizers.)

Or am I thinking of the action of the QWP incorrectly?

EDIT: Yea, I'm over abstracting what the QWP is doing.

If you put the linear in front of the circular (need the quarter wave plate "scrambler" which constitutes the back of a "circular" polarizer to be last thing in the chain) one should be able to selectively block from 50%* to 100%* of the light. When the phase of the polarizers is the same, it should be identical to using one**, you're effectively blocking all the light "vibrating" in one axis. Turn the front polarizer 90% in orientation to the rear one and you should be blocking all.

By selecting the offset between the two polarizers one should be able to pick their desired amount of darkening, and by turning the two together (maintaining their relative offset) one should be able to pick which of the remaining angles of light get passed, allowing one to block glare (and other stereotypical polarizer effects) or not.

I need to just get off my ass and order a cheap linear to see just how well this theory translates into practice.

*A perfect polarizer would let 0% of light oriented with it pass. There is no perfect polarizer, they all pass some in-orientation light and block some out-of-orientation light. IIUC polarizers sold for photographic purposes have a (in theory) 90 degree band pass. Since a sine offset by 180 degrees is effectively indistinguishable from the original (camera sensors and eyeballs are effectively blind to phase), we're only concerned with 180 degrees of coverage. Think of it as light bouncing up and down vs light bouncing side to side. (not truly true, but true enough)

**identical to using one minus the loss inherit in the films.

EDIT:
My use of the word "phase" is sloppy, but I think the point gets across?

So Drab , can you explain me what effects I can expect get by combining 2 polarizers ? I have both a linear and a circular polarizer . I use the CP occasionally as a 2 stop ND but never stacked the 2 on top of each other .

I also have the 1-2-4 stop cokin ND's ( that create a red cast ) so I'm open to creative suggestions with all combinations :-)

NSXType-R said:
I thought that was a circular polarizer. But I guess it still counts, it's still a polarizer.

I believe he was referring to "fogging" (running) water by lengthening the exposure time.

NSXType-R said:
In very bright conditions, correct?

You mentioned using a ND filter to allow large aperture use in bright conditions without "maxing out your shutter speed and increasing your ISO."

If you're in a situation where maxing out shutter speeds is a real concern (be that 1/8000 or 1/250* sync) you obviously want less light, therefore a lower (less sensitive to light) ISO. Not a higher one.

*Though I haven't done any rigorous tests to see which "costs" one more light, high-speed sync or ND usage. A real man would just pull out his 1600 WS lights and let the ND absorb away! ;)

PB PM said:
Another reason is to get the silky smooth effect on water in less than ideal lighting conditions.

I thought that was a circular polarizer. But I guess it still counts, it's still a polarizer.

Drab said:
Decreasing your ISO.

In very bright conditions, correct?

Drab, two CP filters should work with some rigging—specifically, some way to mount the front filter backward. In that configuration you would have quarter wave plate - lin polarizer - lin polarizer - quarter wave plate, which should let you cross the two linear polarizers. It's robably less expensive to just buy a linear polarizer, which cost less than CP filters anyway.

When I tried this, It seemed to have a blue cast to light that got through (not certain because I had a smaller LP filter than the CP filter was). Mate that with paperman's red "nd" filter and you've got a winner.

I use a B+W ND 6 stop filter a lot with excellent results. I recently purchased the 10 stop filter but have not used it yet. I find no color change with the 6 stop filter.

I like to use it on very bright days and at the beach to give me a big aperature for low DOF lilke on the image below. I also want to try something in the city that will allow me to "remove cars and people" in daylight on busy streets with long exposures. I think they help allow you to expand your creativity.

NSXType-R said:
The only reason I know of to use neutral density filters is to darken the image significantly to allow you to use a very large aperture without maxing out your shutter speed and increasing your ISO.

Decreasing your ISO.

But that's not why I posted. My question is has anyone simply used a pair of polarizers as an attempt at a variable ND? IIUC the front one should NOT be a circular polarizer if you want to do this. For if the front one is also circular you will be unable to align the two at 90 degrees to eachother as the light will have been rescrambled after passing the first and you'll only be getting double the light loss instead of the theoretical infinite loss.

Theoretical because not even the best polarizers are 100% effective.

NSXType-R said:
The only reason I know of to use neutral density filters is to darken the image significantly to allow you to use a very large aperture without maxing out your shutter speed and increasing your ISO.

Another reason is to get the silky smooth effect on water in less than ideal lighting conditions.

NSXType-R said:
The only reason I know of to use neutral density filters is to darken the image significantly to allow you to use a very large aperture without maxing out your shutter speed and increasing your ISO.

Perhaps you're using it for something else?

What are you trying to shoot?

Come 'on NSX ... I'm sure you can think of another reason :-)

The only reason I know of to use neutral density filters is to darken the image significantly to allow you to use a very large aperture without maxing out your shutter speed and increasing your ISO.

Perhaps you're using it for something else?

What are you trying to shoot?

TaoTeJared said:
Are you referring to Variable Neutral Density Filter?

If so I know Singh-Ray makes one as well as a few others. The good ones are very expensive, $250-$340 for the one's I have seen. If you have a need for multiple ND filters it seems like a great deal.

The key for any ND filter is the lack of a color tint - I have a set of Cokin P ND filters and they are great. I have a Cokin A that is also reddish-brown tint. You get what you pay for.

I've heard about those filter racks and trays, but they are indeed too much for me at this time. I'm looking into the ND110 which adds 10 stops.

Benoit is the name for those who wish to know (french for Benjamin).

I'm reading some articles and visited some websites where people have used those for scenery and landscape and it seems to give really good results. It's a photo style I'd like to use in the development of my own photographic identity.

If you web search "10-stop nd filter pics" using that G site. You will find some really nice B/W pictures. It really appeals to me.

There's also a guy named Mark Voce who's featured in Amateur Photographer UK 2011 on this subject.

lauzobe - what are you trying to do with ten stop photography? It's great for taking photos of architecture, etc., if you don't want people to show up in the photo (exposures are so long, they are often not even a blur).

Are you referring to Variable Neutral Density Filter?

If so I know Singh-Ray makes one as well as a few others. The good ones are very expensive, $250-$340 for the one's I have seen. If you have a need for multiple ND filters it seems like a great deal.

The key for any ND filter is the lack of a color tint - I have a set of Cokin P ND filters and they are great. I have a Cokin A that is also reddish-brown tint. You get what you pay for.