EKoo said:
Hey jonnyapple, what's your verdicts on the Genus 77mm Fader ND filter from B&H? Single-Ray has one Vari-ND Variable Neutral Density Filter also, anyone has experience with that?

I think the Sing-ray one is the name brand, but I don't know. I'm still holding off on this for two reasons:
1. I should be able to make my own for a lot cheaper by putting a linear polarizer on top of a circular polarizer that I already own. This is only if it's what I think it is, though.
2. The only linear polarizer I have is smaller than my circular polarizer, so I could only test it on part of my scene. It works like a charm, but one thing I noticed was that there was excess blue in the spots where I was cutting out light, which means it's not really neutral density because it's going to give me a noisy red channel. Has anyone tried one of these that can comment on whether you need white balance adjustments while filtering a lot of the light? (It's not the white balancing per se that concerns me, but as I said applying a large correction could leave a very noisy red channel.)

I use four types of filter:

a) general front element protection - Hoya HD Digital SMC Protector(NC) or UV(0) - really only use UV in bright sun - I prefer this filter to the Nikon or the Hoya Pro 1 - because of the narrower profile, its made from hardened glass and it is multi-coated on both sides (not just the rear surface,which not just water-proof to repel water spots but also hardened to be scratch and stain resistant.

b) Hoya HD circular polariser - I swapped my Hoya Pro1 CPL for it, simply because of the reduced light loss and narrower profile. Which at 1.1 stops is 0.6 stops less than the Pro1 and even more so than some others. My preference is to only have 1 filter on the lens at any time in normal use so I swap out the protector when I use this - if I can. SEE reviews of the HD-CP at http:*Link Removed*

c) I carry a 77mm ND0.9 to allow me to shoot wide open in bright sun.

d) For landscape work - I use the 4"/100mm Lee filter system and a full set of ND, ND-GH and ND-GS filters and the Lee 105 mm Circ pol. I have had some great results with this setup. An example can be seen at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajm057/5182947204/

I have also used/tried Lee's colored grad filters, but giver the poor results I achieved I have decided to make the colour changes these offer in photoshop rather than at the time of shooting. Good and bad examples can be seen at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajm057/sets/72157624661878998/

Hey jonnyapple, what's your verdicts on the Genus 77mm Fader ND filter from B&H? Single-Ray has one Vari-ND Variable Neutral Density Filter also, anyone has experience with that?

Right now, I have the chance to get a set of Lee Filter Graduated ND set. Debating whether I should start with something cheaper.

any info would be helpful... thanks.

Here's a discussion about this from a while ago, Doodly.
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1367

Im new to theDSLR world and about to get a DSLR (prob D90 w/ 18-105 or 18-55) I kno that the 18-55 uses a 52mm filter? and 18-105 uses a 67mm filter? Do you guys think its important to get a UV filter for them? one similar to this :
*Link Removed*
thx for any advice

jonnyapple said:
All right, I think I've found what I'm looking for. I was just wondering if anyone here has had any experience with this or similar:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/676824-REG/Genus_GL_GNDF_77_77mm_ND_Neutral_Density.html

My question is whether this affects autofocus at all. I'm guessing it's just a linear polarizer on a circular polarizer so it won't, but I'd like to know before buying it. This looks like it would be nice to use to slow the shutter speed for outside movies, too.

Boy, does that thing look handy! Would be good to know the answer to your question, but I'll probably get one one of those, regardless. I've been meaning to buy some heavier-density NDs, and that sure would do the trick (although, I would be happier shooting through one piece of glass, so I may still end up buying some individual NDs).

Filters I own:

Nikon circular polarizers (in several sizes).
Cokin ND grads.

Planning to buy:

Genus 77mm Fader ND filter (thanks, jonny!).
Rectangular glass ND grads (with hard-edge transitions): 0.9, 1.2, 1.5.
Split-diopter.

All right, I think I've found what I'm looking for. I was just wondering if anyone here has had any experience with this or similar:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/676824-REG/Genus_GL_GNDF_77_77mm_ND_Neutral_Density.html

My question is whether this affects autofocus at all. I'm guessing it's just a linear polarizer on a circular polarizer so it won't, but I'd like to know before buying it. This looks like it would be nice to use to slow the shutter speed for outside movies, too.

Okay, I'm shopping for a 4-stop ND filter and I did a double take then laughed when I read this:

Tiffen 77mm Digital HT (High Transmission) Neutral Density (ND) 1.2 (4-Stop) Multi-Coated Glass Filter

Ignoring the "Digital" nonsense (and someone tell me if I'm just crazy), isn't the point of an ND filter not to have high transmission? I can see why you wouldn't really want reflections in order to minimize flare, but then just below the title it says this:
-Anti-Reflective and Transmission Coating
-Transmits Nearly 99% of Light
-Permits Using Fast Film in Bright Light
-Made in the USA

99%? I'd say just as a guess that it transmits closer to 6% of the light. At least that's why I would buy it!

I told this joke to my wife and she's not laughing...

There are both types of ND filters, NSX. The ones with a gradient are called graduated ND filters.

The circular polarizer uses were discussed on page 1 of this thread.

Okay, so what are the uses of a circular polarizer? To get deeper colors?

And are neutral density filters dark all over or can they be dark on one half, etc?

I've been known to be wrong, foofie. Keep me honest. ;-)

oh no no, I believe you, it's just my knowledge of light is very limited to whatever I learned in 7th or 8th grade, hah.

that makes sense thanks!

The blemishes (usually red) and the surrounding skin reflect almost the same amount of (red) light. The fact that something is red means that mostly red light is coming from it, so looking at it through a blue filter will actually boost contrast with respect to something white (because something white has some blue in it and the red object has essentially none).

But you don't have to take my word for it. Look at just the red channel in photoshop of a picture of someone with red blotches and compare it to the green or blue channels. It's a matter of preference, though. Some people will like how a blue filter looks better.

jonnyapple said:
It's common for portraiture because it deemphasizes skin blemishes. You can play around with the channel mixer in photoshop or another editor and see what it does. Just set the mix to 100% red, 0% green, 0% blue. I don't see why you would use a colored filter for anything but film since with digital you can fake any of them in post like bernard said above.

actually isn't that the opposite? A red filter would allow red light through more easily and make it harder for colors further away on the spectrum to pass though, thus enhancing blemishes (usually red).

the people that I know that use red filters (with bw film) shoot landscapes and nature stuff such as: http://www.michaelkenna.net/imagearchive.php

It's common for portraiture because it deemphasizes skin blemishes. You can play around with the channel mixer in photoshop or another editor and see what it does. Just set the mix to 100% red, 0% green, 0% blue. I don't see why you would use a colored filter for anything but film since with digital you can fake any of them in post like bernard said above.

adamz said:
foofie - red filters are used mostly for B&W photograph (together with green and blue, but the red ones are the most common)

as for using CP on wide lens, it's up to this what You like - I'm not in favor

yeah, I knew that (I mean that to sound as unbratty as possible...don't know why its coming out bratty :) ) and I guess the red penetrates the farthest as well (unless thats only with the way that digital sensors work (but I assume it also affects the silver as well in a similar way) so I guess I mean for what effect is it used for?

foofie - red filters are used mostly for B&W photograph (together with green and blue, but the red ones are the most common)

as for using CP on wide lens, it's up to this what You like - I'm not in favor

I often use a CP filter when out in the noon sun. It will turn the whitish reflection off of foliage back to a deep green.

NikoDoby said:
polarizer and graduated ND. I also use a infrared and a regular red filter a lot.

I know a few people that use red filters quite a bit. What exactly is the purpose? How does it effect the pictures taken?

Bernard, do you find the nikon filters difficult to find? I can't seem to find any where I live its very strange. I do see used ones from time to time. I hear Singh Ray and of course Lee filters are amazing. I use a lot of B&W Polarizor filters, and some Cokins for warm, ND and GND.

You know, the more I think about it, I think my 3D comment wasn't true. I think CP filters are a linear-polarized filter with a quarter wave plate behind it to 'scramble' the polarization (a 1/4-wave plate takes linearly polarized light and makes it into circularly polarized light).

Yeah, you do get gradients in the sky, mcammer. Other photographers might notice, but probably not your average observer. They'll most likely just ask you how you got such a deep blue sky.

Here's one I took with a strange gradient in the sky with CP filter:

I don't think it makes it look bad, and maybe it's more interesting.

And without CP filter (pano with a different lens):

So, it sounds like a CP filter would be very useful in spots, but it wouldn't be on your camera all day. Still, seems like a tool worth having in your bag.

The specific issue with an UWA lens like the 10-24 is that it captures such a span of sky that you may see a gradient of polarization (some areas obviously darker). Does anyone find that takes away from the usefulness of a CP filter?

Thanks in advance guys.

JA - I would only add that they polarize all light reflections, not only the water one.

CP filters are useful for isolating images from just one of the projectors during a film shown in 3D. Just kidding, but that's true.

Really what you'd use them for are minimizing/maximizing reflections in water (rotating it will take you from one to the other), reducing glare from some surfaces (you can choose vertical or horizontal by rotating it), getting deep blue in skies since skylight is partially polarized with the amount of polarization depending on the angle that the sunlight went through it when it scattered, and it's kind of like a 1-stop ND filter too. I'm probably forgetting something here if anyone else wants to chime in.

I'd recommend both the 10-24 and a thin mount polarizer for it. If you can afford a graduated ND, that's also useful for travel with the 10-24, but the get the polarizer first.