Singh-Ray grad ND filter question

[brian steinberger]

I’m getting back into shooting color and re-collecting a set of Singh-Ray ND grads. I got a 2 and 3-stop filters. Curious thing is when I read an area with my Pentax digital spot meter and then put the densest part of the filter over the meter the 3-stop has 2 stop difference and the 2-stop has only one stop difference? Anyone else ever notice this??

 

[brian steinberger]

I’ve sent an email to Singh-Ray in the meantime.

 

[Pieter12]

Could they have faded?

 

[brian steinberger]

They’re brand new. I can’t imagine.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Did you shade both the filter and meter when taking a reading? And was the entire meter lens covered with a portion of the filter when doing so?

 

[Bill Burk]

I’m getting back into shooting color and re-collecting a set of Singh-Ray ND grads. I got a 2 and 3-stop filters. Curious thing is when I read an area with my Pentax digital spot meter and then put the densest part of the filter over the meter the 3-stop has 2 stop difference and the 2-stop has only one stop difference? Anyone else ever notice this??

Spotmeter has a big lens. So it’s collecting a wide area to focus.

 

[Bill Burk]

I just checked on a densitometer 2 stop is .68 and 3 stop is .90

 

[DREW WILEY]

Very few ND filters are dead on when it comes to labeling. I always densitometer check them, and then write the actual value on the item.

 

[Pieter12]

Spotmeter has a big lens. So it’s collecting a wide area to focus.

I thought the point of a spotmeter was a narrow (2-3º) angle of view.

 

[DREW WILEY]

All my Pentax spot meters actually read only a discrete one-degree angle. And that exact spot is clearly indicated in the viewfinder. But you obviously need the viewing lens to take in a much larger portion of the scene so you can see where you're aiming. That means that flare from other things might potentially be taken in by that primary lens too. You have to use meters thoughtfully, and often shade them too, just like a camera lens. Some spot meters like mine have excellent lens coatings, some don't. But I actually keep a collapsible rubber lens hood on them, or otherwise shade them with my hand when taking a reading.

In camera or TTL "spot" metering? - even more hoops to jump through. Better than nothing. Again, shade well. But nowhere near as accurate as reading actual density using a real densitometer.

But if you're trying to read through a progressive neutral grad which is not itself coated, it's easy to get things complicated by flare. That's why a serious compendium shade should always be used in conjunction with these. Singh-Ray is a very high quality manufacturer, but just the nature and usage of these filters is a bit complicated. Is their series still named for G. Rowell? - who abused em more than used em - everything he ever did with grads looked blatantly fake to me; but he shot almost exclusively 35mm color. They're not like working with a fully coated ND filter of consistent density throughout;
but even those need to be densitometer tested before trusting them.

 

[grain elevator]

I thought the point of a spotmeter was a narrow (2-3º) angle of view

It's probably focused at or near infinity. Right in front of the lens, it will read a wider area.

 

[brian steinberger]

So I heard back from Singh-Ray and they do check every filter with a densitometer. So I’ll just assume all is well. Probably just something I’m doing wrong, or flare like Drew mentioned. Just thought it was strange, when I meter though my B&W ND filters they are right on as advertised.

The densest part of the grad ND filter really doesn’t even make it down into the image area unless the horizon is really low in the frame. So therefor near the horizon a 1 or 2 stop soft filter really isn’t holding back much light at all.

 

[Pieter12]

So I heard back from Singh-Ray and they do check every filter with a densitometer. So I’ll just assume all is well. Probably just something I’m doing wrong, or flare like Drew mentioned. Just thought it was strange, when I meter though my B&W ND filters they are right on as advertised.

The densest part of the grad ND filter really doesn’t even make it down into the image area unless the horizon is really low in the frame. So therefor near the horizon a 1 or 2 stop soft filter really isn’t holding back much light at all.

I occasionally use an orange grad filter when shooting black and white. I don’t know what the filter factor might be, I meter through the lens and bracket to be safe.

 

[Bill Burk]

Here’s a demonstration showing 1 1/3 stop flare in a spotmeter (Pentax Spotmeter V).

Spotmeter sees flare like a camera does.

I think this is a good thing. The spotmeter is going to give you a realistic reading.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Flare isn't consistent, Bill. So NO, it's not a good thing, and is not going to give you a more realistic reading unless you're awfully lucky. You don't want it either in the meter or in relation to a camera lens or bellows unless you have some exceptional creative reason to do so. What you DO want is to have both the meter and your taking lens decently shaded so that flare won't be a significant factor to begin with.

I really don't know what kind of glass and coating process Singh-Ray uses for their grads, since I never shoot using grads. I do have some Sing-Ray UV filters made from an exceptional and quite expensive glass that doesn't even need a coating. But even multi-coated filters should be properly shaded when facing the sun, or sunlight reflections from below.

 

[Bill Burk]

Nope flare isn’t consistent, I mean you’re right. A Pentax Spotmeter V is kind of old school and has more flare than a newer digital spotmeter. My example is a worst case scenario to illustrate the point.

You should try to reduce flare to give the film the best chance of having excellent image quality.

But unless you put the two-stop Galen Rowell graduated neutral density filter in contact with the film, you will not reduce the exposure of any part of the film by two stops.

It’s like holding a piece of cardboard in a creek to control some of the flow of water, sure the downstream side of the cardboard will be lower, but your hands are going to get wet.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just one more reason I don't personally use ND grads. But I realize people just have to test them for themselves to see if they help their own images or not.

 

[Pieter12]

Nope flare isn’t consistent, I mean you’re right. A Pentax Spotmeter V is kind of old school and has more flare than a newer digital spotmeter. My example is a worst case scenario to illustrate the point.

You should try to reduce flare to give the film the best chance of having excellent image quality.

But unless you put the two-stop Galen Rowell graduated neutral density filter in contact with the film, you will not reduce the exposure of any part of the film by two stops.

It’s like holding a piece of cardboard in a creek to control some of the flow of water, sure the downstream side of the cardboard will be lower, but your hands are going to get wet.

So why do they call it a 2-stop (grad) filter? Marketing? There are truth in advertising laws, after all. Would people be less prone to purchasing one if it were called a 1-stop or half-stop grad?

 

[DREW WILEY]

A 2-stop filter would be reasonably close to .60 maximum density (measured on a densitometer free from flare). That's the way it has to be. Flare factor, reflections, incorrect stop settings or shutter speeds are not the fault of the filter itself.

 

[Bill Burk]

So why do they call it a 2-stop (grad) filter? Marketing? There are truth in advertising laws, after all. Would people be less prone to purchasing one if it were called a 1-stop or half-stop grad?

It measures 2 stops (or 3 stops for that one) on a densitometer. So it’s truthful labeling.

Galen Rowell didn’t explain exposure in his article “Graduated Neutral-Density Filters” in his book “Galen Rowell’s Vision - The Art of Adventure Photography” (the book with a picture of him on the cover holding onto a cliff by Upper Yosemite Fall).

So we are left to figure out exposure as an exercise for the reader.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Galen Rowell was a machine-gunner, and told his workshop students the same thing - burn as much film as you can, and bracket it. He threw away around 99% percent of his slides. A co-worker and backpacking pal of mine lived right next door to him and saw him do that repeatedly. A lab owner who was a friend of mine printed all his early work. He had neither a good technical handle on what he did, nor was much of anyone to emulate when it came to esthetic choices. He just happened to travel to some interesting places and document those sites in a manner another local characterized as "National Geographicky", which pretty much sums it up well. It worked in relation to travel and climbing stories, SUV ads, ski posters, etc. Rather briefly, when Bill Atkinson was handling and printing scans of his best work, they came out reasonably well, but after that ... the already fishy fakery of the manner he used grads fell clear off the cliff itself with added blatant PS re-colorizations. He was providing stereotypes of what uninformed people wanted to see; but those of us who knew the real mountain light could spot the difference in a heartbeat.

 

[Bill Burk]

That, Drew is the main weakness of these filters. I’ll take one shot of something and if it’s good it goes in the slide show. I only budget one pound for film.

I used the ND Grads once, for a static scene near our campsite. It justified maybe two frames of Velvia 50. But I wasted a half dozen and I think I got the shot but… it’s uninspired.

I gave up and haven’t gotten them out except to answer the occasional Photrio question.

I just can’t work that way.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The light in the mountains can change so very fast, especially in the "magic hours" of sunrise and sunset, that there simply isn't time to fiddle around. I remember running into an aspiring pro landscape photographer in the Wind River Range once, who brought along his 4x5 Tachi folder along with 7 lenses and more than 20 Wratten gel filters. I brought my Sinar 4X5 and exactly one lens, a 210, and two glass filters at the most. When the evening magic hour came, I bagged several really nice black and white as well as color shots. Then as the light faded, I packed up all my gear so I could get back to my campsite before dark. Meanwhile, the other fellow was still fiddling around trying to figure out the best option between all his lenses and filters, didn't even get around to putting his camera on the tripod yet, and finally gave up when there just wasn't enough light left. Less is more.

Galen got sponsorship funds by promoting certain things. I don't think Fuji would have given him a lot of free slide film if he hadn't preached machine gunning. But that was, in fact, his own mode of shooting. Around the same time, I equipped my nephew with a little Pentax MX and single standard lens for sake of his own budding expeditions to the Arctic, Andes, and Himalayas. Those were all totally sponsor-funded, mainly by North Face and Sierra Designs. The strategy was simple. Even with a cover shot for a climbing magazine, there was always "accidentally" a North Face logo on the sleeve of a jacket in some corner of the foreground, with some drastically remote place in the background; or a Sierra Designs logo on the edge of a porta-ledge tent fly way up on some hitherto unclimbed big wall. Esthetics had little to do with it.

Galen made most of his money on stock photography licensing for sake of SUV commercials and so forth, and very little on print sales. His timing was fortuitous. Nowadays, advertisers want adventure video content, but not stills much anymore. They want someone speeding up to the edge of a cliff in a dust cloud in one of their SUV's, strapping on a Utube head device, then jumping off a big wall in a bat suit, then the TV audience seeing just a red splatter at the end. Times have changed.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Galen Rowell was a machine-gunner, and told his workshop students the same thing - burn as much film as you can, and bracket it. He threw away around 99% percent of his slides. A co-worker and backpacking pal of mine lived right next door to him and saw him do that repeatedly. A lab owner who was a friend of mine printed all his early work. He had neither a good technical handle on what he did, nor was much of anyone to emulate when it came to esthetic choices. He just happened to travel to some interesting places and document those sites in a manner another local characterized as "National Geographicky", which pretty much sums it up well. It worked in relation to travel and climbing stories, SUV ads, ski posters, etc. Rather briefly, when Bill Atkinson was handling and printing scans of his best work, they came out reasonably well, but after that ... the already fishy fakery of the manner he used grads fell clear off the cliff itself with added blatant PS re-colorizations. He was providing stereotypes of what uninformed people wanted to see; but those of us who knew the real mountain light could spot the difference in a heartbeat.

99% of most shots are throwaways. In any case, Galen Rowell shot with a 35mm because it was light and easy to bracket. It's not about machine gunning. He'd get up hours before sunrise, pack a small bag, and run up and climb the mountain by himself to get in position for the shot and the rising sun light. He'd be a fool not to bracket changing light like that. Who wants to run up a mountain twice?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The light in the mountains can change so very fast, especially in the "magic hours" of sunrise and sunset, that there simply isn't time to fiddle around. I remember running into an aspiring pro landscape photographer in the Wind River Range once, who brought along his 4x5 Tachi folder along with 7 lenses and more than 20 Wratten gel filters. I brought my Sinar 4X5 and exactly one lens, a 210, and two glass filters at the most. When the evening magic hour came, I bagged several really nice black and white as well as color shots. Then as the light faded, I packed up all my gear so I could get back to my campsite before dark. Meanwhile, the other fellow was still fiddling around trying to figure out the best option between all his lenses and filters, didn't even get around to putting his camera on the tripod yet, and finally gave up when there just wasn't enough light left. Less is more.

Galen got sponsorship funds by promoting certain things. I don't think Fuji would have given him a lot of free slide film if he hadn't preached machine gunning. But that was, in fact, his own mode of shooting. Around the same time, I equipped my nephew with a little Pentax MX and single standard lens for sake of his own budding expeditions to the Arctic, Andes, and Himalayas. Those were all totally sponsor-funded, mainly by North Face and Sierra Designs. The strategy was simple. Even with a cover shot for a climbing magazine, there was always "accidentally" a North Face logo on the sleeve of a jacket in some corner of the foreground, with some drastically remote place in the background; or a Sierra Designs logo on the edge of a porta-ledge tent fly way up on some hitherto unclimbed big wall. Esthetics had little to do with it.

Galen made most of his money on stock photography licensing for sake of SUV commercials and so forth, and very little on print sales. His timing was fortuitous. Nowadays, advertisers want adventure video content, but not stills much anymore. They want someone speeding up to the edge of a cliff in a dust cloud in one of their SUV's, strapping on a Utube head device, then jumping off a big wall in a bat suit, then the TV audience seeing just a red splatter at the end. Times have changed.

Exactly the point I made in my last post and why Rowell used a 35mm and bracketed. You're actually confirming how smart he was, and entrepreneurial. He didn't sell large prints mainly but made photos for magazines. So a 35mm was good enough. Light also to carry. While he did shoot for climbing magazines, he also shot more generally for mags like Outdoor Photographer and even had a column there and made many photo books like Mountain Light. He was very respected in the industry and he and his wife lost their lives very young in a plane crash. We should celebrate other photographers' successes. He led the way for many landscape photographers after him.