MikeBrum.com

Some people had questions about the Singh-Ray Vari-ND Filter and I wanted to put together a quick set of images for those interested.

First, how the test was done:

All images were shot on a 5D mark II with the 35mm f1.4 lens. I have a 72mm-77mm step-up ring to attach the vari-nd to the lens. Since I have some lenses with a 77mm front end, this is in no way a problem for me since I could find myself in situations in which I might need to shoot with the vari-nd on them. I didn’t experience vignetting with this configuration. 35mm isn’t all that wide (even on full frame) and I didn’t expect any problems even with the extra space the step-up ring added. If you have to go really wide, it might be worthwhile to get the 82mm filter.

The camera was set to manual and I kept a constant f16 @ ISO 100 for all shots. I did *not* use a cable release or mirror lock-up because I didn’t really care about sharpness, just exposure and the effect on image quality at higher densities. Given some light clouds, the base exposure (without the filter) was 1/25s. I wanted to make sure I wasn’t blowing out all of the sky and mostly exposed for the highlights there and let the rest of the light levels fall where they may. After taking a shot, I’d dial down the shutter a full stop (3 clicks) and then dial the filter until I was at the right exposure level as given by the meter. Since the vari-nd doesn’t actually mark the light loss (there’s a basic scale, but this is just for reference – the dots don’t actually mean anything in particular), this was the only real way to go about this.

All images were shot RAW and opened in ACR. I set them all to the same white balance and made no other changes to processing. AWB did have some slight variation between the different shots but it was very minor. There was a larger swing between the first image (without the vari-nd) and those with it. This should be obvious to most when looking at the images.

(click for larger)

Here’s what I found:

1) There appears to be a warming or polarization effect with the vari-nd. I don’t dislike it, but it’s there and worth noting.

2) Singh-Ray states

“The Vari-ND is capable of densities of more than 8 stops. Results at these densities, however, may be unpredictable.”

- and they’re absolutely correct. At >8 stops, the ND effect was not even throughout the frame. Minor adjustments over the 8 stop mark “moved” this effect around. This likely has something to do with the way the different polarization layers interact at their highest level, but I don’t know the specifics. Either way, it’s pretty easy to spot and you know once you get to the “Max” mark on the filter that you should probably dial back a bit.

3) At higher densities (somewhere between +6 and +7), it looks like you start to lose a bit of contrast. While you can likely recover a lot of this in post, it’s again worth noting.

4) You can NOT use the vari-nd with a CPL. Well, you “can”, but the results are undesirable in all but the weirdest circumstances. The following shots were made with the vari-nd at its lowest setting and I had exposures on both at ISO 100, f/16, 5s (not a typo – a full 5 seconds). I also set the vari-nd + CPL shots to the same white balance that I processed the original shots with and did no additional processing.

If a CPL usually costs at most 2 stops and the vari-nd is 2 stops at its lowest setting, then we would expect about a 4 stop light loss (in the shooting conditions of this test, this would be close to ISO 100, f/16, .6s. Clearly there’s some magic with how a CPL and the vari-nd interact that’s not only giving the crazy colors but a ton of additional light loss. It’s also worth noting that the different colors were achieved by spinning the front element of the CPL.

You can also notice that with the step-up ring, vari-nd and the CPL that the 35mm f1.4 is getting the CPL in the corners. Easy to crop out, but again worth noting if you’re considering stacking filters.

All the weirdness above said, the images between +2 to +8 stops look really good to me and this is a great item to keep in my bag. While on the expensive side, this one filter can take the place of multiple ND filters and quickly justifies the price tag.

I would definitely recommend this to anyone interested in the sort of shooting that ND filters lend themselves to.

Took some photos of Corinne earlier.

Here’s one of the favorites.

Did a couple of laps around Leverett Pond this afternoon with Corinne. I brought along my Canon 300mm f2.8L IS to continue to break it in, along with my new pair of hiking shoes.

Despite being a bit on the heavy side, I’ll say this — the 300mm is an absolutely JOY to shoot with. Totally in love with it.

Head over to the Fauna Gallery to see more.

I added some photos to the Underwater and Landscape galleries.

These are from the last Hawaii trip in 2007 (Maui & Lanai).

They’re not super special since they were taken on my old PowerShot A710 IS, but I’m still a fan.

I got out for a bit on Saturday before the wind picked up and shot some dandelions with the Canon MP-E 65. I also found some tiny spiders to shoot, but wasn’t happy with any of the results for a number of reasons.

The images were shot at a variety of magnifications from 1x to 5x — the full range of the MP-E 65.

All of these shots are of the same dandelion in its “parachute” phase. The last shot is at about 5x life size. Shooting through the parachute canopy gives the hazy, ethereal appearance.

I just added two panoramas from my recent trip to Oregon. They’re not as spectacular as some that I’ve seen posted, but they’re my first real go at creating panoramic shots by stitching multiple images together, and I think it’s a decent start.

Click on the thumbnails below to see the full size images!

Back from Portland. Had a great time. Took a bunch of photos that need to get processed.

Got a body suit on Wednesday night from Ross Carlson at Living Art Tattoo where I was hanging out.

Body Suit Tattoo: Koi + Peonies

I’m absolutely loving it!

Been sick for a few days. My on-call week started today at 10:30am. If I’m lucky, I’ll be able to get enough sleep to recover from this illness in time for me to fly out to Portland on 5/1. If I’m not lucky, I’ll have a less-than-optimal vacation.

I haven’t done much in the realm of photography since the water drop photos. I just haven’t really had the time. If I do get some free time, I might give it another shot. I’ve picked up some gels and have a few other things I want to try in terms of the setup to hopefully achieve better results. We shall see.

The lighting class that I’ve taken is 3 weeks down. So far it’s all been fundamentals — which have been about 98% wasted on me. There’s been a couple of things explained in interesting ways that I’ve been able to get something out of, but for the most part it’s been a bit of a waste of time. Hopefully things pick up soon, because I’m having a hard time investing my time when I’m getting so little out of the experience.

I think I’m going to go nap on the couch and hope I don’t get any calls.

I’ve wanted to do water drop shots for a while and finally had a real go at it tonight. I tried setting up last weekend but couldn’t get a consistent water drop rate or control where the drops fell. The following few images show my first attempt at this sort of photography.

I was having a lot of problems getting the amount of light needed at first (and some of them are still a bit darker than I’d have liked). I think the issue is mostly with the container I used for the shots and I hope to have better luck next time around. I also want to increase depth of field as well as working distance. I’m so used to shooting things as close as possible I forget that not everything is best served with a super close-up shot. Since I almost never crop any of my images, I think I put a bit more emphasis on tight framing than most people.

Either way, I’m happy with this set as a first attempt and will be eager to see what I can come up with going forward.

I’m selling a lens on Craigslist right now. If you’ve ever done something like this, you know the douchebags that try to get you to ship the item somewhere, offer you more money then you’re asking and speak very poor english while doing so.

Here’s a conversation I just had over email with one of these guys – it’s a real gem!

scammer: it on for sell?

me: This lens is still available for sale – yes.

If you’re interested, you can feel free to give me a call at [my phone number]

scammer: Hi Mate,

Thanks for your response ,I’m buying this [item] for my friend’s son as a birthday gift,but he lives oversea.I can offer you $1200 for the item plus an extra $150 due to the cost of international shipping.Let me know ifthis works for you.if you’re ready to go ahead,let me know where i should send the paypal payment so we can proceed,i prefer paypal because it’s fast and secure.

Regards.

**note the use of more-or-less proper english (and compare it to the rest of the responses) and that “[item]” is probably supposed to be replaced with the actual item that’s being sold – this is clearly a form reply

me: I’m willing to sell it in-person only. Sorry if that’s not convenient for your situation.

scammer: ok no problem but i think you assit me do it.

me: I’m not sure what you mean – but if you live in/around the Boston, MA arrea, I’m willing to meet up for a sale and you can arrange the international shipping on your own afterwards.

I’m not willing to ship this item myself.

Thanks

scammer: ok sound id good but i did not in town now ok and i wanna need your assist ok

me: Let me know when and where you want to meet up and we can discuss the details more in person.

Thanks

scammer: i want you to ship to him ok you need to meet ok

me: I’m not able to do that.

I can sell it to you in person, but you’ll have to ship it.

Ok?

scammer: no

I guess you can’t blame a guy for trying – but what REALLY confuses me is the number of people that fall for these sorts of scams. That really boggles my mind!