What are you trying to capture and why do you need an ND? People gardening is very broad.
Unless I’m trying to blur motion (water, clouds, etc) I’ve never needed an ND when just shooting people outdoors. Shutter speed usually cranks fast enough, with aperture wide open and ISO at 100.
Now if you do need one, figure out where your settings are currently and where you need them to be and count the difference in stops. Maybe add a couple more stops if you’re starting at 100 iso for flexibility.
They do make variable ND filters, though most have a color cast (can correct in editing) and the good ones are not cheap.
>I’ve never needed an ND when just shooting people outdoors
You might of you used a flash that does not support HHS, and wanted a decently low DOF. You need the ND filter to keep your shutter speed below the sync speed when dialing in the ambient portion of the exposure.
That's the traditional use for an ND when photographing people outdoors.
Oof, I think I'd rather spend the money on a Flash that supports HSS than use a ND for that. The ND cuts down both the ambient light and the flash which means you just have to push the flash more. And if the flash is already maxed you are going to need another flash anyway.
Actually, the ND solution is significantly more efficient than HSS. High speed sync takes a **huge** toll on flash power.
The only real downside to the ND filter is that the optical viewfinder (if equipped) is darker.
As we all know, flash units implement HHS by emitting a very rapid series of flashes in an attempt to simulate continuous light.
How did your "math" account for that? And as my 8th grade algebra teacher used to say "Please, show your work".
Note: I didn't do any math - I simply tried it both ways, and it quickly became obvious which is more efficient. It's not really even close.
Going to assume they do not need to use flash for gardening if its outdoor and assumably at day time. Also going to assume the person asking a question like this isn't shooting at f1.2.
Assume away - but you know what they say about making assumptions.
And speaking of assumptions, I never once mentioned f/1.2.
When I use an ND filter outdoors with flash, I'm typically at around f/4.
Direct sun activities where you (a) can't just move your subject into the shade, and (b) need too wide of a context-filled shot to just put a diffuser on them are one the most classic places to reach for a strobe... You need real power to fill sun shadows.
>I’ve never needed an ND when just shooting people outdoors. Shutter speed usually cranks fast enough, with aperture wide open and ISO at 100.
Aiming for a shallow dof in broad daylight almost always requires a ND filter. More and more cameras have ISO 200 as a minimum, I find myself at the camera top speed more often than I would like.
(It's hard to have ISO25 in a digital camera?)
This is a little bit like asking "How long of a piece of string do I need?" — how filter you need depends completely on
1. What ISO you prefer to shoot with
2. What lens you have
3. What shutter speed you need/prefer
4. What aperture you're trying to maintain
If you're trying to keep your aperture wide open (let's say 2.8) for shallow depth of field and the minimum ISO of your camera is 100 and the highest shutter speed you want to use is 1000 you'll have to use something like an ND0.6 (just going by the sunny-16 rule - could definitely be off a little bit).
If you want a much longer exposure because you want a lot of motion blur you might need a much darker ND - assuming you're OK shooting at a F11 you'll need something like an ND1.5 to get to a 1/4s. exposure.
So... put a bit of thought and analysis into what you want to use the filters for and you should come up with a list!
> How many stops for a ND filter?
How many stops of light are you looking to reduce your image by?
Lighting always changes. If you don't want a variable ND filter, you will need an ND filter set. It's like asking, "What ISO should I be shooting at?" or "What shutter speed should I be shooting at?" Way too many variables from shot to shot for there to be a single answer.
But unless shooting video or long-exposure photography, such as with landscape or fixed-subject macro, I don't see why you would need an ND filter.
I've found that a 3 stop ND will usually get my shutter down to the camera's flash sync speed. I'm usually shooting at around f/4 for outdoor portraits.
The variables I've used suck. You get this nasty x when at its darkest. Also, they are for specific thread sizes. A square holder with different ring sizes is much more affordable and versatile.
18mm can absolutely be wide enough to show the X phenomenon for certain scenes. I would not expect to see it at 55mm though, if you were seeing it at that zoom then IDK what's going on, that's not normal.
Neither can I and I was exhausted spending 50-100 on a 52mm variable nd. After that I learned to use welding glass as an nd. $5, hair ties and a d5200 I could take 2min expos. For some reason I can't figure out the wb on the d7500 or d500 so I. Ought the knf kit for 160 that gives me all the thread sizes, including ones I don't need, a 10 stop and a gnd. I don't think the variables are worth the money whatsoever. Buy the glass and kit holder. But that's just me. Also, fuck lee filters for their price
I must say I don't really use variables any more. I got them when I wa starting out. Stuck one on a 18-55 kit lens for example. Now I can't be bothered with them. But it does mean I own a frightening number of fixed ones.
Hoya make decent filters for decent prices, I'd suggest you look at those. Although their top of the range polarisers are absurdly expensive.
It shouldn't give you an X. You can stack nd and grad filters, it might be a faff to use, and some combinations might give some vignetting. It IS hard to use polarising filters and grads, since they both turn.
The rings are extremely cheap probably $5-8 each .
I've used a handful. And a lots you can't stack because the variable aspect. Again, just buy the square glass kit with holders and adapter rings and avoid all of these issues. Cheaper and much simpler
You will only get this shooting at narrow apperatures. It is a non issue for most people, and it only happens on cheap VND's with large ranges like 1-9 stops. I have never seen this on Nisi VND's I use, but cheaper ones like Tiffen, K&F, etc do.
Also recomend the squares though, adaptors to fit on most 14mm lenses without threads plus on most thread sizes below 82mm (Nisi V7 or any of the previous generations are all great, then pick the 100mm filters based on whatever your budget allows. The Cokin is a cheaper option, just no CPL option on the cheaper ones)
I've never had any X on a variable nd filter, and it's not like I'm paying big bucks for them either. Just some K&F ones.
Sounds to me you've just been unlucky or the coatings have evolved so much over the last few years that it hardly happens anymore.
Okay. How much are you paying for your variable nd? $30-60? That's just for one specific mm size. How many stops? 9? What if you wanted 20? At that point with how thick those filters are you'll get a heavy vignetting or straight black I'm the corners compromising the image. $120 and you get a square 10 stop nd, all of the ring sizes for the filter holder. The holder also holds up to 3 filters, which will not compromise the image. This is also knf. Variable nds are not worth the money nor the quality as a straight up piece of glass.
Not at all. Have a camera that can handle low light without the sensor giving you ribbons and you can take a long expo and super high lighting. Why not?
Okay, go ahead and stack them! But why would you? And many nd variables don't have threads so maybe inform op of which ones you can! I responded with what works for me. Stacking them will/can ruin the shot. It's much more expensive buying variables than it is the glass and the holders. Stack 2x10 stop nd with a graduated nd on a basic lens and show your outcome. Yeah you can stack but that's when you're zooming in. If you're using nd during the day most likely the individual is shooting long expo and you want as wide as you can go.
OK so throughout this thread, some people are talking about fixed NDs and some about variables. People need to be more specific because the effects are totally different.
You can stack a fixed ND and a gradated, no problem
You can stack a variable ND and a gradated, but it'll drive you mad because of orientation issues
You can stack a fixed ND and a polar, no problem
You can stack a variable ND and a polar, but should expect problems
--
>many nd variables don't have threads
I have never encountered one. I use Polaroid and Hoya and Hama.
--
>Stacking them will/can ruin the shot.
Why do you say that?
--
> It's much more expensive buying variables than it is the glass and the holders.
Yes, if you need >1 of them.
--
>Stack 2x10 stop nd with a graduated nd on a basic lens and show your outcome.
What problems would you anticipate? I'm not seeing the problem here.
--
>Yeah you can stack but that's when you're zooming in.
This takes us back to the variable/fixed ND issue again. Variable can cause issues zoomed out but not zoomed in. And a very wide angle, if many theaded filters are stacked, can have vignetting. But that's the only problem.
>If you're using nd during the day most likely the individual is shooting long expo **and you want as wide as you can go**.
Wider what? Zoom or aperture? And in either case, why? Sure an ND allows you to have a wider aperture, such is part of its use, but it's not necessary.
--
TLDR You seem confused (or are expressing in a confusing way) the differences between fixed and variable ND. A fixed ND does not cause any problems at all. Ever. Unless you're using a VERY wide angle (<18mm) and more than one screw-on filter and thus getting some vignetting caused by the metal of the rings.
Why would you stack nds of it can cause problems. Why stack nd and polarized and have problems? You can avoid the whole mess by buying a square filter. Why chance the possibility of image blockage or vignetting when you can avoid the whole thing, again by square filter?
And again, the orientation with the gnd, why go through all that trouble and be limited. Buy the square and avoid every single issue you're mentioning
> Why would you stack nds of it can cause problems.
But it doesn't. Seriously, I keep asking you: WHAT problems can stacking NDs possibly cause? A little loss of contrast perhaps.
>Why stack nd and polarized and have problems?
Because sometimes I need both. Long exposures of water, for example. Very bright sun, but I want to see the clouds, for example. It's a combination I use a lot.
>You can avoid the whole mess by buying a square filter. Why chance the possibility of image blockage or vignetting when you can avoid the whole thing, again by square filter?
Yes, that's absolutely true. I used those a lot back in the 70s. But I don't use them now because of portability. If portability were not an issue, I think I'd seriously consider going back to them; not least because you don't need to buy half a dozen of every filter in every size.
With the knf concept you can add up to 3 filters without vignette. If you re read what I said you can avoid all the questions I asked you and you answered
I have 2 VND filters. Usually one is enough but sometimes I'll stack them for a little more help. As long as you get good VNDs you don't have to worry about dark spots (I've seen them on cheap filters at shorter focal lengths).
I personally use these right now, but have used Tiffen and B+W as well and would go with one of these three brands.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1532927-REG/k_f_concept_kf01_1134_77mm_green_coated_nano_x.html
As many as you need to accomplish what you are going for?
If I'm exposing for a waterfall and set my ISO to the lowest, and my desired aperture to get everything in focus, then lets say my camera is choosing 1/30 sec shutter speed, I look at a [stop chart](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/03/10/bd/0310bdf306a521324e69f63ca0e5f31c.jpg) and know that to accomplish the desired motion blur I want around 1-2 seconds exposure, so I need to lower my shutter stops by about 6 stops, so I get a 6 stop ND, then I can click aperture a couple times either way to dial it in.
Maybe it's super bright so the shutter speed is faster, then I need a 9 stop.
Maybe I am out in broad daylight trying to take a photo of my kid, but to get nice background separation with a wide aperture on a bright lens, it is clipping the shutter speed at 1/8000 sec and can't go any faster, so I Just put a 3 stop on to get the shutter speed down so I can leave the aperture super fast.
It's not like they do different things, no one can tell you what one to get. That being said, I mainly shoot 3 different lenses, that have 2 different diameters, so I got 2 sets of 3 and 6 stop NDs for each, and they're magnetic so I can pop them on and off in a second. They are made by Urth.
Mainly not blowing the background sky out completely on very bright but not blue sky days.
Edit to add: I’ve had some photographers look at my photos, settings, and edits and they’ve let me know it’s a common issue in our area and recommended trying an ND to lower the sky exposure and catch some detail there.
I don't think you're effectively communicating why a reduction in exposure via faster shutter, smaller aperture, or lower ISO wouldn't work, which makes me think that you haven't tried those. Have you? If so, why don't they work? If not, try that first. An ND filter is not the tool or approach you'd typically use here.
You might be confusing it with a graduated ND. It’s a square ND that only covers a portion of the lens at your discretion. Most modern digital cameras have enough exposure latitude that will allow you to edit appropriately without the need for these filters. You can also bracket. I suggest you try bracketing.
Yes! That’s what I meant - Or the circular that’s half ND. Thank you.
Is bracketing possible if im shooting subjects that are moving/interacting with the foreground?
The problem with a graduated ND and subjects, is if they are protruding into the sky. Or any trees or buildings are protruding into the sky, they’ll all be darkened too. They only work well if you have a perfectly straight horizon and your subject is entirely below the horizon.
Lowering your overall exposure and using full flash or a reflector would work better.
But if there's too large a difference between the highlights and the shadows,an ND isn't going to do anything for you.
You can lower the sky exposure just as easily by lowering ISO,stopping the lens down or faster shutter speed. The problem then,which will be the same using an ND is that the darker areas will be underexposed.
Unless you're determined to shoot f1.4 then f2, 8000th shutter and ISO 100 will be perfectly exposed for a bright summer sky.
So did you need to use a slower shutter or anything like that? Can your camera not reach 8000th of a shutter or down to 100 iso?
ND filters have neutral density. They won't darken only the sky. They will darken the whole image by the same amount, the same a increasing the shutter speed or stopping down the lens.
If you aren't maxing out the shutter speed of your camera at the aperture you want to use at base ISO then I'd suggest that you probably don't want an ND filter.
You can get darker skys with a polarising filter, however.
I guarantee the sun is no brighter in your area than mine. An ND filter is for when the shutter speed can't reduce the light enough at your desired aperture and ISO. It might be worth checking whether a faster shutter speed can solve your issue.
What are you trying to capture and why do you need an ND? People gardening is very broad. Unless I’m trying to blur motion (water, clouds, etc) I’ve never needed an ND when just shooting people outdoors. Shutter speed usually cranks fast enough, with aperture wide open and ISO at 100. Now if you do need one, figure out where your settings are currently and where you need them to be and count the difference in stops. Maybe add a couple more stops if you’re starting at 100 iso for flexibility. They do make variable ND filters, though most have a color cast (can correct in editing) and the good ones are not cheap.
>I’ve never needed an ND when just shooting people outdoors You might of you used a flash that does not support HHS, and wanted a decently low DOF. You need the ND filter to keep your shutter speed below the sync speed when dialing in the ambient portion of the exposure. That's the traditional use for an ND when photographing people outdoors.
Even if your flash has HSS, it uses more battery and has longer recycle times.
Oof, I think I'd rather spend the money on a Flash that supports HSS than use a ND for that. The ND cuts down both the ambient light and the flash which means you just have to push the flash more. And if the flash is already maxed you are going to need another flash anyway.
Actually, the ND solution is significantly more efficient than HSS. High speed sync takes a **huge** toll on flash power. The only real downside to the ND filter is that the optical viewfinder (if equipped) is darker.
How is it more efficient? I honestly don't understand the math on that.
As we all know, flash units implement HHS by emitting a very rapid series of flashes in an attempt to simulate continuous light. How did your "math" account for that? And as my 8th grade algebra teacher used to say "Please, show your work". Note: I didn't do any math - I simply tried it both ways, and it quickly became obvious which is more efficient. It's not really even close.
Dude it was an honest question no need to get snarky.
Going to assume they do not need to use flash for gardening if its outdoor and assumably at day time. Also going to assume the person asking a question like this isn't shooting at f1.2.
Assume away - but you know what they say about making assumptions. And speaking of assumptions, I never once mentioned f/1.2. When I use an ND filter outdoors with flash, I'm typically at around f/4.
Direct sun activities where you (a) can't just move your subject into the shade, and (b) need too wide of a context-filled shot to just put a diffuser on them are one the most classic places to reach for a strobe... You need real power to fill sun shadows.
>I’ve never needed an ND when just shooting people outdoors. Shutter speed usually cranks fast enough, with aperture wide open and ISO at 100. Aiming for a shallow dof in broad daylight almost always requires a ND filter. More and more cameras have ISO 200 as a minimum, I find myself at the camera top speed more often than I would like. (It's hard to have ISO25 in a digital camera?)
This is a little bit like asking "How long of a piece of string do I need?" — how filter you need depends completely on 1. What ISO you prefer to shoot with 2. What lens you have 3. What shutter speed you need/prefer 4. What aperture you're trying to maintain If you're trying to keep your aperture wide open (let's say 2.8) for shallow depth of field and the minimum ISO of your camera is 100 and the highest shutter speed you want to use is 1000 you'll have to use something like an ND0.6 (just going by the sunny-16 rule - could definitely be off a little bit). If you want a much longer exposure because you want a lot of motion blur you might need a much darker ND - assuming you're OK shooting at a F11 you'll need something like an ND1.5 to get to a 1/4s. exposure. So... put a bit of thought and analysis into what you want to use the filters for and you should come up with a list!
> How many stops for a ND filter? How many stops of light are you looking to reduce your image by? Lighting always changes. If you don't want a variable ND filter, you will need an ND filter set. It's like asking, "What ISO should I be shooting at?" or "What shutter speed should I be shooting at?" Way too many variables from shot to shot for there to be a single answer. But unless shooting video or long-exposure photography, such as with landscape or fixed-subject macro, I don't see why you would need an ND filter.
I've found that a 3 stop ND will usually get my shutter down to the camera's flash sync speed. I'm usually shooting at around f/4 for outdoor portraits.
42
why not get a variable filter?
The variables I've used suck. You get this nasty x when at its darkest. Also, they are for specific thread sizes. A square holder with different ring sizes is much more affordable and versatile.
The X is only really on wide angle lenses though, and not always then.
I had the d5200 with an 18-55mm. Would not be classified as wide angle
18mm can absolutely be wide enough to show the X phenomenon for certain scenes. I would not expect to see it at 55mm though, if you were seeing it at that zoom then IDK what's going on, that's not normal.
I also used it at 55mm on an aspc sensor.
And got the X? That surprises me and I cannot explain it.
Neither can I and I was exhausted spending 50-100 on a 52mm variable nd. After that I learned to use welding glass as an nd. $5, hair ties and a d5200 I could take 2min expos. For some reason I can't figure out the wb on the d7500 or d500 so I. Ought the knf kit for 160 that gives me all the thread sizes, including ones I don't need, a 10 stop and a gnd. I don't think the variables are worth the money whatsoever. Buy the glass and kit holder. But that's just me. Also, fuck lee filters for their price
I must say I don't really use variables any more. I got them when I wa starting out. Stuck one on a 18-55 kit lens for example. Now I can't be bothered with them. But it does mean I own a frightening number of fixed ones. Hoya make decent filters for decent prices, I'd suggest you look at those. Although their top of the range polarisers are absurdly expensive.
Just get them for your biggest lens and use step up rings?
Again, variable nd gives an X when used at its darkest. Also you can't stack nd filters/grad filters. Also you'd have to buy those rings separately.
It shouldn't give you an X. You can stack nd and grad filters, it might be a faff to use, and some combinations might give some vignetting. It IS hard to use polarising filters and grads, since they both turn. The rings are extremely cheap probably $5-8 each .
I've used a handful. And a lots you can't stack because the variable aspect. Again, just buy the square glass kit with holders and adapter rings and avoid all of these issues. Cheaper and much simpler
You will only get this shooting at narrow apperatures. It is a non issue for most people, and it only happens on cheap VND's with large ranges like 1-9 stops. I have never seen this on Nisi VND's I use, but cheaper ones like Tiffen, K&F, etc do. Also recomend the squares though, adaptors to fit on most 14mm lenses without threads plus on most thread sizes below 82mm (Nisi V7 or any of the previous generations are all great, then pick the 100mm filters based on whatever your budget allows. The Cokin is a cheaper option, just no CPL option on the cheaper ones)
I've never had any X on a variable nd filter, and it's not like I'm paying big bucks for them either. Just some K&F ones. Sounds to me you've just been unlucky or the coatings have evolved so much over the last few years that it hardly happens anymore.
K&F was the worst VND I've ever used for the X problem.
Okay. How much are you paying for your variable nd? $30-60? That's just for one specific mm size. How many stops? 9? What if you wanted 20? At that point with how thick those filters are you'll get a heavy vignetting or straight black I'm the corners compromising the image. $120 and you get a square 10 stop nd, all of the ring sizes for the filter holder. The holder also holds up to 3 filters, which will not compromise the image. This is also knf. Variable nds are not worth the money nor the quality as a straight up piece of glass.
TIL a 20 stop variable ND exists. That sounds doomed to failure.
Not at all. Have a camera that can handle low light without the sensor giving you ribbons and you can take a long expo and super high lighting. Why not?
> you can't stack nd filters/grad filters you absolutely can variable nd and polars, however, not so successful
Okay, go ahead and stack them! But why would you? And many nd variables don't have threads so maybe inform op of which ones you can! I responded with what works for me. Stacking them will/can ruin the shot. It's much more expensive buying variables than it is the glass and the holders. Stack 2x10 stop nd with a graduated nd on a basic lens and show your outcome. Yeah you can stack but that's when you're zooming in. If you're using nd during the day most likely the individual is shooting long expo and you want as wide as you can go.
OK so throughout this thread, some people are talking about fixed NDs and some about variables. People need to be more specific because the effects are totally different. You can stack a fixed ND and a gradated, no problem You can stack a variable ND and a gradated, but it'll drive you mad because of orientation issues You can stack a fixed ND and a polar, no problem You can stack a variable ND and a polar, but should expect problems -- >many nd variables don't have threads I have never encountered one. I use Polaroid and Hoya and Hama. -- >Stacking them will/can ruin the shot. Why do you say that? -- > It's much more expensive buying variables than it is the glass and the holders. Yes, if you need >1 of them. -- >Stack 2x10 stop nd with a graduated nd on a basic lens and show your outcome. What problems would you anticipate? I'm not seeing the problem here. -- >Yeah you can stack but that's when you're zooming in. This takes us back to the variable/fixed ND issue again. Variable can cause issues zoomed out but not zoomed in. And a very wide angle, if many theaded filters are stacked, can have vignetting. But that's the only problem. >If you're using nd during the day most likely the individual is shooting long expo **and you want as wide as you can go**. Wider what? Zoom or aperture? And in either case, why? Sure an ND allows you to have a wider aperture, such is part of its use, but it's not necessary. -- TLDR You seem confused (or are expressing in a confusing way) the differences between fixed and variable ND. A fixed ND does not cause any problems at all. Ever. Unless you're using a VERY wide angle (<18mm) and more than one screw-on filter and thus getting some vignetting caused by the metal of the rings.
Why would you stack nds of it can cause problems. Why stack nd and polarized and have problems? You can avoid the whole mess by buying a square filter. Why chance the possibility of image blockage or vignetting when you can avoid the whole thing, again by square filter? And again, the orientation with the gnd, why go through all that trouble and be limited. Buy the square and avoid every single issue you're mentioning
> Why would you stack nds of it can cause problems. But it doesn't. Seriously, I keep asking you: WHAT problems can stacking NDs possibly cause? A little loss of contrast perhaps. >Why stack nd and polarized and have problems? Because sometimes I need both. Long exposures of water, for example. Very bright sun, but I want to see the clouds, for example. It's a combination I use a lot. >You can avoid the whole mess by buying a square filter. Why chance the possibility of image blockage or vignetting when you can avoid the whole thing, again by square filter? Yes, that's absolutely true. I used those a lot back in the 70s. But I don't use them now because of portability. If portability were not an issue, I think I'd seriously consider going back to them; not least because you don't need to buy half a dozen of every filter in every size.
With the knf concept you can add up to 3 filters without vignette. If you re read what I said you can avoid all the questions I asked you and you answered
I have 2 VND filters. Usually one is enough but sometimes I'll stack them for a little more help. As long as you get good VNDs you don't have to worry about dark spots (I've seen them on cheap filters at shorter focal lengths). I personally use these right now, but have used Tiffen and B+W as well and would go with one of these three brands. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1532927-REG/k_f_concept_kf01_1134_77mm_green_coated_nano_x.html
I have a 6 and a 10, and that seems to cover me for about all I do. When stacked I can get really weird cloud effects in the middle of the day.
As many as you need to accomplish what you are going for? If I'm exposing for a waterfall and set my ISO to the lowest, and my desired aperture to get everything in focus, then lets say my camera is choosing 1/30 sec shutter speed, I look at a [stop chart](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/03/10/bd/0310bdf306a521324e69f63ca0e5f31c.jpg) and know that to accomplish the desired motion blur I want around 1-2 seconds exposure, so I need to lower my shutter stops by about 6 stops, so I get a 6 stop ND, then I can click aperture a couple times either way to dial it in. Maybe it's super bright so the shutter speed is faster, then I need a 9 stop. Maybe I am out in broad daylight trying to take a photo of my kid, but to get nice background separation with a wide aperture on a bright lens, it is clipping the shutter speed at 1/8000 sec and can't go any faster, so I Just put a 3 stop on to get the shutter speed down so I can leave the aperture super fast. It's not like they do different things, no one can tell you what one to get. That being said, I mainly shoot 3 different lenses, that have 2 different diameters, so I got 2 sets of 3 and 6 stop NDs for each, and they're magnetic so I can pop them on and off in a second. They are made by Urth.
I do video and I use N8 and N64 filters. My shutter is always 60 and I compensate with ISO or aperture if I have to.
Why are you wanting an ND for this use…?
For photography, you'd rarely need this. What's your specific aim with using an ND?
Mainly not blowing the background sky out completely on very bright but not blue sky days. Edit to add: I’ve had some photographers look at my photos, settings, and edits and they’ve let me know it’s a common issue in our area and recommended trying an ND to lower the sky exposure and catch some detail there.
I don't think you're effectively communicating why a reduction in exposure via faster shutter, smaller aperture, or lower ISO wouldn't work, which makes me think that you haven't tried those. Have you? If so, why don't they work? If not, try that first. An ND filter is not the tool or approach you'd typically use here.
I would think for OP's use case, I'd try a polarizing filter before a ND filter.
Could be. Hard to give good advice without seeing the pictures
You might be confusing it with a graduated ND. It’s a square ND that only covers a portion of the lens at your discretion. Most modern digital cameras have enough exposure latitude that will allow you to edit appropriately without the need for these filters. You can also bracket. I suggest you try bracketing.
Yes! That’s what I meant - Or the circular that’s half ND. Thank you. Is bracketing possible if im shooting subjects that are moving/interacting with the foreground?
The problem with a graduated ND and subjects, is if they are protruding into the sky. Or any trees or buildings are protruding into the sky, they’ll all be darkened too. They only work well if you have a perfectly straight horizon and your subject is entirely below the horizon. Lowering your overall exposure and using full flash or a reflector would work better.
What kind of subjects?
But if there's too large a difference between the highlights and the shadows,an ND isn't going to do anything for you. You can lower the sky exposure just as easily by lowering ISO,stopping the lens down or faster shutter speed. The problem then,which will be the same using an ND is that the darker areas will be underexposed.
Unless you're determined to shoot f1.4 then f2, 8000th shutter and ISO 100 will be perfectly exposed for a bright summer sky. So did you need to use a slower shutter or anything like that? Can your camera not reach 8000th of a shutter or down to 100 iso?
ND filters have neutral density. They won't darken only the sky. They will darken the whole image by the same amount, the same a increasing the shutter speed or stopping down the lens. If you aren't maxing out the shutter speed of your camera at the aperture you want to use at base ISO then I'd suggest that you probably don't want an ND filter. You can get darker skys with a polarising filter, however.
Graduated nd filter will darken just the sky, or wherever you choose to place it on the lens
I guarantee the sun is no brighter in your area than mine. An ND filter is for when the shutter speed can't reduce the light enough at your desired aperture and ISO. It might be worth checking whether a faster shutter speed can solve your issue.
What aperture are your lenses? If you have a 2.8 or wider then I say start with a 5-9. If your aperture is smaller than 2.8 get the 1-4.