X100V ND Filter + Polariser = blue tint?

[Erik Baumgartner]

I noticed, using only the ND in the x100vi, a blue-ish mist and bad IQ over darker area’s. It seems it effects quality ( negatively) in darker areas as well. No extra editing done! But…
I did a simple test with a photo with a lot of contrast and i did see really a lot of differences with or without the ND turned on. Only difference was shuttertime. ISO on both 125, all settings the same except with nd: 1/13s without 1/160s, both with undercomp -1/3 stop.
ND variant looks really bad.

In the lighter less dark areas the difference were also noticable in the clearity of colours but not soo bad as in dark areas.

The last one is obvious with ND on.

is this worrieng? I do not like it and this is really not what i hoped for. I liked the idea to have a build in 4 stops ND. It seems to be useless. With my b+w nd filters there is always sone distortion in colour / whitebalans but quality is always oke. I have never seen this.

The built-ND filter in the X100 cameras stinks, sorry, but it just does. It is very prone to (blueish) veiling flare/loss of contrast in any sort of bright light and, unless you're using it low light (where you wouldn't need it), it's pretty much worthless, IMO.

If you really need an ND for extended exposures or video or something, I highly recommend getting a high quality screw-in ND to use instead. Otherwise, just let the Electronic Shutter automatically take over at higher shutter speeds (The leaf shutter has its own issues at higher shutter speeds). Unlike the newer cameras, the earliest models had no ES option and a very slow leaf shutter, so an ND made sense. Personally, I've never run into a situation where I would need to use the built-in ND with my V.


Easy to see the effects on image quality with the built-in ND vs. the electronic shutter here.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

Shadows on white sand are always blue in sunlight because they're reflecting the blue sky. I think the colors in your photos look natural.

Yup. Also shadows are illuminated by skylight - not sunlight. Skylight is blue light ( Rayleigh scattering). https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/blue-sky/en/#:~:text=The Short Answer:,sky most of the time.

I suspect the blue light in the shadows is because it the shadows are illuminated by blue light independent of the ND filter. That is not to say a ND filter cannot produce a color cast. However, if it were the ND filter it probably would show up in shadows, mid-tones and highlights.

--
"The winds of heaven is that which blows between a horse's ears," Bedouin Proverb
__
Truman
www.tprevattimages.com

 

[MiklosS]

I noticed, using only the ND in the x100vi, a blue-ish mist and bad IQ over darker area’s. It seems it effects quality ( negatively) in darker areas as well. No extra editing done! But…
I did a simple test with a photo with a lot of contrast and i did see really a lot of differences with or without the ND turned on. Only difference was shuttertime. ISO on both 125, all settings the same except with nd: 1/13s without 1/160s, both with undercomp -1/3 stop.
ND variant looks really bad.

In the lighter less dark areas the difference were also noticable in the clearity of colours but not soo bad as in dark areas.

The last one is obvious with ND on.

is this worrieng? I do not like it and this is really not what i hoped for. I liked the idea to have a build in 4 stops ND. It seems to be useless. With my b+w nd filters there is always sone distortion in colour / whitebalans but quality is always oke. I have never seen this.

The built-ND filter in the X100 cameras stinks, sorry, but it just does. It is very prone to (blueish) veiling flare/loss of contrast in any sort of bright light and, unless you're using it low light (where you wouldn't need it), it's pretty much worthless, IMO.

If you really need an ND for extended exposures or video or something, I highly recommend getting a high quality screw-in ND to use instead. Otherwise, just let the Electronic Shutter automatically take over at higher shutter speeds (The leaf shutter has its own issues at higher shutter speeds). Unlike the newer cameras, the earliest models had no ES option and a very slow leaf shutter, so an ND made sense. Personally, I've never run into a situation where I would need to use the built-in ND with my V.


Easy to see the effects on image quality with the built-in ND vs. the electronic shutter here.

Thanks Erik, you confirmed what i was not hoping for.. it stinks and is useless. In my case i want it for long photographic exposures. And i was happy to have this in this package.. one off the reasons to buy. I am afraid that i still have to take ND filters with me.. in fact ..i have to buy the right adapters.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

I noticed, using only the ND in the x100vi, a blue-ish mist and bad IQ over darker area’s. It seems it effects quality ( negatively) in darker areas as well. No extra editing done! But…
I did a simple test with a photo with a lot of contrast and i did see really a lot of differences with or without the ND turned on. Only difference was shuttertime. ISO on both 125, all settings the same except with nd: 1/13s without 1/160s, both with undercomp -1/3 stop.
ND variant looks really bad.

In the lighter less dark areas the difference were also noticable in the clearity of colours but not soo bad as in dark areas.

The last one is obvious with ND on.

is this worrieng? I do not like it and this is really not what i hoped for. I liked the idea to have a build in 4 stops ND. It seems to be useless. With my b+w nd filters there is always sone distortion in colour / whitebalans but quality is always oke. I have never seen this.

The built-ND filter in the X100 cameras stinks, sorry, but it just does. It is very prone to (blueish) veiling flare/loss of contrast in any sort of bright light and, unless you're using it low light (where you wouldn't need it), it's pretty much worthless, IMO.

If you really need an ND for extended exposures or video or something, I highly recommend getting a high quality screw-in ND to use instead. Otherwise, just let the Electronic Shutter automatically take over at higher shutter speeds (The leaf shutter has its own issues at higher shutter speeds). Unlike the newer cameras, the earliest models had no ES option and a very slow leaf shutter, so an ND made sense. Personally, I've never run into a situation where I would need to use the built-in ND with my V.


Easy to see the effects on image quality with the built-in ND vs. the electronic shutter here.

Thanks Erik, you confirmed what i was not hoping for.. it stinks and is useless. In my case i want it for long photographic exposures. And i was happy to have this in this package.. one off the reasons to buy. I am afraid that i still have to take ND filters with me.. in fact ..i have to buy the right adapters.

I like this one piece adapter/filter from Haoge (LUV 54XW), it accepts more common 52mm filters/adapters than the usual 49mm. You typically have to stop down too far with the built-in 4 stop ND anyway.

 

[Bill Ferris]

I noticed, using only the ND in the x100vi, a blue-ish mist and bad IQ over darker area’s. It seems it effects quality ( negatively) in darker areas as well. No extra editing done! But…
I did a simple test with a photo with a lot of contrast and i did see really a lot of differences with or without the ND turned on. Only difference was shuttertime. ISO on both 125, all settings the same except with nd: 1/13s without 1/160s, both with undercomp -1/3 stop.
ND variant looks really bad.

An ND filter affects all wavelengths and all parts of the scene. Its best use is to evenly reduce the brightness of the entire scene. No ND filter offers any benefit to the type of scene you chose and the outcome illustrates this.

A polarizing filter might do a better job of knocking down just the highlights without darkening the rest of the scene too much but even that is questionable for the scene you chose.

In the lighter less dark areas the difference were also noticable in the clearity of colours but not soo bad as in dark areas.

The last one is obvious with ND on.

is this worrieng? I do not like it and this is really not what i hoped for. I liked the idea to have a build in 4 stops ND. It seems to be useless. With my b+w nd filters there is always sone distortion in colour / whitebalans but quality is always oke. I have never seen this.

An ND filter is best used when the entire scene is overly bright and you want to use a wide lens aperture for a shallow depth of field or a slow shutter speed to intentionally blur scene elements such as water.

The result you got for the scene you chose is pretty much what any ND filter will deliver.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ

 

[MiklosS]

The sample is maybe an example where you can see it quite obvious but unfortunately I see really too much of quality degradation, not only in these setting but in different scenes. Something i never encountered using b+w screw on filters, and i have quite some experience with it. . I am afraid i will keep on using those filters with an adapter.
thx all

 

[MiklosS]

Thx Erik, the adapter also looks very nice!

 

[GKN]

Ok so this one was definately shot without the polariser



and this is my adjusted WB matching much closer to what I actually saw



what's your opinion here? surely AWB can't be this cool right? I really feel like there is something wrong with the camera....

The second photo looks very warm…. The first is more neutral albeit, slightly on the cool side, but that may also be the screen I’m using. I’d check there isn’t a setting that is cooling the images. I’d probably do a test with a 18% grey card to check the AWB - even a piece of pure white paper should be good.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Ok so this one was definately shot without the polariser



and this is my adjusted WB matching much closer to what I actually saw



what's your opinion here? surely AWB can't be this cool right? I really feel like there is something wrong with the camera....

The second photo looks very warm…. The first is more neutral albeit, slightly on the cool side, but that may also be the screen I’m using. I’d check there isn’t a setting that is cooling the images. I’d probably do a test with a 18% grey card to check the AWB - even a piece of pure white paper should be good.

The building facade is in shadow. The light illuminating it is probably in the 6000K to 7000K range. If the camera chose a daylight white balance in the 5000K to 5600K range, the building would look blue as it does in your top photo.

As a point of context, it's common for photos to have a blue tint when doing landscape photography late in the day and using auto white balance. This is across all brand and model cameras.

Your color-corrected version of the photo gives the stone facade a warmer hue, which is how most people would describe it and how the camera would capture it using a daylight white balance with sunlight directly illuminating the stone.

One of the advantages of shooting raw, is that we can make these adjustments in post. If you'd prefer to get it right in the field, I would suggest you give manual white balance selection a try.

If a test exposure looks too cool - too blue - the color temperature is too low. Manually increase the white balance temperature until the hue on the scene looks good to your eye. If the test exposure looks too warm - too red - the color temperature is too high. Decrease the white balance setting until the scene looks good.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ

 

[William the X-T5 guy]

Ok so this one was definately shot without the polariser



and this is my adjusted WB matching much closer to what I actually saw



what's your opinion here? surely AWB can't be this cool right? I really feel like there is something wrong with the camera....

Your top picture is closer to being correct. The building is in shadow, meaning it is illuminated by light from the sky, which is pretty blue.

Look at the sun illuminated concrete in the foreground. It is much more neutral in the top image than the bottom one.

--
Bill.
Proud user of Pentax and Fuji camera gear.