|
|
Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits
In article , PeterN
wrote: Double exposure in film, I can understand. yep. there are far fewer options with film. But a digital camera would just add the pixel values from two files, thus being no different from postprocessing on the computer. it's different in that it doesn't require a computer. To be valid, the sensor would have to be exposed, and then, without reading it, exposing it again. Are they really doing it? that's not required, nor would it work particularly well. Wrong. not wrong. See my posted example. It works very well, if you now what you are doing. in other words, not wrong. |
Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits
On Jan 15, 2019, PeterN wrote
(in article ): On 1/14/2019 2:53 PM, Savageduck wrote: On Jan 14, 2019, Carlos E.R. wrote (in article ): On 13/01/2019 17.15, David B. wrote: FYI (copy/paste) "In-camera double exposures are wonderfully creative and work very well for portraits. I love creating these in the summertime to take advantage of flowers in bloom. However, Autumn is a great time of year for double exposures as well. Fall leaves, pine trees, and holiday decor work really well with this style and the opportunities to experiment are endless. In order to create double exposures in-camera, you need to have a camera with this feature built-in. I’m using a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV but there are a number of cameras with the feature available. You can also create a double exposure look using an editing program like Photoshop but I find that creating these in camera is a lot more fun and can yield unexpected results." https://s3.amazonaws.com/viewbug_com...leExposure.pdf Double exposure in film, I can understand. But a digital camera would just add the pixel values from two files, thus being no different from postprocessing on the computer. To be valid, the sensor would have to be exposed, and then, without reading it, exposing it again. Are they really doing it? Nikon, Canon, and Fujifilm (and probably others) have a multi-exposure feature/mode which allows for two separate exposures, on two frames, which are blended into a single file. It is a bit of a novelty and nothing that cannot be done in post. Not true. What is not true? Multiple exposure, one image, walking around the tree. The effects and color were added in post. https://www.dropbox.com/s/2c7cul49u4jgo9b/tree1024.jpg?dl=0 There is only one question which comes to mind. Why? -- Regards, Savageduck |
Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits
On Jan 15, 2019, PeterN wrote
(in article ): On 1/14/2019 2:53 PM, Savageduck wrote: On Jan 14, 2019, Carlos E.R. wrote (in article ): On 13/01/2019 17.15, David B. wrote: FYI (copy/paste) "In-camera double exposures are wonderfully creative and work very well for portraits. I love creating these in the summertime to take advantage of flowers in bloom. However, Autumn is a great time of year for double exposures as well. Fall leaves, pine trees, and holiday decor work really well with this style and the opportunities to experiment are endless. In order to create double exposures in-camera, you need to have a camera with this feature built-in. I’m using a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV but there are a number of cameras with the feature available. You can also create a double exposure look using an editing program like Photoshop but I find that creating these in camera is a lot more fun and can yield unexpected results." https://s3.amazonaws.com/viewbug_com...leExposure.pdf Double exposure in film, I can understand. But a digital camera would just add the pixel values from two files, thus being no different from postprocessing on the computer. To be valid, the sensor would have to be exposed, and then, without reading it, exposing it again. Are they really doing it? Nikon, Canon, and Fujifilm (and probably others) have a multi-exposure feature/mode which allows for two separate exposures, on two frames, which are blended into a single file. It is a bit of a novelty and nothing that cannot be done in post. I forgot to say, you will not like it, but that's not the point. Well you called that one. ....and with that sort of result, for me the point is irrelevant. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits
On Jan 15, 2019, PeterN wrote
(in article ): On 1/15/2019 6:14 AM, Savageduck wrote: On Jan 15, 2019, Whisky-dave wrote (in ): On Monday, 14 January 2019 22:10:08 UTC, nospam wrote: In , Carlos E.R. wrote: Double exposure in film, I can understand. But a digital camera would just add the pixel values from two files, thus being no different from postprocessing on the computer. To be valid, the sensor would have to be exposed, and then, without reading it, exposing it again. Are they really doing it? Nikon, Canon, and Fujifilm (and probably others) have a multi-exposure feature/mode which allows for two separate exposures, on two frames, which are blended into a single file. It is a bit of a novelty and nothing that cannot be done in post. Ok, so they do two frames, then merge or blend them into a single file. That's postprocessing, not really "double exposure" in my book. It simply emulates it, but it is not it. are you channeling eric? it's double exposure, without any emulation whatsoever. It's not a double exposure it's two seperate exposures on two seperate frames. Which is what happenes whenever you take two photos. Then they are merged together something that doesn't happen when taking single exposures. Is HDR a multi-exposure technigue I'd say yes but it isn't the same as what was done in film multi-exposures. While HDR shot in a digital camera is a digital multi-exposure technique, I would consider it an exposure bracketing rather than an analog double exposure. Then you have Focus Stacking/Bracketing which is another digital multi-exposure technique which would be a royal pain to execute with film. So I'd say it was emulation of double exposure, or it could be a simulation if exactly the same method was used as would be used in film. also, a double exposure of the same scene will have less noise, The vast majority of double exposures wouldn't be of exactly the same scene otherwise they'd be little point in doing it, unless for HDR of course which is when you do take multiple shots of the same scene. Once you have the CPU of the digital camera available a whole World of possibilities opens up none of which other, than the classic double-exposure, are easily available to film. For example with my Fujifilm cameras with a single press of the shutter release, with WB/bracketing, ISO/bracketing or Film Simulation/bracketing I can obtain three individual exposures of the exact same scene with either different WB, ISO, or Film Sim all generated via the in-camera CPU. You just cannot do that with film. All of those digital multi-exposure techniques can actually be quite useful, whereas, I consider the digital ‘double-exposure’ a novelty as it can be done far better, and more deliberately in post processing, even on different days, months, or even years. Not so with film, unless by some freak accident. Unless you intentionally set out to do a multiple in camera exposure. And plan it properly. Then it wouldn’t be a freak accident. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits
On 16/01/2019 01.24, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Double exposure in film, I can understand. But a digital camera would just add the pixel values from two files, thus being no different from postprocessing on the computer. To be valid, the sensor would have to be exposed, and then, without reading it, exposing it again. Are they really doing it? Nikon, Canon, and Fujifilm (and probably others) have a multi-exposure feature/mode which allows for two separate exposures, on two frames, which are blended into a single file. It is a bit of a novelty and nothing that cannot be done in post. Ok, so they do two frames, then merge or blend them into a single file. That's postprocessing, not really "double exposure" in my book. It simply emulates it, but it is not it. are you channeling eric? He is being precise. You are not. nope. he's trying to come up with a distinction when there isn't one. two clicks. one photo. double exposure. one uses chemicals and the other uses electronics. ROTFL! -- Cheers, Carlos. |
Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: It is two separate exposures on the same frame. Which is what a digital camera does not do, so it is not double exposure. it's two separate exposures in the same memory, before it's written to a raw or jpeg image, thereby making it a double exposure by any definition. No it wouldn't, as it would be in the same 'memory' as that would require complety overwriting the information from the previous exposure. no. at the end of the day, it's two clicks resulting in one image, just as it's done with a film camera. No it's not. it is. |
Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: Ok, so they do two frames, then merge or blend them into a single file. That's postprocessing, not really "double exposure" in my book. It simply emulates it, but it is not it. are you channeling eric? it's double exposure, without any emulation whatsoever. It's not a double exposure it's two seperate exposures on two seperate frames. Which is what happenes whenever you take two photos. Then they are merged together something that doesn't happen when taking single exposures. double exposure is always two separate exposures on two separate frames. that's why it's called double. A "double exposure" is two separate exposures on _ONE_ frame. That's why it's called "double". What you have described- "two separate exposures on two separate frames"- is simply called taking two pictures. as i said in a followup post, i miswrote. it obviously should be same frame. |
Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits
On 1/16/19 6:42 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 18:22:08 UTC, nospam wrote: In article , Whisky-dave wrote: Ok, so they do two frames, then merge or blend them into a single file. That's postprocessing, not really "double exposure" in my book. It simply emulates it, but it is not it. are you channeling eric? it's double exposure, without any emulation whatsoever. It's not a double exposure it's two seperate exposures on two seperate frames. Which is what happenes whenever you take two photos. Then they are merged together something that doesn't happen when taking single exposures. double exposure is always two separate exposures on two separate frames. that's why it's called double. No it is not double means twice, when engaging double or multiple exposures in the days of film the sprocekts drive in the film was disengaged so the camera could be cocked while not winding the film on allowing you to take another exposure on the same frame of film. bonus points: how many exposures in a triple exposure? 3 on the same frame when using a multi-exposure button or switch. Is HDR a multi-exposure technigue I'd say yes but it isn't the same as what was done in film multi-exposures. the only difference is they're of the same subject rather than different ones, They don't have to be. and that there's usually more than two images for hdr, although two certainly works. But multi exposure in the days of film was not for HDR. So I'd say it was emulation of double exposure, or it could be a simulation if exactly the same method was used as would be used in film. it's neither emulation nor simulation. it really is double exposure (or triple or however many there are). But it is on the same area of the film normally meant to be accuratly alligned too. also, a double exposure of the same scene will have less noise, The vast majority of double exposures wouldn't be of exactly the same scene otherwise they'd be little point in doing it, unless for HDR of course which is when you do take multiple shots of the same scene. it doesn't matter what the majority does. Yes it does when using a term that others are meant to understand. A double exposure has a meaning, so does HDR they are NOT the same. multiple shots of the same scene will reduce noise. once again, math. Only if it's of the same subject and scene and only with an suitable maths when using a digital medium, but now you've changed ot to shots, shots are a measure of a spirt that is served normally drank in one go. Americans also klnow more about what shots might mean to those that own or use guns. and it's a lot easier to do it in camera than later. Only with digital not with film, as you run the risk of the film moving. push the little button and the transport is disengaged. It can still move slightly, ideally it shouldn't. Depends on the design of the camera. In the manual for the Canon FX (1964-1969), you first use the rewind crank to get the film taut, then while holding the rewind crank with one hand, you press the rewind clutch button on the bottom of the camera with the other hand, and with the third hand, you operate the film advance lever while holding in the rewind clutch with the second hand and keeping tension on the rewind crank so the film doesn't move. Operating the film advance lever disengages the rewind clutch, so you have to hold it in. Not being familiar with every camera ever made, I assume there are cameras where the method is simpler. Apparently the designers of the Canon FX weren't too keen on double exposures. Or they all had three hands. sheet film users don't need to do anything. They had to 're-cock' the camera, or find some other method of taking another exposure. that's also part of how google night sight works. What part ? the multiple exposure part. and yuo reslly think this is the same as double or multiple exposing of a frame of film ? -- Ken Hart |
Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits
On 1/15/19 10:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 15, 2019, PeterN wrote snip Multiple exposure, one image, walking around the tree. The effects and color were added in post. https://www.dropbox.com/s/2c7cul49u4jgo9b/tree1024.jpg?dl=0 There is only one question which comes to mind. Why? Respectfully SD, I think you are dismissing the photo unfairly. While I wouldn't cover a wall with it, it is an interesting photo. I'm not a fan of "gimmicks" ('effects... added in post'), unless they are naturally occurring. But the photo has enough of colors that could be natural over a length of seasons. In the fall in central Pennsylvania, this is what a tree looks like, sorta. I would like to see the structure of the tree a bit stronger, more evident, more dense. I am bothered by the mass of red/purple to the upper right. I would also like to see more details (and less green) in the bottom portion. Still, I'm sure Bob Ross would consider it a "happy tree"! -- Ken Hart |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com