Double Exposure
 

A while back I asked if any digital cameras did double exposure. I
found out the Nikon D200 does. Now I find that the Nikon D40 (and
possibly other cameras) has the capability to overlay two images, which
to my way of thinking is exactly the same thing.

The only problem is they have to be RAW, which is okay if you normally
shoot RAW but not if you shoot jpeg. Nevertheless, there is no reason,
on the rare occasion when this is necessary, not to switch to RAW and
then to switch back. You can download the RAW image and convert it to
jpeg for future use.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

Double Exposure
 

On Feb 21, 6:36 pm, Robert Peirce
wrote:
A while back I asked if any digital cameras did double exposure. I
found out the Nikon D200 does. Now I find that the Nikon D40 (and
possibly other cameras) has the capability to overlay two images, which
to my way of thinking is exactly the same thing.

The only problem is they have to be RAW, which is okay if you normally
shoot RAW but not if you shoot jpeg. Nevertheless, there is no reason,
on the rare occasion when this is necessary, not to switch to RAW and
then to switch back. You can download the RAW image and convert it to

Does it make much sense to choose a camera based only on this feature?
If you normally use jpegs but will have to switch to raw to take
advantage to use this feature, you are adding an extra step
(conversion). But if you do allow an extra step, you might as well
take the two exposures as jpegs as you (presumably) normally would and
then add them together in an image editor (for example, the gimp,
which is free, so you don't need to buuy anything extra).

This may free you up to make a decision based on other criteria.

Double Exposure
 

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:36:14 +0000, Robert Peirce wrote:

A while back I asked if any digital cameras did double exposure. I
found out the Nikon D200 does. Now I find that the Nikon D40 (and
possibly other cameras) has the capability to overlay two images, which
to my way of thinking is exactly the same thing.

The only problem is they have to be RAW, which is okay if you normally
shoot RAW but not if you shoot jpeg. Nevertheless, there is no reason,
on the rare occasion when this is necessary, not to switch to RAW and
then to switch back. You can download the RAW image and convert it to
jpeg for future use.

But you can overlay any two or more images from any camera or from more
than one cameras, taken in raw or jpeg, during post-processing by using
layers.

--
gautam

Double Exposure
 

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:36:14 -0800, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

A while back I asked if any digital cameras did double exposure. I
found out the Nikon D200 does. Now I find that the Nikon D40 (and
possibly other cameras) has the capability to overlay two images, which
to my way of thinking is exactly the same thing.

The only problem is they have to be RAW, which is okay if you normally
shoot RAW but not if you shoot jpeg. Nevertheless, there is no reason,
on the rare occasion when this is necessary, not to switch to RAW and
then to switch back. You can download the RAW image and convert it to
jpeg for future use.



The D200 (at least) has two methods for combining multiple exposures. The
first is Image Overlay. This combines two RAW files and leaves the originals
intact as seperate files. You can adjust the gain for the two pictures from
..1 to 2.0 and see the effects in the preview image.

The other method is Multiple Exposure which allows you to combine up to 10
exposures as a single photograph. They need not be RAW, but the original
images are not saved. The way it works is you select Multiple Exposure in the
shooting menu and then choose the number of shots that you are about to take.
They are then combined in-camera. You can turn Gain on or off. With it on,
the gain is adjusted for each picture, 1/3 for three exposures, 1/2 for two
exposures, etc. You cannot change it. EXIF information will be for the first
exposure and you can use the interval timer. You cannot use bracketing in
Multiple Exposure mode.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Double Exposure
 

"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
...
A while back I asked if any digital cameras did double exposure. I
found out the Nikon D200 does. Now I find that the Nikon D40 (and
possibly other cameras) has the capability to overlay two images, which
to my way of thinking is exactly the same thing.

The only problem is they have to be RAW, which is okay if you normally
shoot RAW but not if you shoot jpeg. Nevertheless, there is no reason,
on the rare occasion when this is necessary, not to switch to RAW and
then to switch back. You can download the RAW image and convert it to
jpeg for future use.


Unless your shots are throw-aways, you should always be shooting RAW.
There's a head-and-shoulders difference in quality, in my opinion.

--
www.mattclara.com

Double Exposure
 

Robert Peirce wrote:
A while back I asked if any digital cameras did double exposure. I
found out the Nikon D200 does. Now I find that the Nikon D40 (and
possibly other cameras) has the capability to overlay two images, which
to my way of thinking is exactly the same thing.

The only problem is they have to be RAW, which is okay if you normally
shoot RAW but not if you shoot jpeg. Nevertheless, there is no reason,
on the rare occasion when this is necessary, not to switch to RAW and
then to switch back. You can download the RAW image and convert it to
jpeg for future use.

My Pentax *ist D can do up to 9 frames, I just skimmed through the K10D
manual and it offers the same function.

http://www.darrelllarose.ca/gallery/album03/hopping2

is an example of multi-frame exposure (6 frames)

Double Exposure
 

In article ,
Gautam Majumdar wrote:

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:36:14 +0000, Robert Peirce wrote:

A while back I asked if any digital cameras did double exposure. I
found out the Nikon D200 does. Now I find that the Nikon D40 (and
possibly other cameras) has the capability to overlay two images, which
to my way of thinking is exactly the same thing.

The only problem is they have to be RAW, which is okay if you normally
shoot RAW but not if you shoot jpeg. Nevertheless, there is no reason,
on the rare occasion when this is necessary, not to switch to RAW and
then to switch back. You can download the RAW image and convert it to
jpeg for future use.

But you can overlay any two or more images from any camera or from more
than one cameras, taken in raw or jpeg, during post-processing by using
layers.

True in Photoshop but not in LightZone. That's why I was interested in
the first place, although it is something I only rarely need.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

Double Exposure
 

In article .com,
wrote:

On Feb 21, 6:36 pm, Robert Peirce
wrote:
A while back I asked if any digital cameras did double exposure. I
found out the Nikon D200 does. Now I find that the Nikon D40 (and
possibly other cameras) has the capability to overlay two images, which
to my way of thinking is exactly the same thing.

The only problem is they have to be RAW, which is okay if you normally
shoot RAW but not if you shoot jpeg. Nevertheless, there is no reason,
on the rare occasion when this is necessary, not to switch to RAW and
then to switch back. You can download the RAW image and convert it to

Does it make much sense to choose a camera based only on this feature?
If you normally use jpegs but will have to switch to raw to take
advantage to use this feature, you are adding an extra step
(conversion). But if you do allow an extra step, you might as well
take the two exposures as jpegs as you (presumably) normally would and
then add them together in an image editor (for example, the gimp,
which is free, so you don't need to buuy anything extra).

This may free you up to make a decision based on other criteria.

In 25 years I can count the times I needed a double exposure on one
hand. I just like that it is there if I need it again. Since I don't
use any software apps that do this, it is in camera or not at all.
However, it was never a consideration in whether I chose a camera or
not. I can always drag out my A-1 or my 4x5 if I have to.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

Double Exposure
 

In article ,
"Matt Clara" wrote:

Unless your shots are throw-aways, you should always be shooting RAW.
There's a head-and-shoulders difference in quality, in my opinion.

Interesting you should bring this up. I just got a new camera that does
RAW along with Fine, Normal and Basic jpg, the difference being
compression levels. As a preliminary test, I took four shots of a
completely flat, blank wall, to see what artifacts would be created by
printing, and I took four shots of a picture frame running diagonally
across the picture to see what jaggies I might find. There are other
tests to do, but these are a start.

The pictures are 3000x2000 pixels. At 300 dots/in. they would make a
"natural" picture of 10"x6-2/3". I decided the largest print I might
ever want to make with this camera would be 30"x20". Actually, 18"x12"
is probably more realistic, but I wanted a difficult test.

I took a 1000x667 pixel crop of each of the eight images and printed
them on 6x4 paper. Aside from some minor color differences, which can
be corrected during editing, I really could not see any difference among
them without using a loupe! I was frankly amazed. The picture frame,
viewed through a loupe, showed some softening on Basic vs. RAW, but it
wasn't apparent to the eye.

I have read this might be the case, but I didn't believe it. If you
have never tried this, you should. It may depend on the camera and lens
you use. I don't know about that. However, I do know you can prove to
yourself whether it matters with your equipment.

There are some other tests I want to do, but so far I have concluded RAW
isn't necessary and Fine probably isn't either. I don't know if I'm
ready to go Basic, but Normal looks like it would work just fine, pun
intended.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

Double Exposure
 

In article ,
Robert Peirce wrote:

There are some other tests I want to do, but so far I have concluded RAW
isn't necessary and Fine probably isn't either. I don't know if I'm
ready to go Basic, but Normal looks like it would work just fine, pun
intended.

Raw contains more control over the final image-period. If you shoot in
Raw you can always convert back to a jpeg if that your thing. Where you
see the benefits of shooting raw is when you have to control highlights
or do some sort of editing of the image before printing.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com