Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits

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

--
David B.

In article , "David
says...

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

.... what's the big deal? You can mix an endless number
of images in post.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
https://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 1/14/2019 12:53 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , "David
says...

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

... what's the big deal? You can mix an endless number
of images in post.


You cannot get a look like this this in post: Note the water was ripping
a lot, and I did not have my ND filter with me. 10 shot multiple
exposure, with about a second between each exposure. Took five such
shots, moved about twenty yards and took five more.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gczycggv5upw8e8/Twin%20Suns.jpg?dl=0

--
PeterN

On 13/01/2019 17.15, David B. wrote:
FYIÂ*Â* (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?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article , Carlos E.R.
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.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 14:50:13 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Carlos E.R.
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.

Not even the one in the camera.

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
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.

Not even the one in the camera.

more of your semantic bull**** arguments. you know quite well what is
meant by computer, and it's *not* camera.

if you think otherwise, then explain how one can connect a keyboard,
mouse to the 'computer' in the camera, how to connect it to the
internet to download photoshop and then install it, and how to process
images on its tiny little 3" display.

maybe you think that's what wifi in cameras is for.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 19:23:59 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
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.

Not even the one in the camera.

more of your semantic bull**** arguments. you know quite well what is
meant by computer, and it's *not* camera.

"in the camera" I said.

if you think otherwise, then explain how one can connect a keyboard,
mouse to the 'computer' in the camera, how to connect it to the
internet to download photoshop and then install it, and how to process
images on its tiny little 3" display.

Not even you are silly enough to think that's what I meant. As for
your idea that a computer needs a keyboard or a mouse to make it a
computer, what are you going to make of an iPad, let alone the flight
systems in an Airbus?

maybe you think that's what wifi in cameras is for.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 1/14/2019 2:50 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
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.

--
PeterN

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.