A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 15th 19, 07:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits

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.

bonus points: how many exposures in a triple exposure?

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, and that there's usually more than two images for hdr,
although two certainly works.

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).

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.

multiple shots of the same scene will reduce noise. once again, math.

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.

sheet film users don't need to do anything.

that's also part of
how google night sight works.


What part ?


the multiple exposure part.
  #12  
Old January 15th 19, 10:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits

On 15/01/2019 19.22, 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.



Wrong.

It is two separate exposures on the same frame. Which is what a digital
camera does not do, so it is not double exposure.

End.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #13  
Old January 15th 19, 10:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits

In article , Carlos E.R.
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.

at the end of the day, it's two clicks resulting in one image, just as
it's done with a film camera.

instead of pressing a mechanical button on the bottom to disengage the
film transport, you toggle a setting in the menu, which disengages the
memory writing.

it's also not limited to two exposures, which is why it's called
multiple exposure, and also far more capable than anything film could
do.

camera companies don't agree with your ridiculous definition.

nikon:
https://nps.nikonimaging.com/technic...more/img/img_0
9.png
https://nps.nikonimaging.com/technic...more/img/img_1
1.png

canon:
https://support-my.canon-asia.com/img/G0227382.gif
https://support-my.canon-asia.com/img/G0227383.gif
https://support-my.canon-asia.com/img/G0227386.gif

fuji:
http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x1...p/images/osd_s
m_multi-exp00_en_x100t_320.gif
  #14  
Old January 16th 19, 12:54 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits

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
  #15  
Old January 16th 19, 12:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 17:10:07 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , 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?


He is being precise. You are not.

it's double exposure, without any emulation whatsoever.

also, a double exposure of the same scene will have less noise, and
it's a lot easier to do it in camera than later. that's also part of
how google night sight works.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #16  
Old January 16th 19, 12:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:22:04 -0500, 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.


Most definitely wrong. Obviously you have never used a film camera.

bonus points: how many exposures in a triple exposure?

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, and that there's usually more than two images for hdr,
although two certainly works.

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).

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.

multiple shots of the same scene will reduce noise. once again, math.

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.

sheet film users don't need to do anything.

that's also part of
how google night sight works.


What part ?


the multiple exposure part.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #17  
Old January 16th 19, 01:03 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:45:49 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Carlos E.R.
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.

at the end of the day, it's two clicks resulting in one image, just as
it's done with a film camera.

instead of pressing a mechanical button on the bottom to disengage the
film transport, you toggle a setting in the menu, which disengages the
memory writing.

it's also not limited to two exposures, which is why it's called
multiple exposure, and also far more capable than anything film could
do.

camera companies don't agree with your ridiculous definition.

nikon:
https://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_solutions/d4_tips/more/img/img_09.png
https://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_solutions/d4_tips/more/img/img_11.png




canon:
https://support-my.canon-asia.com/img/G0227382.gif
https://support-my.canon-asia.com/img/G0227383.gif
https://support-my.canon-asia.com/img/G0227386.gif

fuji:
http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x100t/shooting/multi-exp/images/osd_sm_multi-exp00_en_x100t_320.gif


You have failed to demonstrate that multiple exposures are the same as
double exposures. Learn to write with precision.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #18  
Old January 16th 19, 01:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits

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.
  #19  
Old January 16th 19, 01:24 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits

In article , Eric Stevens
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.

at the end of the day, it's two clicks resulting in one image, just as
it's done with a film camera.

instead of pressing a mechanical button on the bottom to disengage the
film transport, you toggle a setting in the menu, which disengages the
memory writing.

it's also not limited to two exposures, which is why it's called
multiple exposure, and also far more capable than anything film could
do.

camera companies don't agree with your ridiculous definition.

nikon:


https://nps.nikonimaging.com/technic.../img/img_09.pn

g


https://nps.nikonimaging.com/technic.../img/img_11.pn

g



canon:
https://support-my.canon-asia.com/img/G0227382.gif
https://support-my.canon-asia.com/img/G0227383.gif
https://support-my.canon-asia.com/img/G0227386.gif

fuji:


http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x1...ages/osd_sm_mu

lti-exp00_en_x100t_320.gif


You have failed to demonstrate that multiple exposures are the same as
double exposures.


yes i did, and it's yet another one of your stupid pointless semantic
arguments.

since you disagree, go tell nikon, canon and fuji as well as the other
camera makers whose screen shots i did not link that they're wrong.

Learn to write with precision.


i did, long ago.
  #20  
Old January 16th 19, 01:24 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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.


Most definitely wrong. Obviously you have never used a film camera.


i miswrote. it's two separate exposures on the same piece of film or
same memory buffer.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WANTED TO BUY: Revere 3M model 154 double 8mm magazine loaded movie camera Dwight D. Eisenhower Medium Format Photography Equipment 0 November 2nd 07 11:32 PM
RAW vs tif vs jpg (was Double Exposure) Robert Peirce Digital SLR Cameras 65 March 2nd 07 06:34 PM
Double Exposure Robert Peirce Digital SLR Cameras 45 February 25th 07 05:24 PM
Why no cameras with double exposure ? Alan Meyer Digital Photography 1 October 14th 05 09:38 AM
Double exposure with Cannon D10 How ? sfts Digital Photography 4 October 26th 04 12:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.