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 SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Double Exposure



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 21st 07, 04:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Peirce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 94
Default 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]

  #2  
Old February 21st 07, 05:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 378
Default 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.

  #3  
Old February 21st 07, 06:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Gautam Majumdar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default 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
  #4  
Old February 21st 07, 08:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 252
Default 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

  #5  
Old February 21st 07, 11:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Matt Clara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 626
Default 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


  #6  
Old February 23rd 07, 01:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Not Disclosed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 119
Default 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)



  #7  
Old February 23rd 07, 06:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Peirce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 94
Default 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]

  #8  
Old February 23rd 07, 06:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Peirce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 94
Default 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]

  #9  
Old February 24th 07, 03:53 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Peirce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 94
Default 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]

  #10  
Old February 24th 07, 05:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Greg \_\
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 464
Default 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
 




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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Adam's Exposure Formula contracts with the Addative Photographic Exposure System (APEX) Steven Woody In The Darkroom 6 January 15th 07 04:32 AM
double focus Michal Zalewski Digital Photography 1 January 20th 06 04:27 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
Digital Exposure Question -- Middle Gray vs Exposure At Highlights MikeS Digital Photography 1 June 24th 04 08:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:06 PM.


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.