| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/30/2006 01:28:45 AM · #1 |
If these can now be done in camera and are legal, perhaps we have to remove the double image restriction in Advanced. (maybe this applies in Basic too, I can't remember.)
Essentially there's no difference between 2 exposures on one file ex camera and blending two files from the same camera. Technically there is of course but the advantaage of having the gear to do it is just too extreme to retain our previously level playing field
If Cyborg is a double-exposure then this will be the second double-exposure ribboner in the last 4(?) challenges.
Brett |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 01:34:31 AM · #2 |
This was a double exposure, too:
However, it was done the old-fashioned way, with paper and scissors. Really simple, and fun to do. I don't see the need to allow multiple exposures from two shutter cycles, even if done inside the camera.
Just my 2c. |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 01:39:55 AM · #3 |
"Cyborg" wasn't a double exposure anyway...
R.
BTW, what was the "other" one?
Message edited by author 2006-01-30 01:41:43. |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 01:41:42 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
This was a double exposure, too:
|
Cool, I assumed it was an actual mirror trick...
|
|
|
|
01/30/2006 01:41:43 AM · #5 |
| i believe "Cybord" was done with "flaps" exposing one side and then the other using a long exposure. I think. Dan? You around? Bear? |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 01:43:37 AM · #6 |
I sorta wish we could use double exposure shots as the digital version is much, much harder. But I'm not pushing for it. It would open up a huge can of worms.
This would have been much easier if I could have closed the shutter between "shots". Maybe I should just say I wish my camera had the capability to do it.
 |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 01:46:01 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
BTW, what was the "other" one? |
I can't remember for sure Robt. I remember reading one of the entries in the last 14 days where the photog's comments say "...this is an in camera double-exposure ..."
Hasn't the subject also been aired in the forums where the statement was made that in-camera doubles were ok?
Brett |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 01:47:11 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This would have been much easier if I could have closed the shutter between "shots". Maybe I should just say I wish my camera had the capability to do it.
|
Do you have the lens cap?
:-) |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 01:50:04 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
BTW, what was the "other" one? |
I can't remember for sure Robt. I remember reading one of the entries in the last 14 days where the photog's comments say "...this is an in camera double-exposure ..."
Hasn't the subject also been aired in the forums where the statement was made that in-camera doubles were ok?
Brett |
Yeah, but I don't see it among the ribbons... There was some discussion about DE for sure in the forums, but it is/was focusing on the fact that the new d200 Nikon allows merging of separate frames into a single image in camera, as opposed to some other cameras which allow you to expose twice to the same frame. It's quite a gray area...
R. |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 02:02:18 AM · #10 |
On a serious note, (and I posted on this topic right about the time I joined DPC), why are we so stuck with the "in camera" phrase?
If I make a cardboard, say 18x18 inches, and drill a 58mm hole on one side, stick a lens through it, tether the USB cable to the laptop inside of the box, and yank the remote outside, paint the box silver (or black), and call it "Rebel 2006", would the images that come out of it be considered in-camera images? (I'll create my own exif data with my own camera brand in it, what the hey).
The rules should not use the "in camera" wording, but rather describe the processing that happens on the raw light data captured by the sensor.
It does not matter if I use PC or MAC, if it is intel, motorola, or digicII in it. PS, PSP, mspaint, corel draw, etc. It should not matter where the processing is done. The only thing that should matter is what kind of processing is going on.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2006 04:58:17 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
On a serious note, (and I posted on this topic right about the time I joined DPC), why are we so stuck with the "in camera" phrase?
If I make a cardboard, say 18x18 inches, and drill a 58mm hole on one side, stick a lens through it, tether the USB cable to the laptop inside of the box, and yank the remote outside, paint the box silver (or black), and call it "Rebel 2006", would the images that come out of it be considered in-camera images? (I'll create my own exif data with my own camera brand in it, what the hey).
The rules should not use the "in camera" wording, but rather describe the processing that happens on the raw light data captured by the sensor.
It does not matter if I use PC or MAC, if it is intel, motorola, or digicII in it. PS, PSP, mspaint, corel draw, etc. It should not matter where the processing is done. The only thing that should matter is what kind of processing is going on. |
I think the point is that this site is a photography challenge site, not a photoshop challenge site. Both are interesting but substatially different - very different skills and equipment are needed. For a good photoshop site see //www.worth1000.com - its a blast.
I like the fact that DPC only allows in camera effects, it makes you think a lot harder about what is possible. I love the "how the heck did did they do that" shots. Photoshop, while requiring skill to make it work well just doesn't have the same effect on me.
Message edited by author 2006-01-30 05:10:27. |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 05:31:47 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
BTW, what was the "other" one? |
I can't remember for sure Robt. I remember reading one of the entries in the last 14 days where the photog's comments say "...this is an in camera double-exposure ..." |
This one;
Message edited by author 2006-01-30 05:31:56. |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 06:29:22 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
BTW, what was the "other" one? |
I can't remember for sure Robt. I remember reading one of the entries in the last 14 days where the photog's comments say "...this is an in camera double-exposure ..." |
This one;
|
Is that possible with any camera that has a Bulb setting and a lens cap .. is that the way it's done?
Brett
Message edited by author 2006-01-30 06:36:01. |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 08:19:17 AM · #14 |
Of course it's possible to do it with a lens cap and a dark location, but the point is more about what is being done to make the picture. It's a whole lot harder to get it that clean though (especially when the light source is a candle... not exactly an on/off solution.
Having a camera that can do multiple exposures to a single frame is really cool and is an advantage of owning that camera. That's fair because different cameras offer different advantages. Image stabilization is another advantage that some cameras have that can help make the difference between a picture that is awesome or a picture that blows. No real big deal there though. I am making the assumption that multiple exposure in this context means adding a photo frame to a single exposure (IMG_0001.JPG) and shooting consecutively much as would be done in a film camera. Each frame is going to have to be perfect in relation to the others, so a single mess-up on one frame will ruin all the others.
Having the ability to merge multiple frames from wherever to whereever is walking pretty close to the operation of photo editing programs. These allow stuff to be done to a picture that generally has nothing to do with lenses and pulling the trigger. This is a pretty big question. All of a sudden, you can pick and choose what goes in your picture. It is an important feature to have for some, especially those who work in difficult lighting circumstances and very low-light, but I wonder if it is really appropriate for the purposes of DPC.
Personally, I would feel better if merging frames were not allowed, because this is a form of editing that does not involve a single in-camera picture. It allows more than one picture to be chosen and mixed together. This is roughly akin to installing NikonPhotoEditor into the camera. |
|
|
|
01/30/2006 08:38:41 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Leok:
I think the point is that this site is a photography challenge site, not a photoshop challenge site. Both are interesting but substatially different - very different skills and equipment are needed. For a good photoshop site see //www.worth1000.com - its a blast.
I like the fact that DPC only allows in camera effects, it makes you think a lot harder about what is possible. I love the "how the heck did did they do that" shots. Photoshop, while requiring skill to make it work well just doesn't have the same effect on me. |
Well said Leok. Your We're all born naked and Speed Camera are two shots that fall into that "how the heck did did they do that" category for me. I learn from entries like that. Thanks.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 05:56:20 PM EDT.
