DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> An alternative matrix entry
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/14/2003 08:16:25 PM · #1
for all the flower lovers, my matrix reloaded:

No photoshop. More similar shots here. Comments very welcome.




Message edited by author 2003-06-14 20:25:57.
 06/14/2003 08:26:55 PM · #2
Cool photo! Looks like "photo painting". Gordon, how did you get the flowers to be "clear" in different spots? I've been working on similar stuff, but in my picture the objects are clear at the beginning of the motion and/or at the end (sometimes both), but not in between, as it is in this picture.

BTW - would you know of resources on the net for this kind of technique?
 06/15/2003 05:34:59 AM · #3
Excellent photos :)
 06/15/2003 11:26:50 AM · #4
Originally posted by uabresch:
Cool photo! Looks like "photo painting". Gordon, how did you get the flowers to be "clear" in different spots? I've been working on similar stuff, but in my picture the objects are clear at the beginning of the motion and/or at the end (sometimes both), but not in between, as it is in this picture.

BTW - would you know of resources on the net for this kind of technique?


The picture is a multi-exposure shot. 9 exposures on a single frame, with a slight movement of the camera between each shot. For each exposure, I under exposed by the square root of the total number of exposures, so for this case, each one was shot at 3 stops below the recommended exposure. This was shot on film.

I wonder how it fits into the digital art discussions...

Message edited by author 2003-06-15 13:02:24.
 06/15/2003 01:34:08 PM · #5
Cool picture, Gordon. I like digital art.
 06/15/2003 02:12:47 PM · #6
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by uabresch:
Cool photo! Looks like "photo painting". Gordon, how did you get the flowers to be "clear" in different spots? I've been working on similar stuff, but in my picture the objects are clear at the beginning of the motion and/or at the end (sometimes both), but not in between, as it is in this picture.

BTW - would you know of resources on the net for this kind of technique?


The picture is a multi-exposure shot. 9 exposures on a single frame, with a slight movement of the camera between each shot. For each exposure, I under exposed by the square root of the total number of exposures, so for this case, each one was shot at 3 stops below the recommended exposure. This was shot on film.

I wonder how it fits into the digital art discussions...



I've seen similar stuff done in digital. It is quite beautiful and I'd like to see (and do) more of it.
 06/15/2003 02:19:13 PM · #7
Oops! I have to take back my last post. The books I was thinking of are film photography, not digital, but I'd been thinking, "How can I do similar stuff in digital?"
 06/15/2003 03:54:52 PM · #8
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Cool picture, Gordon. I like digital art.


Sonifo - I think you maybe missed the point.

This is not digital art.

It was all done in a camera - a film camera.
 06/15/2003 03:57:20 PM · #9
Get out!!! That is awesome stuff then. I want to learn.
 06/15/2003 03:59:00 PM · #10
Originally posted by uabresch:
Oops! I have to take back my last post. The books I was thinking of are film photography, not digital, but I'd been thinking, "How can I do similar stuff in digital?"


You can use the layer styles in photoshop or similar to get similar multiple exposure shots.
These shots were layered in photoshop, using a 'screen' blending style to overlay the pictures.
 06/15/2003 04:02:40 PM · #11
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Get out!!! That is awesome stuff then. I want to learn.


I used the multiple exposure mode on my Canon Rebel (cheapo SLR film camera)

I metered off the scene I was going to shoot, and got an exposure reading. Because I was going to do 9 exposures on the one piece of film, you need to underexpose each shot, to get an approximately correctly exposed final result. Typically an underexposure of sqrt(number of shots) works out.

So 9 exposures, under expose each by 3 stops, 16 exposures under expose by 4 stops, 25 exposures, 5 stops and so on.

With the metered reading, I adjusted the manual exposure to the correct underexposure. This is often easier to achieve with slower film (ISO 100) or so. But these shots were done on ISO 400 Fuji negative film.

Then for each shot, I just moved the camera slightly, either up or down, or rotating slightly, keeping one flower in approximately the same place. Others I made by moving closer, and again trying to maintain registration of one point.

So far I've only really tried 9 exposures, but next week I think I'll try even more exposures

Message edited by author 2003-06-15 16:04:11.
 06/15/2003 10:01:58 PM · #12
I love that one A LOT !!!
0368280-R1-012-4A.jpg

Lionel
 06/16/2003 11:26:07 AM · #13
I've had interesting responses to these images from people I've shown them to - which is echoed in Sonifo's reaction.

The general initial reaction has been to dismiss them as knocked up in Photoshop, just more examples of this digital art that is the bane of true photography in this modern world.

Then when the process is explained, people somehow become more interested, involved and start perhaps actually looking. Yet the image hasn't changed at all, it is still the same colours and pixels on a screen or a print, but the perception seems to have shifted.

I wonder if there is a sense that it is somehow more interesting or worthy because the process is slightly harder or percieved to be harder (it would be probably more effort and time to create these images in photoshop, than it was to handhold each of the 9 exposures per shot using a film camera)

I'm not trying to claim these are ground breaking, or even very good but the reaction to them has been intriguing.
 06/16/2003 12:03:41 PM · #14
Really like //www.pbase.com/image/17833215 and //www.pbase.com/image/17833217 but the one you originally linked to doesn't do anything for me.
 06/19/2003 05:44:44 AM · #15
Originally posted by Gordon:
I've had interesting responses to these images from people I've shown them to - which is echoed in Sonifo's reaction.

The general initial reaction has been to dismiss them as knocked up in Photoshop, just more examples of this digital art that is the bane of true photography in this modern world.


You can do similar pictures by using a tripod and a VERY long shuttertime. Make sure to use a small aperture (f/22 or more) and stack some ND (Neutral Density) filters on your lens. Then, start a 2 minute exposure, wait 30 seconds seconds, move the camera up a little, wait 30 seconds, repeat, repeat. That way, you can emulate multiple exposures with digital, with surprisingly good results.

Haje
 06/19/2003 05:45:58 AM · #16
And on that note - this is my infamous matrix. WHich has nothing to do with the matrix, of course, but still.
 06/19/2003 07:00:18 AM · #17
Originally posted by SharQ:
And on that note - this is my infamous matrix. WHich has nothing to do with the matrix, of course, but still.


Those are excellent.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 03:13:42 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 07/27/2025 03:13:42 AM EDT.