Double Exposure for Dummies - DPChallenge Forums

Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 M.Zuiko Digital

04/22/2010 05:12:32 PM · #26

Originally posted by SteveJ:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
When this came up I thought of Daniel AKA Graphicfunk, who used all sorts of clever devices to get double exposures in basic editing

I do miss that bright light from Jersey City, he was a gracious presence and a valued commenter, not to mention a very creative photographer.

I agree, he is/was a good person here, now he is somewhere else being creative:)

Specifically, learning a couple of musical instruments, the last I heard :-)

R.

duartix

Olympus PEN E-P1

04/22/2010 05:52:09 PM · #27

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Originally posted by duartix:
Do you believe tripple or higher# exposures are OK for this challenge or is it restricted to double?

If you're in the DPL, then by ALL MEANS do a triple or quadruple exposure :)

I'm not!
What's the smiley for sarcasm?

LevT

OM System OM-1

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

04/22/2010 05:57:31 PM · #28

isn't slow synch flash technically the same as double exposure (one - slow from ambient light, another - fast from the flash), just they immediately follow each other?

Olympus 14-42mm f.3.5-5.6 ED Zuiko Digital Zoom

04/22/2010 05:59:30 PM · #29

Originally posted by LevT:

isn't slow synch flash technically the same as double exposure (one - slow from ambient light, another - fast from the flash), just they immediately follow each other?

Except that you get the blur in between and it comes across as a long exposure, not two sharp and distinct images combined together.

bvy

Sigma DP1x

04/22/2010 06:20:06 PM · #30

Can "one of various techniques" include reflection? For example...

e10icus

Olympus E-500 EVOLT

04/22/2010 06:22:32 PM · #31

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by SteveJ:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
When this came up I thought of Daniel AKA Graphicfunk, who used all sorts of clever devices to get double exposures in basic editing

I do miss that bright light from Jersey City, he was a gracious presence and a valued commenter, not to mention a very creative photographer.

I agree, he is/was a good person here, now he is somewhere else being creative:)

Specifically, learning a couple of musical instruments, the last I heard :-)

R.

I fell on Mr. Cuesta's (

graphicfunk) profile shortly after joining DPC, by chance, and was mesmerized by his creativity and ingenuity. I like how he laid everything out in his comments, and this really has inspired some ideas for me to pursue.

I also noticed that he mentioned in a few of his comments a "mentor thread". I'll be darned if I can find it, though. Does anyone know if it still exists??

Stagolee

Kodak Easyshare C180

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

04/22/2010 06:36:37 PM · #32

Originally posted by e10icus:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by SteveJ:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
When this came up I thought of Daniel AKA Graphicfunk, who used all sorts of clever devices to get double exposures in basic editing

I do miss that bright light from Jersey City, he was a gracious presence and a valued commenter, not to mention a very creative photographer.

I agree, he is/was a good person here, now he is somewhere else being creative:)

Specifically, learning a couple of musical instruments, the last I heard :-)

R.

I fell on Mr. Cuesta's ( graphicfunk) profile shortly after joining DPC, by chance, and was mesmerized by his creativity and ingenuity. I like how he laid everything out in his comments, and this really has inspired some ideas for me to pursue.

I also noticed that he mentioned in a few of his comments a "mentor thread". I'll be darned if I can find it, though. Does anyone know if it still exists??

It does exist somewhere, I will look for it. I was in his mentor group and Dan is a legend of this place he taught me all I know about double exposure. He would love this challenge, actually he popped in here not long ago.

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/22/2010 06:40:42 PM · #33

This one was basic editing:

jdannels

Nikon D300s

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Nikon

04/22/2010 06:41:09 PM · #34

Reflections I think are the easiest way to create a double exposure and can be done anywhere.

njsabs

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/22/2010 11:28:17 PM · #35

Originally posted by jdannels:

Reflections I think are the easiest way to create a double exposure and can be done anywhere.

Perfect...I had not thought of this technique!

one2one

Olympus E-5

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

04/23/2010 09:55:56 AM · #36

Originally posted by jdannels:

Reflections I think are the easiest way to create a double exposure and can be done anywhere.

But technically they're not double exposures.

Now I don't want to waste my time doing a legit double exposure if we're going to see reflections being misconstrued as double exposures.
Another challenge idea down the drain.....

04/23/2010 10:00:50 AM · #37

Originally posted by keegbow:

I was in his mentor group and Dan is a legend of this place he taught me all I know about double exposure. He would love this challenge, actually he popped in here not long ago.

I sent Daniel a message alerting him to this challenge, and telling him what a pleasure it would be to many if he came out of retirement for this one week :-)

R.

04/23/2010 10:02:11 AM · #38

Originally posted by Beetle:

This one was basic editing:

And is, I believe, a triple exposure, not a double.

04/23/2010 10:09:35 AM · #39

Originally posted by Jac:

*Technically*, the challenge doesn't REQUIRE an actual double exposure...

Originally posted by challenge description:

While staying within DPC rules, use one of various techniques to accomplish a "double exposure" effect.

Note "Various techniques", "effect", and the phrase "double exposure" in quotes. I read that to mean, if it looks like a double exposure that's just fine. Those reflection shots are, IMHO, a brilliant approach to the challenge. The key will be making them *seem* to be a double exposure, probably, as far as voting goes. The one with the guy's breath forming a wraith especially fits the bill.

R.

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

04/23/2010 10:12:15 AM · #40

If people are actually gonna be so anal as to mark down a triple or quadruple exposure because it's not "double", gawd help us and the future of our children, sheesh. Sometimes this site gets so obsessed over challenge details it makes me weep.

R.

salmiakki

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

04/23/2010 10:46:35 AM · #41

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Sometimes this site gets so obsessed over challenge details it makes me weep.

Very, very well said Robert. And it takes the fun out of it. I can't be bothered entering most of the time because of the perpetual analysis about the minutiae.

JuliBoc

Apple iPhone 6s+

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

04/23/2010 10:48:04 AM · #42

Originally posted by Jac:

Originally posted by jdannels:
Reflections I think are the easiest way to create a double exposure and can be done anywhere.

But technically they're not double exposures.

Now I don't want to waste my time doing a legit double exposure if we're going to see reflections being misconstrued as double exposures.
Another challenge idea down the drain.....

The description on the challenge says double exposure effect, not simply double exposure. It seems to me that two images achieved thru the use of reflection would be a valid entry.

04/23/2010 10:50:23 AM · #43

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Yeah and by that logic, a photo of a water drop with no fauna at all is perfectly fine for a "flowers" challenge.

The challenge of this site is to take a photo that meets the theme.

Too many here see the challenge as finding a loophole to allow whatever they want to take to fit.

It says DOUBLE exposure. Had they wanted Multiple exposure they are quite capable of saying that.

So yeah, a triple will not meet the challenge. A wonderful triple that is DNMC will still score high and maybe ribbon, but that is in spite of the challenge description.

God help us all (for many reasons) because people want to argue with everything and not just have fun and meet the challenge.

04/23/2010 10:51:08 AM · #44

Originally posted by salmiakki:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Sometimes this site gets so obsessed over challenge details it makes me weep.

Very, very well said Robert. And it takes the fun out of it. I can't be bothered entering most of the time because of the perpetual analysis about the minutiae.

Challenge description != minutiae.

Goodness gracious, its attitudes like this that are bringing down the site.

04/23/2010 11:01:09 AM · #45

NONE of us are gonna be able to take an actual "double exposure" because double exposures are illegal under the editing rules!

So the challenge description tells us we should use one of various techniques to "create a 'double exposure' effect": which is exactly what's been done with the best of those mirror shots.

People can apply their own, narrow reasoning to this all they want, but it doesn't change the reality of it. Double exposures are illegal, and we've been tasked with legally creating a "double exposure effect".

End of debate.

R.

Message edited by author 2010-04-23 11:03:22.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/23/2010 11:08:37 AM · #46

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

What ARE you talking about? Who are you ranting at?

double-exposure effect is 100% correct.

triple-exposure effect is 0% correct.

manish

Canon EOS-7D

04/23/2010 11:08:51 AM · #47

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

End of debate.

R.

Yes. Anyone may interpret it in anyway but as they say in politics - The voter decides.