| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2005 08:43:56 PM · #26 |
O.K., I now have my blog up right here
I will be adding all the participants blog addresses on my blog site to help facilitate discussion.
Just ordered the Freeman Patterson book, should be here later this week according to Barnes & Noble but don't let me hold things up..I will be in Chicago until next Saturday anyway :-/ |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 09:55:20 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I have a question for everyone here:
Gordon mentions in his 5 exposures Sotol picture that he blended at an opacity percentage proportional to the number of shots being sandwiched. I used a similar method, although I used the decreasing ratio rather than the fixed ratio.
The question concerns the background layer (the bottom layer). Background layer opacity will be 100%. If the background layer is also one of the pictures, it will show through clearer than all the rest of the pictures. That doesn't seem quite right as far as multiple-exposures goes.
I have been experimenting with having a plain black or white background (no picture background), but I'm not satisfied with the results.
Any ideas? |
I did a bit of poking around on the web and found two ways described for doing multi-exposures. I posted details of both of those methods on my blog. I agree with your comment about the bottom/ background layer - you can always set it as slightly transparent - what happens when you flatten on the layers in that case ?
There is a chapter on multi-exposure in the John Paul Caponigro book, Adobe Photoshop Masterclass I'll read it later and see if there is anything interesting to add.
Message edited by author 2005-11-13 21:57:04. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 09:59:28 PM · #28 |
Something that seems to work is to duplicate the background layer, and throw the original in to the trash can.
You can then change the opacity of the background layer to say 50%
At that point, it looks too transparent, but if you then flatten all the layers, and then adjust the black point with levels, you can get something that looks closer. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 10:34:36 PM · #29 |
Yeah, I've been trying a number of different methods. I'm not entirely happy with any.
So far, for blending in normal mode, the one I like best is blending each subsequent layer at 100/layer# (counting background as #1), or:
Background = 100%
Layer 1 = 50% (100/2)
Layer 2 = 33% (100/3)
Layer 4 = 25% (100/4)
and so on.
There seem to be a lot of opinions out on this one.
None of the blending modes are a true double-exposure it seems.
ADDED: Sorry, didn't check the blog first. Gordon's already posted the decreasing percents formula.
Message edited by author 2005-11-13 22:49:32.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 10:37:18 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Yeah, I've been trying a number of different methods. I'm not entirely happy with any.
So far, for blending in normal mode, the one I like best is blending each subsequent layer at 100/layer# (counting background as #1), or:
Background = 100%
Layer 1 = 50% (100/2)
Layer 2 = 33% (100/3)
Layer 4 = 25% (100/4)
and so on.
There seem to be a lot of opinions out on this one.
None of the blending modes are a true double-exposure it seems. |
Funny you should say that because I started playing with mine and I found the same thing. Basically, the topmost layers should be more transparent and increase opacity progressively as you go down.
I have chosen, in my first attempt, to use a select background good for my subject. Still playing, but I will post some results soon.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 10:50:41 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by ursula:
Yeah, I've been trying a number of different methods. I'm not entirely happy with any.
So far, for blending in normal mode, the one I like best is blending each subsequent layer at 100/layer# (counting background as #1), or:
Background = 100%
Layer 1 = 50% (100/2)
Layer 2 = 33% (100/3)
Layer 4 = 25% (100/4)
and so on.
There seem to be a lot of opinions out on this one.
None of the blending modes are a true double-exposure it seems. |
Funny you should say that because I started playing with mine and I found the same thing. Basically, the topmost layers should be more transparent and increase opacity progressively as you go down.
I have chosen, in my first attempt, to use a select background good for my subject. Still playing, but I will post some results soon. |
It wasn't my idea. I found that formula on the net a few months back, when we were looking at the other Patterson book.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 10:54:59 PM · #32 |
You know what I really want to try though? The idea that the second kind of multiple exposure (different images) are very much like dreams. That is such an interesting concept.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 11:04:02 PM · #33 |
I created a new Blog for this new book. My blog, and my first post, can be found here:
Neil's FP Photo Impressionism Blog
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 01:13:10 AM · #34 |
Just posted what might be an interesting "comparison" photo I also took today, using my more typical PI technique.
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 01:14:53.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 04:01:16 PM · #35 |
Now that I have this new thread on my watch list, I'm ready to go.
Ways to try merging different images:
One textured image such as tree bark merged with another photo
One image flipped and merged with itself in the same orientation
One image flipped and merged but with the opposite orientation
Two images merged, one horizontal and one vertical
Some or all of these are described in the book.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 04:56:50 PM · #36 |
Added some more pictures, thoughts
still in chapter 1
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 08:46:58 PM · #37 |
I wonder if we could have everyone's links (all the participant's blog addresses). I very much would like to keep track of what everybody is doing. I have the following links:
Scott Hudson (//jscotthudson.blogspot.com/)
Gordon McGregor (//gordonmcgregor.blogspot.com/)
Colette Panaioti (//clp69.blogspot.com/)
John Setzler (//workshop.setzler.net/)
Neil Shapiro (//photoimpress.blogspot.com/)
I know I'm missing a couple ???
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 08:59:57 PM · #38 |
I posted my experimental results. Three of the best from last weekend's outing.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:19:38 PM · #39 |
Wow, Colette, the three pictures you posted are beautiful!
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:23:20 PM · #40 |
Are you still allowing newcomers? I would love to participate if you have room. I also do not have immediate access to the book but would do whatever possible to expedite it's arrival. The subject matter is facinating and I really need to step out of my shell and meet some folks here.
Thanks,
Chris |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:24:36 PM · #41 |
Thanks Ursula. The second one feels a bit wierd but it's growing on me.
I wasn't planning on posting my film results but then I saw Gordon's blog with a few film examples so what the hay. I intend to try both film and digital. I had already planned this outing before the group got started.
BTW, all the pictures were taken in Elk Island National Park near Edmonton. I moved to Alberta a few months ago.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:26:50 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by tcmartin:
Are you still allowing newcomers? I would love to participate if you have room. I also do not have immediate access to the book but would do whatever possible to expedite it's arrival. The subject matter is facinating and I really need to step out of my shell and meet some folks here.
Thanks,
Chris |
As far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier!!!!
You're gonna have to catch up with the rest of us :)
Why don't you let Neil Shapiro know that you want to be part of this (nshapiro here at DPC), then make a blog and post the link.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:27:56 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Thanks Ursula. The second one feels a bit wierd but it's growing on me.
I wasn't planning on posting my film results but then I saw Gordon's blog with a few film examples so what the hay. I intend to try both film and digital. I had already planned this outing before the group got started.
BTW, all the pictures were taken in Elk Island National Park near Edmonton. I moved to Alberta a few months ago. |
You were in Ottawa before, weren't you?
Elk Island NP, where is that in relation to Edmonton? I went to Edmonton for the first time in July, we drove over Jasper.
BTW, I'm sticking to digital because (1) I can't find my film camera; (2) I want to see if same/similar results can be obtained digitally.
Message edited by author 2005-11-16 21:29:08.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:30:02 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Thanks Ursula. The second one feels a bit wierd but it's growing on me.
I wasn't planning on posting my film results but then I saw Gordon's blog with a few film examples so what the hay. I intend to try both film and digital. I had already planned this outing before the group got started.
BTW, all the pictures were taken in Elk Island National Park near Edmonton. I moved to Alberta a few months ago. |
You were in Ottawa before, weren't you?
Elk Island NP, where is that in relation to Edmonton? I went to Edmonton for the first time in July, we drove over Jasper.
BTW, I'm sticking to digital because (1) I can't find my film camera; (2) I want to see if same/similar results can be obtained digitally. |
I was in Ottawa (12 years).
Elk Island NP is 30 minutes east of Edmonton just off the Yellowhead.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:31:48 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Elk Island NP is 30 minutes east of Edmonton just off the Yellowhead. |
Ah, allright, thanks! I'll have to go further east next time.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 10:28:59 PM · #46 |
My book arrived today. I read the first chapter and decided to go ahead and try something tonight rather than waiting until tomorrow since I'm already behind.
I'm going to find this workshop particularly challenging. If I'm lucky, it may inspire me to spend more time shooting subject that I normally avoid, such as nature and landscapes. I don't really avoid those subjects, but I do prefer shooting other things. Some of the images that I post to this group will likely be other subjects where I try to apply the concepts I learn as we go.
//workshop.setzler.net
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 10:50:16 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by tcmartin:
Are you still allowing newcomers? I would love to participate if you have room. I also do not have immediate access to the book but would do whatever possible to expedite it's arrival. The subject matter is facinating and I really need to step out of my shell and meet some folks here.
Thanks,
Chris |
Sure, it's still early enough, but you'll have to play catch up. And you'll need a blog, per the methodology we've picked.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 11:00:25 PM · #48 |
Ok, I see some have updated their links. I like to keep the HTML list posted here so others can just paste rather than edit. You need to copy this and put it in the template where it says "Links" (starting with the MainOrArchivePage tag and ending at the end tag:
We'll need to update it with the "rest" of the addresses.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 01:46:32 AM · #49 |
It appears that you folks are okay with me joining so I have set up a bloggy thing: //tchrismartin.blogspot.com/
I have ordered the book, but don't expect it to arrive until around Tuesday of next week. I was able to read pages 12 - 17 on Amazon and I will do my best to catch up.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
11/19/2005 09:34:58 PM · #50 |
Three more images have been posted to my blog. All images were shot digitally. I've included the post processing if anyone's interested. It's based on information posted earlier in this thread.
|
|
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: 08/02/2025 03:05:19 PM EDT.
