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

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> How I did my "Environmentalist" Negative entry.
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 37 of 37, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/03/2006 07:26:10 PM · #26
Originally posted by mo5988:
i think you probably know this, yanko, but i'll say it anyway. that is exactly what the camera is doing, the only difference is that the mirror is going twice for one photo. if you didn't know, glad to help, if you did, i'll shut up now.


I know so basically what is a multiple exposure then? Is it when the mirror flips? If you use a lens cap to mimic it does that also make it a multiple exposure? What about just shooting in a dark room using only multiple flashes? What defines a multiple exposure?

Message edited by author 2006-05-03 19:27:52.
 05/03/2006 07:30:21 PM · #27
Aside from all of the other reasons stated to allow multiple exposures this is something my $100.00 Nikon N65 can do with film. I can combine as many frames as I want by not advancing the frame so why shouldn't it be allowed if the digital camera can do the same thing that a basic film camera can do. I disagree that the combining of the two images is merely a software adjustment in the camera that could be done PS CS2. Of course I have a D200 so many I am little biased ;).
 05/03/2006 07:36:09 PM · #28
i think that the name comes from film, when you actually had to use multiple exposures on the same film frame. Therefore, i'd say that anytime you expose the same file twice, it is a multiple exposure (in this case i would say that the most similar thing to an eposed film frame is a digital file). i think that as soon as you put two images together in photoshop, it's not a multiple exposure, but multiple images. it's confusing though, because if you go by this understanding, with film, you can get a multiple exposure in post processing by stacking the negatives, because you are still exposing the paper. This is just my understanding, and if anyone knows i'm wrong, feel free to tell me.

great point, tmhalling, but i have an irrelevant question. Why do you have a d70 set as your primary camera when you have a d200? :)

Message edited by author 2006-05-03 19:39:03.
 05/03/2006 08:06:20 PM · #29
Originally posted by mo5988:
i think that the name comes from film, when you actually had to use multiple exposures on the same film frame. Therefore, i'd say that anytime you expose the same file twice, it is a multiple exposure (in this case i would say that the most similar thing to an eposed film frame is a digital file). i think that as soon as you put two images together in photoshop, it's not a multiple exposure, but multiple images. it's confusing though, because if you go by this understanding, with film, you can get a multiple exposure in post processing by stacking the negatives, because you are still exposing the paper. This is just my understanding, and if anyone knows i'm wrong, feel free to tell me.

great point, tmhalling, but i have an irrelevant question. Why do you have a d70 set as your primary camera when you have a d200? :)


Thanks haven't updated my profile yet - besides - having a D200 and no score above 6.0 is embarassing ;).
 05/03/2006 08:12:46 PM · #30

Thanks haven't updated my profile yet - besides - having a D200 and no score above 6.0 is embarassing ;). - tmhalling

don't feel bad... my scores are worse than yours. i think that having a nice camera makes you believe that all your pictures are great, and you submit them before you really consider. i have recognized this as my main problem, and am working on changing it.
 05/03/2006 08:23:25 PM · #31
a multiple exposure refers to the negative itself having been exposed twice or more times. stacking the negs in a carrier when printing is a single exposure of multiple images.

i may not know much about digital, but film - o, yeah baby...

so, basically, a multiple exposure is the film, sensor, etc, being exposed more than once. we can take the single data file as being analogous to a single frame of film. so, whether it's being exposed through a mechanical exposure (shutter being released), the lens cap or a blocker going on and off, or a strobe light effect, they're all mulitples, as the light is building on one frame/file.
 05/03/2006 08:54:36 PM · #32
Ok so if using multiple strobe firings constitutes a multiple exposure than what about long exposures in general? For example say I took an hour long exposure of the night sky. Wouldn't the low light that slowly was added to the frame/file constitute a multiple exposure? How is that different from a burst of light vs a slowly added light?

Message edited by author 2006-05-03 20:55:12.
 05/03/2006 09:22:32 PM · #33
thanks, xianart, for the confirmation. i was nearly sure about the in-camera, but the negative stacking was really an educated guess. actually, i'm new into film... i am taking a semester photo course which focuses (lol) on black and white film photography and printing
 05/05/2006 08:45:17 AM · #34
Originally posted by karmabreeze:

But apparently it's been discussed at length as someone else mentioned, so if I understand this correctly, multiple exposures are only allowed if you have one very specific model camera and if you don't have it then you're screwed? You only get special privileges if you have a special camera? Isn't that rather blatantly biased?



You are able to take different/better/more creative shots with this camera. The same can be said about owning various lenses, professional lighting, backdrops, etc. I own none of these. Not even a DSLR. I DO envy those who can score well because they have the equipment, combined with the talent and creativity, but I don't consider that they're being given "special privileges" by being able to use them.
 05/05/2006 09:11:09 AM · #35
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
If I am not allowed to do it with PS or whatever, then you should not be allowed to do it with your camera, either, since both methods are really just a matter of software. The location of that software should be totally irrelevent. The ruling is horribly biased. I don't break the rules, but neither am I the type to blindly or blithely resign myself to rules that are poorly conceived.


It's a longstanding rule, and I promise it was not poorly conceived. The issue is EXIF verification and enforcement. The entire basis of rules enforcement at DPC is rooted in EXIF. I'm going to assume you understand EXIF.

The reason "any thing done in the camera is legal" is because cameras don't include information in the EXIF as to any processing that was done in camera, so there is no proof that the processing was ever done. All Site Council can do is look at the file as it left the camera and attempt to duplicate / verify / approve what was done to the file AFTER THAT POINT. They have NO way to know what went on in the camera.

Thus, the conception behind this rule is that, since we cannot extrapolate ANY information from the EXIF, or any other part of the JPEG file, as to what went on inside the camera, we have to establish that whatever file the camera created is the beginning. That is the starting point for any rule regarding processing. It cannot be otherwise. The camera will not tell us that a double exposure was processed, so only KosmikKreeper's honesty here gives him away.

See, the fact that checking the EXIF to make sure of EXACTLY what the photographer started with before he edited for submission is the only real connection we have to make sure he/she is telling SC the truth about editing.

It is NOT a poorly conceived rule. Please don't make the mistake so many others have in thinking that DPC is a bunch of redneck upstarts that don't know what the heck we're doing. We've been here a long time, and while we admit some problems with the rules, I can guarantee you that there is good reason behind all of them.

Peace :)
 05/05/2006 11:24:07 AM · #36
Every camera can do in camera multiple exposure, you just need to know how. A camera that doesn't have a specific mult. exposure function can still do them. You need to have control of your light and do a longer exposure. Check graphicfunk's profile, he is the master at this technique, he also has a mentor thread that you can read.

The 'everything has to be in camera' is one of the best rules for basic, becaues it has really raised the bar on what people can do. A lot of wonderful techniques would go by the wayside if you could just do it after, this is still photography not photoshop 101.
 05/05/2006 11:59:45 AM · #37
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by mo5988:
This is like not allowing me to take advantage of my higher burst rate just because many other people do not have this capability in their cameras.

Exactly. Same could be said for any other "feature" of a higher-or-lower-end camera. You use the tools available to you to take the best photograph you can. I don't think a feature-rich piece of equipment, high-end glass, or a tripod that can be placed on a 45 degree incline should be grounds for disqualification. Because at the end of the day, it's the photographer, not the equipment, that determines how good the picture is.

As proof, just look at all the great pictures JoeyL took with that piece of crap he had. ;)


As I was reading your comment, JoeyL immediately came to mind!!

"It's not what you've got, it's what you do with what you've got! And JoeyL does!!

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 06:28:37 PM

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: 09/06/2025 06:28:37 PM EDT.