double exposures - DPChallenge Forums

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for Canon

05/07/2002 04:48:00 PM · #1

I've seen several comments about double exposures and how effective they can be. My question is - are these even possible with any current digital camera ? The effect is obviously easy to do in photoshop, but I'm not aware of any cameras that do overlays in the hardware.

cbonsall

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

05/07/2002 04:56:59 PM · #2

I assumed double exposure was teh only way to do some of te images I have seen.

How else would you do it? (Hypothetically speaking, assuming "you" had made an image that people thought was double exposed or photoshopped?)

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

05/07/2002 05:00:37 PM · #3

Originally posted by cbonsall:
I assumed double exposure was teh only way to do some of te images I have seen.
How else would you do it? (Hypothetically speaking, assuming "you" had made an image that people thought was double exposed or photoshopped?)

Well, one way it can be done is using a long exposure time. The second place in the self-portrait challenge here is a good example.

* This message has been edited by the author on 5/7/2002 5:01:20 PM.

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

05/07/2002 05:02:14 PM · #4

Gordon, I have read about at least one that does double exposures but I'm not sure which camera it was. Maybe the Nikon Coolpix 5000 or the Minolta Dimage7, I'm not really sure, but it sort of functioned like layers in Photoshop where you could control the amount of opacity for each image using the LCD screen. It was intriguing but I didn't pay a lot of attention to it, obviously, because it's better to do that kind of stuff in Photoshop.

Tim

Gtnjiggy

Olympus E-20

05/07/2002 05:03:20 PM · #5

Actually, There are quite a bit of filters, that will give you the double exposure effect, for digital cameras......

* This message has been edited by the author on 5/7/2002 5:03:56 PM.

hokie

Nikon D2X

05/07/2002 05:06:04 PM · #6

Gordan..you can double expose with a digital but its more of a controlled long exposure or a blur/exposure.

Here is the link dg28.com

You may already know about him..he is awesome

justine

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/07/2002 05:24:02 PM · #7

Hokie!
Thanks for this link. I've never seen this before.
I live under a rock I guess.
Thanks.

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

05/07/2002 05:36:34 PM · #8

I was responding with the idea that Gordon was talking about completely different photos merged into one and not simply methods using a long exposure and one scene. Hokie, that site is really interesting, thanks.

Tim

Reuben

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

05/07/2002 07:03:07 PM · #9

You can do it with a long exposure if your camera doesn't have any double exposure feature. There are two ways I know of:

1) Do it in the dark, and illuminate the subject multiple times, perhaps using a strobe light.

2) Start the exposure, then put something black in front of the lens. Move the camera/subject/whatever it is you need to change, and remove the obstruction.

Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
I've seen several comments about double exposures and how effective they can be. My question is - are these even possible with any current digital camera ? The effect is obviously easy to do in photoshop, but I'm not aware of any cameras that do overlays in the hardware.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/07/2002 09:45:33 PM · #10

Originally posted by Reuben:
You can do it with a long exposure if your camera doesn't have any double exposure feature. There are two ways I know of:

1) Do it in the dark, and illuminate the subject multiple times, perhaps using a strobe light.

2) Start the exposure, then put something black in front of the lens. Move the camera/subject/whatever it is you need to change, and remove the obstruction.

Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
[i]I've seen several comments about double exposures and how effective they can be. My question is - are these even possible with any current digital camera ? The effect is obviously easy to do in photoshop, but I'm not aware of any cameras that do overlays in the hardware.

[/i]
This works. I've posted a proof of concept to demonstrate that this can be done.

Also, to answer a previous suggestion, I can confirm that the DiMage 7 does not have double-exposure capability built in. It is possible, however, to simulate this effect with a long exposure, by covering the lens while changing the shot... there is an issue with noise, however. The use of a strobe, as Gordon mentioned, would probably be more effective.

I think we're all talking about the same shot here; I've deduced who the photographer is and based on that knowledge I'm sure the shot is genuine; I think this is a perfect candidate for the "how did they do that" section next week.

-Terry

cameo

Canon EOS-20D

05/07/2002 10:35:47 PM · #11

Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
I've seen several comments about double exposures and how effective they can be. My question is - are these even possible with any current digital camera ? The effect is obviously easy to do in photoshop, but I'm not aware of any cameras that do overlays in the hardware.

[/i]

I think we're all talking about the same shot here; I've deduced who the photographer is and based on that knowledge I'm sure the shot is genuine; I think this is a perfect candidate for the "how did they do that" section next week.

-Terry[/i]

I think we all should know by now which picture (or should I say "who's picture) it is that is being discussed. He discussed it before the picture was even entered, he made sure his "signiture" was on the picture (there is no doubt) and then has brought up the subject again in this forum. I thought the pictures were to remain anonymous until the challenge ends? Takes the fun out of it when you reveal so much. I'll be the first to apologize if I'm mistaken, but I don't think I'll have to 'eat my words'.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

05/07/2002 11:14:58 PM · #12

Originally posted by sandip:

he made sure his "signiture" was on the picture (there is no doubt)

I've seen a couple of comments saying 'I made sure' that I signed my picture. Actually, for the picture I entered I went out of my way to remove anything that would show my name.

I quite happily admit to having my name proudly displayed in my "transition" picture, as it represented a very recent, very personal and very happy transition for me. It wasn't just 'any old transition' or some particular affliction that requires me to actively avoid anonymity in every picture I take.

The only reason I brought this up prior to entering and have subsequently brought it up during voting for this challenge is that I expected I'd get voted down for 'cheating'. So far I've had substantially lower than usual scores, which actually was one of the motivations for entering that particular picture in the first place, rather than some of the more obvious entries I came up with.

Similar thing happened with the 'Got Toast' picture. A lot of the voters don't seem to vote on merit, but on whether they think the picture is 'real' or not first, rather than asking for disqualification.

Every comment I've had has been extremely positive, much much more so than for any other picture I've entered, perhaps other than the 'architecture' entry. Yet my score is over 1.5 points lower than my average. I'll be interested to see how many 1's I get.

Personally, I'd just like to get a score based on merit. I'd like some indication on the entry in question to say that it isn't fake, it has been verified by the admins, and please don't vote it down just because you don't yet know how it was taken. Otherwise I think in future I'll go out of my way not to do challenging or different things for my entry. Which seems contrary to the point of the site. It isn't about anonymity, it is about learning and improving our photography. I could care less about winning challenges, but I do want to stretch myself and like everyone who does bother to enter, I'd like a score based on opinion of my work - as a photograph, not as a fake. Why bother if I get hammered for trying, or assumed to be cheating by the majority of voters ?

irae

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 I

05/07/2002 11:44:06 PM · #13

applause

Corey

Nikon D300s

05/07/2002 11:54:53 PM · #14

As far as cameras that have a doube exposure function there are two that I know of and only one of them is on the market. The fuji 6900 has that feature and the fuji S2 Pro will also have that feature. This is an on camera thing not a photoshop thing.

05/08/2002 12:02:18 AM · #15

Originally posted by Corey:
As far as cameras that have a doube exposure function there are two that I know of and only one of them is on the market. The fuji 6900 has that feature and the fuji S2 Pro will also have that feature. This is an on camera thing not a photoshop thing.

Cool - thanks for the info. I personally wonder why they'd bother as it is something that is so much more flexible and controlable to do in software. It isn't a very hard thing to implement in the hardware, but I wonder how many people will actually use it.

Sort of similar to the video modes on lots of digi-cams. They do produce video, but the quality is terrible and I wonder how often it really gets used. Feature creep just drives up cost and down the relative effort spent on getting great pictures rather than features to put check marks on marketing spreadsheets (but that's another, more personal, more work related rant)