Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Itls digital remmeber either a 1 or a 0 unlike film.

a silver halide crystal on film is 1 or 0, depending if light hit it or
not.

No it is not it has levels the individual molecules do.

it's exposed or it's not. 1 or 0.

Ansel Adams might not agree with you.

actually, he would.

Most of us, who take other than
line prints, end up with shades of gray in there images.

which is the result of individual silver halide crystals being exposed
or not exposed.

On Jan 18, 2019, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 1/15/2019 10:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 15, 2019, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 1/14/2019 2:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 14, 2019, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ):

On 13/01/2019 17.15, David B. wrote:
FYI (copy/paste)

"In-camera double exposures are wonderfully creative and work very well
for portraits. I love creating these in the summertime to take advantage
of flowers in bloom. However, Autumn is a great time of year for double
exposures as well. Fall leaves, pine trees, and holiday decor work
really well with this style and the opportunities to experiment are
endless.

In order to create double exposures in-camera, you need to have a camera
with this feature built-in. I’m using a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV but there
are a number of cameras with the feature available. You can also create
a double exposure look using an editing program like Photoshop but I
find that creating these in camera is a lot more fun and can yield
unexpected results."

https://s3.amazonaws.com/viewbug_com...leExposure.pdf

Double exposure in film, I can understand.

But a digital camera would just add the pixel values from two files,
thus being no different from postprocessing on the computer.

To be valid, the sensor would have to be exposed, and then, without
reading it, exposing it again. Are they really doing it?

Nikon, Canon, and Fujifilm (and probably others) have a multi-exposure
feature/mode which allows for two separate exposures, on two frames, which
are blended into a single file. It is a bit of a novelty and nothing that
cannot be done in post.

Not true.

What is not true?

There are images that I take using ME that cannot be duplicated in post.
I gave an example.


Multiple exposure, one image, walking around the tree. The
effects and color were added in post.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2c7cul49u4jgo9b/tree1024.jpg?dl=0

There is only one question which comes to mind. Why?
Because I want to.

I know, I know. ;-)

I know that type of image is not your thing,

Well the two of us have known that for years.

but that's why Ford is now making cars in different colors, including black.

....but first you would have to choose to buy a Ford over other manufacturers
offerings, also available in a variety of colors including black.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 20:15:42 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Itls digital remmeber either a 1 or a 0 unlike film.

a silver halide crystal on film is 1 or 0, depending if light hit it or
not.

No it is not it has levels the individual molecules do.

it's exposed or it's not. 1 or 0.

Ansel Adams might not agree with you.

actually, he would.

Most of us, who take other than
line prints, end up with shades of gray in there images.

which is the result of individual silver halide crystals being exposed
or not exposed.

The size of the developed silver crystal depends upon the number of
atoms which were originally sensitised. Normally it takes at least 4
but it can be many more. Image density depends upon both the number of
crystals developed/sq mm and the size of the crystals.

Don't bother ...
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Itls digital remmeber either a 1 or a 0 unlike film.

a silver halide crystal on film is 1 or 0, depending if light hit it or
not.

No it is not it has levels the individual molecules do.

it's exposed or it's not. 1 or 0.

Ansel Adams might not agree with you.

actually, he would.

Most of us, who take other than
line prints, end up with shades of gray in there images.

which is the result of individual silver halide crystals being exposed
or not exposed.

The size of the developed silver crystal depends upon the number of
atoms which were originally sensitised. Normally it takes at least 4
but it can be many more. Image density depends upon both the number of
crystals developed/sq mm and the size of the crystals.

otherwise known as film grain. faster film has larger crystals,
resulting in grainier images.

Don't bother ...

i will anyway.

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 20:00:17 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/17/2019 9:23 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip


I can remember some view cameras in the past which had the shutter, and
shutter release on the lens with a cable release (before that they used a
squeeze bulb). In that case the shutter had to be set in much the same way as
the hammer on a single action firearm. With those deliberate, double, or
multi exposures on a single plate, or sheet of film would be possible without
worry of moving film out of frame register.

I thought a lot of the later 4x5 view cameras of the type used by the
press, had the shutter on the lens. Some that were used for portraits,
architecture, & landscape, with slower film used a light protecting
slide to expose the film.

Most press view cameras were Speed Graphics. While they had shutters
on the lens most also had the old wind-up blind focal plane shutter as
well. See the images below where you can see focal plane shutters on
the side behind the range finder.

https://farm2.static.flickr.com/1218...e0499ab3_z.jpg
http://momentscapture.com/ImageTemp/...all-Camera.jpg
and a real oldie
http://piercevaubel.com/cam/imagesno...y-4x5b-750.jpg

The light-protecting slide was to protect the film/sheets/plates from
light when the back was being changed.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:43:37 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jan 18, 2019, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 1/15/2019 10:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 15, 2019, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 1/14/2019 2:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 14, 2019, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ):

On 13/01/2019 17.15, David B. wrote:
FYI (copy/paste)

"In-camera double exposures are wonderfully creative and work very well
for portraits. I love creating these in the summertime to take advantage
of flowers in bloom. However, Autumn is a great time of year for double
exposures as well. Fall leaves, pine trees, and holiday decor work
really well with this style and the opportunities to experiment are
endless.

In order to create double exposures in-camera, you need to have a camera
with this feature built-in. I’m using a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV but there
are a number of cameras with the feature available. You can also create
a double exposure look using an editing program like Photoshop but I
find that creating these in camera is a lot more fun and can yield
unexpected results."

https://s3.amazonaws.com/viewbug_com...leExposure.pdf

Double exposure in film, I can understand.

But a digital camera would just add the pixel values from two files,
thus being no different from postprocessing on the computer.

To be valid, the sensor would have to be exposed, and then, without
reading it, exposing it again. Are they really doing it?

Nikon, Canon, and Fujifilm (and probably others) have a multi-exposure
feature/mode which allows for two separate exposures, on two frames, which
are blended into a single file. It is a bit of a novelty and nothing that
cannot be done in post.

Not true.

What is not true?

There are images that I take using ME that cannot be duplicated in post.
I gave an example.


Multiple exposure, one image, walking around the tree. The
effects and color were added in post.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2c7cul49u4jgo9b/tree1024.jpg?dl=0

There is only one question which comes to mind. Why?
Because I want to.

I know, I know. ;-)

I know that type of image is not your thing,

Well the two of us have known that for years.

but that's why Ford is now making cars in different colors, including black.

...but first you would have to choose to buy a Ford over other manufacturers
offerings, also available in a variety of colors including black.

And then they invented DUCO.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Jan 18, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:43:37 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jan 18, 2019, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 1/15/2019 10:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 15, 2019, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 1/14/2019 2:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 14, 2019, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ):

On 13/01/2019 17.15, David B. wrote:
FYI (copy/paste)

"In-camera double exposures are wonderfully creative and work very
well
for portraits. I love creating these in the summertime to take
advantage
of flowers in bloom. However, Autumn is a great time of year for
double
exposures as well. Fall leaves, pine trees, and holiday decor work
really well with this style and the opportunities to experiment are
endless.

In order to create double exposures in-camera, you need to have a
camera
with this feature built-in. I’m using a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV but
there
are a number of cameras with the feature available. You can also
create
a double exposure look using an editing program like Photoshop but I
find that creating these in camera is a lot more fun and can yield
unexpected results."

https://s3.amazonaws.com/viewbug_com...leExposure.pdf

Double exposure in film, I can understand.

But a digital camera would just add the pixel values from two files,
thus being no different from postprocessing on the computer.

To be valid, the sensor would have to be exposed, and then, without
reading it, exposing it again. Are they really doing it?

Nikon, Canon, and Fujifilm (and probably others) have a multi-exposure
feature/mode which allows for two separate exposures, on two frames,
which
are blended into a single file. It is a bit of a novelty and nothing
that
cannot be done in post.

Not true.

What is not true?

There are images that I take using ME that cannot be duplicated in post.
I gave an example.


Multiple exposure, one image, walking around the tree. The
effects and color were added in post.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2c7cul49u4jgo9b/tree1024.jpg?dl=0

There is only one question which comes to mind. Why?
Because I want to.

I know, I know. ;-)

I know that type of image is not your thing,

Well the two of us have known that for years.

but that's why Ford is now making cars in different colors, including
black.

...but first you would have to choose to buy a Ford over other manufacturers
offerings, also available in a variety of colors including black.

And then they invented DUCO.

I believe that auto paints have moved on since the days of DUCO (hard to find
today) with acrylic polyurethane enamels.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 22:06:25 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Itls digital remmeber either a 1 or a 0 unlike film.

a silver halide crystal on film is 1 or 0, depending if light hit it or
not.

No it is not it has levels the individual molecules do.

it's exposed or it's not. 1 or 0.

Ansel Adams might not agree with you.

actually, he would.

Most of us, who take other than
line prints, end up with shades of gray in there images.

which is the result of individual silver halide crystals being exposed
or not exposed.

The size of the developed silver crystal depends upon the number of
atoms which were originally sensitised. Normally it takes at least 4
but it can be many more. Image density depends upon both the number of
crystals developed/sq mm and the size of the crystals.

otherwise known as film grain. faster film has larger crystals,
resulting in grainier images.

Don't bother ...

i will anyway.

To your regret. See http://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/film.pdf

"The purpose of this complex essay is to demonstrate the following:
•Fundamental film particles (silver particles) are distinct from
film grain
•Silver particles are an order-of-magnitude smaller than common
film grain
•Film grain is a perceived property; due to visual clumping of
smaller particles through emulsion
•Resolution of film is related to the size and distribution of
fundamental particles in the emulsion
•Film grain limits the ability of the smaller “fundamental
particles� to resolve image detail
•Imaging film grain is an inadequate method of determining the
resolution of a film."

Film grain and crystals are not synonymous.

But then you always knew that ... or else it's wrong.

Don't bother.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 19:45:37 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jan 18, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:43:37 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jan 18, 2019, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 1/15/2019 10:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 15, 2019, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 1/14/2019 2:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 14, 2019, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ):

On 13/01/2019 17.15, David B. wrote:
FYI (copy/paste)

"In-camera double exposures are wonderfully creative and work very
well
for portraits. I love creating these in the summertime to take
advantage
of flowers in bloom. However, Autumn is a great time of year for
double
exposures as well. Fall leaves, pine trees, and holiday decor work
really well with this style and the opportunities to experiment are
endless.

In order to create double exposures in-camera, you need to have a
camera
with this feature built-in. I’m using a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV but
there
are a number of cameras with the feature available. You can also
create
a double exposure look using an editing program like Photoshop but I
find that creating these in camera is a lot more fun and can yield
unexpected results."

https://s3.amazonaws.com/viewbug_com...leExposure.pdf

Double exposure in film, I can understand.

But a digital camera would just add the pixel values from two files,
thus being no different from postprocessing on the computer.

To be valid, the sensor would have to be exposed, and then, without
reading it, exposing it again. Are they really doing it?

Nikon, Canon, and Fujifilm (and probably others) have a multi-exposure
feature/mode which allows for two separate exposures, on two frames,
which
are blended into a single file. It is a bit of a novelty and nothing
that
cannot be done in post.

Not true.

What is not true?

There are images that I take using ME that cannot be duplicated in post.
I gave an example.


Multiple exposure, one image, walking around the tree. The
effects and color were added in post.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2c7cul49u4jgo9b/tree1024.jpg?dl=0

There is only one question which comes to mind. Why?
Because I want to.

I know, I know. ;-)

I know that type of image is not your thing,

Well the two of us have known that for years.

but that's why Ford is now making cars in different colors, including
black.

...but first you would have to choose to buy a Ford over other manufacturers
offerings, also available in a variety of colors including black.

And then they invented DUCO.

I believe that auto paints have moved on since the days of DUCO (hard to find
today) with acrylic polyurethane enamels.

But in the days of black model Ts they used to paint with a brush.
They didn't use paint pots, the paint was fed by gravity through the
handle of the brush via a hose. This made changing colors a monumental
task which is why they preferred to stick to the standard color
(black). But you could order a car with a non-standard color including
red and I believe yellow.

Sprayable quick-drying DUCO fixed all that and changing colors on the
production line eventually became routine.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 1/18/19 10:08 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 20:00:17 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/17/2019 9:23 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip


I can remember some view cameras in the past which had the shutter, and
shutter release on the lens with a cable release (before that they used a
squeeze bulb). In that case the shutter had to be set in much the same way as
the hammer on a single action firearm. With those deliberate, double, or
multi exposures on a single plate, or sheet of film would be possible without
worry of moving film out of frame register.

I thought a lot of the later 4x5 view cameras of the type used by the
press, had the shutter on the lens. Some that were used for portraits,
architecture, & landscape, with slower film used a light protecting
slide to expose the film.

Most press view cameras were Speed Graphics. While they had shutters
on the lens most also had the old wind-up blind focal plane shutter as
well. See the images below where you can see focal plane shutters on
the side behind the range finder.

https://farm2.static.flickr.com/1218...e0499ab3_z.jpg
http://momentscapture.com/ImageTemp/...all-Camera.jpg
and a real oldie
http://piercevaubel.com/cam/imagesno...y-4x5b-750.jpg

The light-protecting slide was to protect the film/sheets/plates from
light when the back was being changed.


There were many types of the 4x5 "Press" cameras, each with their own
model number/name. I don't know if Mr Stevens is an expert on the
various types; what he says above is accurate. His first example photo
is similar to the one I used years ago.

Generally, a "press" camera folds up to a compact size, and is
relatively easy to handhold. "View" cameras usually are designed for
tripod mount, had no (or little) ergonomics for hand holding, and had
substantial swings on tilts for the lens and the film.

I've used a press camera years ago. It had a shutter in the lens and a
focal plane shutter. The FP shutter ran vertically, had four slits of
different widths, and had 4(?) spring tension settings. There was a
chart on the camera showing the shutter speed for each slit and tension
combination. You set the tension and wound the shutter until the proper
slit was in position. Then you removed the dark-slide, and triggered the
shutter.

In the very old days, days of very slow film speeds, the film was
exposed by removing and replacing a lens cap. The camera would be set
up, the film holder inserted, lens cap put in place, darkslide removed.
Then the film was exposed by removing the lens cap.

Using the dark slide as a shutter would work, but have two problems:
First, possible camera movement. Second, the one end of the film would
receive more exposure than the other end.


--
Ken Hart