Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:


and
it's a lot easier to do it in camera than later.

Only with digital not with film, as you run the risk of the film moving.

push the little button and the transport is disengaged.

It can still move slightly, ideally it shouldn't.

Depends on the design of the camera.

not really. either the shutter is linked to the film advance, in which
case it needs to be disengaged, or it's independent, in which case
there is no issue.

some cameras have them linked without a way to unlink them, in which
case double exposures are not possible.

In the manual for the Canon FX
(1964-1969), you first use the rewind crank to get the film taut, then
while holding the rewind crank with one hand, you press the rewind
clutch button on the bottom of the camera with the other hand, and with
the third hand, you operate the film advance lever while holding in the
rewind clutch with the second hand and keeping tension on the rewind
crank so the film doesn't move. Operating the film advance lever
disengages the rewind clutch, so you have to hold it in.

Not being familiar with every camera ever made, I assume there are
cameras where the method is simpler.

there are.

Apparently the designers of the Canon FX weren't too keen on double
exposures. Or they all had three hands.

or they weren't klutzes.

one hand on rewind & disengage button, the other hand on advance. very
easy.

and holding the rewind crank is not required.

On Jan 16, 2019, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ):

On 1/15/19 10:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 15, 2019, PeterN wrote
snip


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?

Respectfully SD, I think you are dismissing the photo unfairly. While I
wouldn't cover a wall with it, it is an interesting photo.

Interesting image, yes. However, Peter and I have never seen eye-to-eye when
it comes to most of his “artistic� post processing interpretations. They
just do not appeal to my taste, and Peter has known that for years.

I'm not a fan of "gimmicks" ('effects... added in post'), unless they
are naturally occurring. But the photo has enough of colors that could
be natural over a length of seasons. In the fall in central
Pennsylvania, this is what a tree looks like, sorta.
Sorta, in Central Pennsylvania perhaps, but not out here on the California
Central Coast. ;-)

I would like to see the structure of the tree a bit stronger, more
evident, more dense. I am bothered by the mass of red/purple to the
upper right. I would also like to see more details (and less green) in
the bottom portion.

I am bothered by the totality of the rendition.

Still, I'm sure Bob Ross would consider it a "happy tree"!

Well, whatever makes Bob happy.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 1/16/19 5:12 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:


and
it's a lot easier to do it in camera than later.

Only with digital not with film, as you run the risk of the film moving.

push the little button and the transport is disengaged.

It can still move slightly, ideally it shouldn't.

Depends on the design of the camera.

not really. either the shutter is linked to the film advance, in which
case it needs to be disengaged, or it's independent, in which case
there is no issue.

some cameras have them linked without a way to unlink them, in which
case double exposures are not possible.

In the manual for the Canon FX
(1964-1969), you first use the rewind crank to get the film taut, then
while holding the rewind crank with one hand, you press the rewind
clutch button on the bottom of the camera with the other hand, and with
the third hand, you operate the film advance lever while holding in the
rewind clutch with the second hand and keeping tension on the rewind
crank so the film doesn't move. Operating the film advance lever
disengages the rewind clutch, so you have to hold it in.

Not being familiar with every camera ever made, I assume there are
cameras where the method is simpler.

there are.

Apparently the designers of the Canon FX weren't too keen on double
exposures. Or they all had three hands.

or they weren't klutzes.

one hand on rewind & disengage button, the other hand on advance. very
easy.

and holding the rewind crank is not required.

You are familiar with the Canon FX? Or do you have freakishly large
hands with extra joints?

The rewind clutch release is on the bottom of the camera, directly under
the film sprocket.

The film advance lever (which cocks the shutter) is on the top of the
camera, directly above the film takeup.

In order to shoot two exposures on a single frame of film, you need to
make one exposure, cock the shutter, and make a second exposure, without
moving the film. Cocking the shutter requires actuating the film advance
lever.

With the Canon FX, operating the film advance lever turns both the
sprocket gear and the takeup. The sprocket turns a specific amount with
each actuation of the film advance so that the frames are evenly spaced;
the takeup is on a slip-clutch so that the film is kept snug on the takeup.

When you push in the rewind release (on the bottom of the camera), the
sprocket is disengaged. The takeup is _not_ disengaged, it will turn on
it's slip-clutch, moving the film an indeterminate amount. So you need
to snug up the film with the rewind crank, and hold the crank while
operating the film advance so the film will not be pulled by the takeup
slip-clutch.

The rewind clutch release button is released by the operation of the
film advance lever. So if you want to operate the film advance lever
solely for the purpose of cocking the shutter, you have to hold in the
rewind clutch release to keep the sprocket from turning. The takeup will
still turn, unless you prevent it from turning.

As I was writing this, I had a Canon FX in front of me in order to
verify everything I wrote. When you tell me I am wrong, I expect you
will also have a Canon FX in front of you. The one I used was serial
#187369, date coded January 1965. Please provide the serial number and
date code for your Canon FX.


Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Apparently the designers of the Canon FX weren't too keen on double
exposures. Or they all had three hands.

or they weren't klutzes.

one hand on rewind & disengage button, the other hand on advance. very
easy.

and holding the rewind crank is not required.

You are familiar with the Canon FX? Or do you have freakishly large
hands with extra joints?

i'm very familiar with slrs of that era. there's nothing unique about
the fx.

The rewind clutch release is on the bottom of the camera, directly under
the film sprocket.

yep, although sometimes it's on the other side. it disengages the
transport so that the film can be rewound. double-exposure is a side
effect of that, therefore it's not 100% reliable and with possibility
of film movement.

add-on winders had a mechanical pin to push that button, because it's
required to be able to rewind the film, and removing the winder for
each roll would be silly (although i'm sure there are some ill-designed
cameras where that was needed).
https://www.butkus.org/chinon/konica/konica_fp-1/parts03.jpg

things changed a bit when slrs had built in winders.

....


As I was writing this, I had a Canon FX in front of me in order to
verify everything I wrote. When you tell me I am wrong, I expect you
will also have a Canon FX in front of you. The one I used was serial
#187369, date coded January 1965. Please provide the serial number and
date code for your Canon FX.

stop lying about what i say.

i didn't tell you that you were wrong.

what i said was that three hands is not required unless someone is a
klutz.

it's very easy to do with two hands.

if you are unable to do it with two hands, then you are a klutz.

On 16/01/2019 22.44, Ken Hart wrote:
On 1/16/19 6:42 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 18:22:08 UTC, nospamÂ* wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:


and
it's a lot easier to do it in camera than later.

Only with digital not with film, as you run the risk of the film
moving.

push the little button and the transport is disengaged.

It can still move slightly, ideally it shouldn't.

Depends on the design of the camera. In the manual for the Canon FX
(1964-1969), you first use the rewind crank to get the film taut, then
while holding the rewind crank with one hand, you press the rewind
clutch button on the bottom of the camera with the other hand, and with
the third hand, you operate the film advance lever while holding in the
rewind clutch with the second hand and keeping tension on the rewind
crank so the film doesn't move. Operating the film advance lever
disengages the rewind clutch, so you have to hold it in.

Not being familiar with every camera ever made, I assume there are
cameras where the method is simpler.

My Minolta was the same. I don't remember reading about the method in
the manual, though, I think they said nothing. I just found it by
experimenting.

There was some risk of the film actually moving a bit backwards. But the
rewind had to be a bit taut, or the clutch would not disengage and the
film could move a bit forwards.

Tricky.


Apparently the designers of the Canon FX weren't too keen on double
exposures. Or they all had three hands.

:-))


--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 19:23:59 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Double exposure in film, I can understand.

yep. there are far fewer options with film.

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

it's different in that it doesn't require a computer.

Not even the one in the camera.

more of your semantic bull**** arguments. you know quite well what is
meant by computer, and it's *not* camera.

"in the camera" I said.

if you think otherwise, then explain how one can connect a keyboard,
mouse to the 'computer' in the camera, how to connect it to the
internet to download photoshop and then install it, and how to process
images on its tiny little 3" display.

Not even you are silly enough to think that's what I meant. As for
your idea that a computer needs a keyboard or a mouse to make it a
computer, what are you going to make of an iPad, let alone the flight
systems in an Airbus?

maybe you think that's what wifi in cameras is for.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 19:56:48 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/14/2019 2:50 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


Double exposure in film, I can understand.

yep. there are far fewer options with film.

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

it's different in that it doesn't require a computer.

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

that's not required, nor would it work particularly well.


Wrong.

Right.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 19:24:00 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

It is two separate exposures on the same frame. Which is what a digital
camera does not do, so it is not double exposure.

it's two separate exposures in the same memory, before it's written to
a raw or jpeg image, thereby making it a double exposure by any
definition.

at the end of the day, it's two clicks resulting in one image, just as
it's done with a film camera.

instead of pressing a mechanical button on the bottom to disengage the
film transport, you toggle a setting in the menu, which disengages the
memory writing.

it's also not limited to two exposures, which is why it's called
multiple exposure, and also far more capable than anything film could
do.

camera companies don't agree with your ridiculous definition.

nikon:

https://nps.nikonimaging.com/technic.../img/img_09.pn
g

https://nps.nikonimaging.com/technic.../img/img_11.pn
g


canon:
https://support-my.canon-asia.com/img/G0227382.gif
https://support-my.canon-asia.com/img/G0227383.gif
https://support-my.canon-asia.com/img/G0227386.gif

fuji:

http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x1...ages/osd_sm_mu
lti-exp00_en_x100t_320.gif

You have failed to demonstrate that multiple exposures are the same as
double exposures.

yes i did, and it's yet another one of your stupid pointless semantic
arguments.

since you disagree, go tell nikon, canon and fuji as well as the other
camera makers whose screen shots i did not link that they're wrong.

Learn to write with precision.

i did, long ago.

Define your interpretation of 'double exposure'.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:55:42 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

It is two separate exposures on the same frame. Which is what a digital
camera does not do, so it is not double exposure.

it's two separate exposures in the same memory, before it's written to
a raw or jpeg image, thereby making it a double exposure by any
definition.

No it wouldn't, as it would be in the same 'memory' as that would require
complety overwriting the information from the previous exposure.

no.

at the end of the day, it's two clicks resulting in one image, just as
it's done with a film camera.

No it's not.

it is.

In a film camera, which is where the expression originated, a double
exposure is one exposure made on top of a prior exposure. It is not
the later combination of two separate exposures.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 19:24:01 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


It's not a double exposure it's two seperate exposures on two seperate
frames.
Which is what happenes whenever you take two photos. Then they are merged
together something that doesn't happen when taking single exposures.

double exposure is always two separate exposures on two separate
frames. that's why it's called double.

Most definitely wrong. Obviously you have never used a film camera.

i miswrote. it's two separate exposures on the same piece of film or
same memory buffer.

Memory buffers are not the same as film. One cannot wipe a film once
it has been exposed.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens