Tips for Mastering In-Camera,Double Exposure Portraits

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:34:01 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

that doesn't matter.

Not to you, but it does for me. After all I wrote it.

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.

a bit extreme, but it makes the point.

An irrelevant point.

As for
your idea that a computer needs a keyboard or a mouse to make it a
computer,

missing the point, as usual.

what are you going to make of an iPad, let alone the flight
systems in an Airbus?

ipads use touch instead of a mouse and there is a built in keyboard as
well as the ability to connect external keyboards.

Aha! They use substitutes. So too does the processor in a camera.

but the real kicker is i remember you arguing several years back that
an ipad wasn't a computer. now you say it is.

I bet you won't find that one. You never even find your alleged recent
quotes.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 02:17:29 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 15:55:48 UTC, 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.

yes, you obviously dont know much about electronics down to that level.
Itls digital remmeber either a 1 or a 0 unlike film.

Not at the sensor's pixel level. At that stage it is a collection of
variously filled photon/electron buckets.


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.

Not even close.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

that doesn't matter.

Not to you, but it does for me. After all I wrote it.

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.

a bit extreme, but it makes the point.

An irrelevant point.

it's very relevant.

the reason for combining in camera is so that doesn't need to be done
later on a computer, i.e., mac, windows, ios or android device.

nobody is going to copy existing *back* to a camera to use *its*
'computer' to combine them somehow, then copy the results back to the
original computer (see above for what qualifies).

As for
your idea that a computer needs a keyboard or a mouse to make it a
computer,

missing the point, as usual.

what are you going to make of an iPad, let alone the flight
systems in an Airbus?

ipads use touch instead of a mouse and there is a built in keyboard as
well as the ability to connect external keyboards.

Aha! They use substitutes. So too does the processor in a camera.

you're *very* confused.

but the real kicker is i remember you arguing several years back that
an ipad wasn't a computer. now you say it is.

I bet you won't find that one.

i could if i was so inclined. the ipad is coming up on 9 years, so it
could be anywhere in that time.

You never even find your alleged recent
quotes.

also wrong.

In article ,
Whisky-dave 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.

So as I've said in the past analogue is better than digital.

it's definitely not.

a sensor in a digital camera is an analog device whose output voltage
varies on how much light hits it. not 1 or 0.

In yuor dreams perhaps.

nope. that's how they work.

But they are reset they are not fixed unlike film.

doesn't matter

If the sensor is analogue then why is it a digital camera.

because the rest of the camera is digital.

what's digital about it then.

the signal processing.

the values stored in memory are as much as 48 bits per pixel, much,
much more than 1 or 0.

Irrelivant

nope. it's exactly on point.

But the sensor is read, unlike film, and it is read in intervals of time.

film is also read, also in intervals of time.

Leave a peice of film out and the light level will accumalte and it will all
eventually become exposed call it state 1.
With a semsor it may well be at fully exposed 1 but it can be reset to 0 again film can't.

yes it can, just not easily, and that's one of many reasons why digital
is much better.

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 that type of image is not your thing, but
that's why Ford is now making cars in different colors, including black.

--
PeterN

On 1/15/2019 10:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 15, 2019, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 1/15/2019 6:14 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 15, 2019, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Monday, 14 January 2019 22:10:08 UTC, nospam wrote:
In , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


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.

Ok, so they do two frames, then merge or blend them into a single file.
That's postprocessing, not really "double exposure" in my book. It
simply emulates it, but it is not it.

are you channeling eric?

it's double exposure, without any emulation whatsoever.

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.

Is HDR a multi-exposure technigue I'd say yes but it isn't the same as what
was done in film multi-exposures.

While HDR shot in a digital camera is a digital multi-exposure technique, I
would consider it an exposure bracketing rather than an analog double
exposure.

Then you have Focus Stacking/Bracketing which is another digital
multi-exposure technique which would be a royal pain to execute with film.

So I'd say it was emulation of double exposure, or it could be a simulation
if exactly the same method was used as would be used in film.


also, a double exposure of the same scene will have less noise,

The vast majority of double exposures wouldn't be of exactly the same scene
otherwise they'd be little point in doing it, unless for HDR of course
which
is when you do take multiple shots of the same scene.

Once you have the CPU of the digital camera available a whole World of
possibilities opens up none of which other, than the classic
double-exposure, are easily available to film. For example with my Fujifilm cameras with a
single press of the shutter release, with WB/bracketing, ISO/bracketing or
Film Simulation/bracketing I can obtain three individual exposures of the
exact same scene with either different WB, ISO, or Film Sim all generated
via the in-camera CPU. You just cannot do that with film.

All of those digital multi-exposure techniques can actually be quite useful,
whereas, I consider the digital ‘double-exposure’ a novelty as it can be
done far better, and more deliberately in post processing, even on different
days, months, or even years. Not so with film, unless by some freak
accident.

Unless you intentionally set out to do a multiple in camera exposure.
And plan it properly.

Then it wouldn’t be a freak accident.


By definition. ;-)

--
PeterN

On 1/16/2019 5:06 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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


Thanks for your constructive comment. I like to experiment. Some of them
work, I'm the first to admit that most don't. But, that is one of the
ways we learn.

--
PeterN

On 1/16/2019 5:18 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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.

And I do not take that personally. I like to see a comment saying what a
person thinks is wrong with an image. I also recognize that taste varies
widely. e.g. i hate the taste of blended Scotch, but really enjoy a
single malt Irish.


--
PeterN

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.


--
PeterN

On 1/17/2019 11:52 AM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave 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. Most of us, who take other than
line prints, end up with shades of gray in there images.


--
PeterN