File :-(, x, )
Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
Multiple Exposures, They are tricky as fuck IMO
But they also intrigue me, if there ever felt like there were too many options in single exposure photography, Multiple exposures becomes exponentially more complicated.
If you shoot RAW you can process 2 pictures (or more) together in the D200 and D300, I may try that because using photoshop to do the same thing almost gives me too many choices....

How does the rest of /p/ do theirs? Any tips for me?
Pic related is the only real multiple exposure I have shot.
3 Exposures, 2 of trees, and one of a house.
I simply tried to balance out the highlights and shadows in the 3 shots.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution2400 dpiVertical Resolution2400 dpiImage Created2008:10:14 16:56:08Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1062Image Height1075
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Cool story bro.
Double exposures are usually very ugly, especially when seen manipulated in camera. Nothing but a waste of film nowadays.

Anyways, when I do it, I do it redscale. Usually, I expose the red correctly, and try to -1 EV on the normal side.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution2400 dpiVertical Resolution2400 dpiImage Created2008:09:17 19:42:29Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width649Image Height1000
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
The bad ones definitely outnumber the good ones.

I may shoot more of them on my film camera and leave them alone digitally. Now that I think about how bad highlights can get on digital.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Why are you interested in doing it this way?

The best double exposures I've ever seen were not over laid, but side by side.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/david_fisher/sets/72157605835343095/

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution200 dpiVertical Resolution200 dpiImage Created2008:06:26 22:37:45Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width800Image Height1000
>> Anonymous
>>280535

That set is pretty weak. It relies almost solely on sccreaming juxtaposition as loudly as possible.
>> Anonymous
>>280543

I don't know if you noticed, but one dude shot a roll, rewound, and passed it off to the other guy. It's not like one know what was going to be on both sides of each frame. Plus I didn't claim this to some master piece set.

Anyways, I haven't seen anything better than that, so that just supports my "double exposure=crap" rule.

Also, you seem to just be the anti-diptych type, so I don't think this way of doing double exposure would appeal to you anyway.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>280535
the Left and right shots hold no interest for me (not sure why), I want to layer shots.
>> Anonymous
>>280585

Do you want to layer them so they look like ass, like the first one? Or do you actually want to make a thoughful composition?

If it's the latter, you need to determine which image is the "base". I usually expose that one -1/3EV. The "ghost" is -1EV to -2/3EV. You don't have to do it this way, but you just need to break down your frames into those categories and expose accordingly. There's not really much to it. It's just that it's really easy to fuck up.
>> Anonymous
Vincent, stick to other stuff. There's no hope in double exposures.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>280588
Hmm good idea about the "base" layer

>>280777
while I tend to agree with you, when I can't take the time to go on photo trips I tend to mess around. And as i'm in the middle of classes I won't be going anywhere till christmas, so I'll settle with fucking around in my town for a while :)