# Ghost city



## limr (Jan 20, 2014)

My first ever *intentional *double exposure. What do we think?


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 20, 2014)

Double or triple exposure?


----------



## limr (Jan 20, 2014)

Just a double. It was the last frame on the roll.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 20, 2014)

The bottom buildings are obvious. Then there's the "ghost like" tall building, but what got me was the other object that looks like it could be a church roof but lying down. Very confusing


----------



## tirediron (Jan 20, 2014)

Very "Metropolis"!  Nicely done.


----------



## weepete (Jan 20, 2014)

Not bad, I quite like it. I would have liked it more if the perspective was more similar between the exposures but still quite cool


----------



## limr (Jan 20, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> The bottom buildings are obvious. Then there's the "ghost like" tall building, but what got me was the other object that looks like it could be a church roof but lying down. Very confusing



The building that looks like a church is actually the top of a pre-war apartment building. The bottom half came out a bit more jumbled than I thought it would, but then again, I wasn't quite sure what to expect. I do quite like the overlap and confusion, actually, because it reminds me of how the city is - just a big jumble of structures on top of/next to/under each other. And at the same time, there's so many ghosts of places that aren't there anymore. I didn't intend the shot to be like that, but when I saw how it came out, that's the first thing I thought of.



tirediron said:


> Very "Metropolis"!  Nicely done.



Thanks!



weepete said:


> Not bad, I quite like it. I would have liked it more if the perspective was more similar between the exposures but still quite cool



I would have liked that too, or at least have the top a little bit higher. The first shot was of the Chrysler Building from street level and you can't see the top at all. The second picture was taken from the 20th floor of a building that has a view of the top of the Chrysler. Maybe I can try something similar with the second shot instead being a block or two away where I can see the top and the size and perspective will match a bit more.

Still, I am really pleased with it for a first effort


----------



## wyogirl (Jan 20, 2014)

Very cool.  I like it a lot.


----------



## Tiller (Jan 20, 2014)

This reminds me of those 9/11 twin towers shots. I think I might enjoy a juxtaposition moreso here. Maybe old-timey buildings and then the modern metropolis.


----------



## manicmike (Jan 20, 2014)

I like it.


----------



## oldhippy (Jan 20, 2014)

Kinda like, What could have been.  Just me.  Ed


----------



## annamaria (Jan 20, 2014)

I like it. It almost has a twilight zone feel to it.


----------



## limr (Jan 20, 2014)

Thanks everyone!



Tiller said:


> This reminds me of those 9/11 twin towers shots. I think I might enjoy a juxtaposition moreso here. Maybe *old-timey buildings and then the modern metropolis*.



That's a good idea. I'll have to try that next time I'm down in the city.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 20, 2014)

The title "Once there were giants..." suggests itself to me.  I find the juxtaposition quite evocative.


----------



## limr (Jan 20, 2014)

pgriz said:


> The title "Once there were giants..." suggests itself to me.  I find the juxtaposition quite evocative.



Great name!


----------



## charlie76 (Jan 21, 2014)

Neat double exposure...but compositionally lacking IMO.


----------



## limr (Jan 21, 2014)

charlie76 said:


> Neat double exposure...but compositionally lacking IMO.



Thanks for the comment. I'm curious to know what you think is lacking. 

And for the record, there seems to be no good way of asking that without sounding defensive, so I'll just say explicitly that I'm not being defensive, but just asking for some elaboration so I can have more specific feedback.


----------



## charlie76 (Jan 21, 2014)

Sure of course...no need to explain!! So IMO...the two exposures have a disconnect aesthetically...besides of course the fact that they are both cityscapes. I just don't see a complete balanced composition...lots of blank space up top...possibly needs to be straightened, as well.  I find myself kinda tilting my head to the left as I look at it. Seems like the main subject is the tallest building...but the off-center placement is kinda awkward to me. But of course this is strictly my opinion. There's plenty if stuff I like about the image as well!!


----------



## limr (Jan 21, 2014)

Thanks for the feedback! More things to chew on before I attempt my next one (assuming that next one will be intentional   )


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 22, 2014)

That's a really cool effect. Good title too.


----------



## limr (Jan 22, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> That's a really cool effect. Good title too.



Thank you much!


----------



## terri (Jan 23, 2014)

I missed this one before.    I've read the comments and appreciate the  points.   Personally, I think it's kickin'!        Don't know how to  escape having "blending" issues created, when shooting from such different perspectives (one shot from street level and one from the 20th floor), but I think you got the desired "ghosting" effect - nailed it pretty well, really.   That was a clever approach.  

Nice one, Lenny!   Hope to see another one if you try it again.   :thumbup:


----------



## limr (Jan 24, 2014)

Thanks, terri! There are a couple of things I might have done a few things differently (like get the spire of the building a bit higher in the frame) but I'm encouraged that this shot came out very much like I envisioned it, so yeah, I'll be doing some more


----------



## timor (Jan 24, 2014)

More, try more. Double exposure is a fascinating game (but only on film), exercises memory, unlocks magic not visible otherwise. It is a game for people with imagination and will to break all possible "rules". (Do we have rules ?)


----------



## Dagwood56 (Jan 24, 2014)

Excellent! Nicely done.


----------



## limr (Jan 24, 2014)

Dagwood56 said:


> Excellent! Nicely done.



Thanks!



timor said:


> More, try more. Double exposure is a fascinating game (but only on film), exercises memory, unlocks magic not visible otherwise. It is a game for people with imagination and will to break all possible "rules". (*Do we have rules ?*)



Maybe the only rule is to break the rules?


----------

