# digital multi-exposure?



## panocho (Jul 4, 2007)

As far as I know, dSLR's don't have multi-exposure, since that's supposed to be done "after-camera".

First, is that so?
Second, if that's so, is there any way to really shoot multi-exposure with a digital? I don't want to post-process, I just would like to do exactly the same I did with film: multi-expose one frame -and after, only after, if I want, edit it with software.

Perhaps this is a silly question; it may be very easy, and sounds like it (just like different layers that you put together), but is that so? The thing is I am what here is being discussed as "shooting raw as a matter of fact"...


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 4, 2007)

panocho said:


> As far as I know, dSLR's don't have multi-exposure, since that's supposed to be done "after-camera".
> 
> First, is that so?



Well if you are shooting RAW, then I guess its theoretically possible - adding the bytes in the same position -  but it would require more processing just to do the addition. 



panocho said:


> Second, if that's so, is there any way to really shoot multi-exposure with a digital? I don't want to post-process, I just would like to do exactly the same I did with film: multi-expose one frame -and after, only after, if I want, edit it with software.



I am only familiar with my own cameras and I don't see that its possible.

I am interested why you think that film multi-exposure is conceptually much different than importing two successive exposures into the same file and reducing the opacity to 50% on the top one?


----------



## Alpha (Jul 4, 2007)

AFAIK, this is not possible on 35mm-sized digital SLR's. It is, however, possible, and quite common on MF digi backs. However, it only works for static subjects of course (think product photography).


----------



## droyz2000 (Jul 4, 2007)

The D200 has a feature that lets you take multiple exposures. I have tried it a few time and have been pretty pleased with the results.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 4, 2007)

At the very least, it doesn't appear to work on 35mm sized SLR's the same way it does on digi backs. All of the pros I've spoken to have absolutely raved about the quality increase with multiple exposure on their dbacks. Conversely, this is the first time I've even heard anyone mention multiple exposure on a smaller dslr.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 4, 2007)

Depends on the camera. Either way it's software based not hardware based, exactly identical to a very simple post processing method. Take two exposures and it's the same as putting 2 images on top of each other in photoshop with an opaque mask.


----------



## PhotoPhoenix (Jul 4, 2007)

droyz2000 said:


> The D200 has a feature that lets you take multiple exposures. I have tried it a few time and have been pretty pleased with the results.



yeap, i was going to say the same thing. the D200 has an awesome multiple exposure feature. i love it. if i didn't get the 30D i definitely would have gotten the D200..


----------



## panocho (Jul 5, 2007)

Great for the D200!

I don't have any problem in doing it at processing. Only don't want to turn the whole thing into an editing, since my aim is to multi-expose with the same conditions (limitations) as with in-camera multi-exposure on a frame of film.

As long as software won't affect the whole thing further than the simple putting the two images together, it's allright with me. But then the two images have to be sub-exposed (as one of the various shots on a multi-exposure film shot actually are) or render backgrounds overexposed, etc. That is, I just don't want software to do more than reproducing a multi-exposed frame. Otherwise, it's OK


----------



## Garbz (Jul 5, 2007)

Image editing software only puts out as much as you put in


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 6, 2007)

High-end Nikon's do it.


----------



## tr0gd0o0r (Jul 6, 2007)

Pentax's *istD can do up to 9 exposures on a single image (I don't know if this was carried through to later iterations though)


----------



## shorty6049 (Jul 6, 2007)

yeah, nikon adds a bunch of features to their dSLRs it seems, a lot of them kind of useless in my opinion (in camera color changes???) but multi exposures would be sorta neat to have i guess, but how often are you NOT going to go through some post processing on an image?


----------



## glaston (Jul 6, 2007)

I don't know if this is what you're talking about or not, but there's a technique called HDRI(High Dynamic Range Imaging).
I have some experience with 3D renderings and this is what the technique is for, but the end result is amazing as far as quality goes for any image.

You take a series of snapshots at multiple stops of exposure. 
You want them to be about 4 stops of exposure apart.
You then combine all the images using Photoshop CS2's built in module and you end up with a 32 bit float image.
These images contain ALOT of data, and being 32bit float they are able to display a much higher dynamic range of luminance values in the image. 

RAW conversions are 16 bit images, which is still considered low dynamic range.
By using HDR imaging, you end up with image data that describes the real world levels of light present in the scene.
This technique was developed by Industrial Light and Magic for the specific purpose of combining computer generated objects and characters with live footage. Since the image contains real world light values, they input that data into a 3D rendering application so that the lighting of the computer effects exactly matches the lighting of the live film footage.
It's pure genius!

ILM's format is known as OpenEXR, and photoshop cs2 can open and manipulate them. There's also a format called Radiance which photoshop can understand. The general one is .hdr.
You can find them all over the web.
If you've never seen one you should take a look at them.
The contrast and resolution of these images is mind blowing.
They can actually represent the entire dynamic range that the human eye is capable of. The problem is finding a display that can accomodate that.
I've never actually taken one on my own. I've worked with them alot in 3D applications though.

There's a free application for windows only called HDRshop.

Here's the explanation::


> How do I shoot an HDR image?
> Most digital cameras are only able to capture a limited dynamic range (the exposure setting determines which part of the total dynamic range will be captured). This is why HDR images are commonly created from photos of the same scene taken under different exposure levels.
> Here are some recommendations for taking different exposures for the HDR image:
> 
> ...


----------



## shorty6049 (Jul 6, 2007)

no , thats not what they're talking about, they;re talking about superimposing one image on top of a completely different image for artistic effect


----------



## panocho (Jul 7, 2007)

shorty6049 said:


> but how often are you NOT going to go through some post processing on an image?



me, VERY often (and feel free to call me whatever you feel like )

That was precisely the point in my asking. I just don't want that a 100% in-camera feature as multi-exposure turns up to be, at software, as rather a post-processing (BTW, I do know you could easily do that on the darkroom, but I'm just talking about doing it in-camera). Sometimes (many times) I just don't want to post-process. I have more fun and believe I learn more (am I wrong? so what, let me be wrong, please!) when I command myself to get the picture I want in-camera, not to have some data out of it that I later use on the computer.

If we were talking about film, I wouldn't say so at all, but in digital, processing has become such an easy and next-to-boundless work that I just don't want to fall systematically in it. I like trying to do things with the camera, not with the computer. I know for many of you I'm completely wrong, but that way i feel an image editor rather than a photographer. Sorry, that's the way I feel it.

For this reason I just wanted to now whether it was possible to just reproduce at "processing" an in-camera feature that my camera doesn't have. Anyway, it seems from your replies that it is possible.


----------



## EOS_JD (Jul 8, 2007)

My avatar is a multi exposure created in Photoshop. 4 images blended together with masks and took about 15 minutes.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 8, 2007)

No. Sorry but unless your camera has that feature that specifically allows for it (this goes for film cameras too) you can't. With film I guess there's the ability to make mechanical modifications to achieve this effect, but on digital you need software for it loaded into the firmware.

I know how you fell though. There's a very fine line between using photoshop for things that would normally be done in the darkroom (correct colour casts, and fix brightness / contrast) to becoming a graphic artist instead of  purely a photographer.


----------



## glaston (Jul 8, 2007)

> I know how you fell though. There's a very fine line between using photoshop for things that would normally be done in the darkroom (correct colour casts, and fix brightness / contrast) to becoming a graphic artist instead of purely a photographer.


 That line no longer exists. If you think about it though, it never really existed at all.
One of the strangest phenomenon is the "purist" photographer. I know that's not what you're advocating, you're talking more "minimalist".
All I'm saying is that if becoming better acquainted with new tools improves your work as an artist, then it's the right choice to make. Assuming you're looking to be a better artist. Anyone who thinks they can't or don't need to be a better artist doesn't really understand the artistic process.

I just think that being a photographer at this point in time, means being an "image editor" and a "Graphic Artist". It would've always meant that had there been such an easy and accessible way to edit images before the computer.
The reality was it took expensive equipment and chemicals that weren't nearly as easy to experiment with as a computer.
Now the equipment is cheaper, more accessible and the possibilities are limitless.

IMO, the best part of digital photography is that you CAN do things that weren't possible with traditional photography and film.
If you're serious about your skill, why limit yourself to only using Photoshop to do things that you would normally have done in the darkroom?


----------



## shorty6049 (Jul 8, 2007)

ok heres how you can do it, but not easily or efficiently..... set your exposure to bulb. then expose the first image VERY quickly with a black card over the lens, then go to the second image and do the same thing, this should work but like i said, its not going to be easy or efficient. i'll post an example after i try it


----------



## shorty6049 (Jul 8, 2007)

ok, here it is, looks terrible, i should have used a tripod or something, the problem with this technique is that the two things you're photographing need to be pretty close together or moving the camera while still exposing will generate a lot of extra noise..


----------



## EOS_JD (Jul 9, 2007)

shorty6049 said:


> ok, here it is, looks terrible, i should have used a tripod or something, the problem with this technique is that the two things you're photographing need to be pretty close together or moving the camera while still exposing will generate a lot of extra noise..


 
To do it this way a tripod is absolutely essential....
THe things you are shooting only need to be in the frame of the camera whilst shooting. They should probably be static as if they are moving, they will most likely move out of the frame and just be a blur (or may not even be exposed at all).

This is not a great way to shoot as you ahlso have to estimate exposure time yourself..... I don't really see what you did in your image?

Do it digitally - so much easier.....


----------



## panocho (Jul 10, 2007)

shorty6049 said:


> ok heres how you can do it, but not easily or efficiently..... set your exposure to bulb. then expose the first image VERY quickly with a black card over the lens, then go to the second image and do the same thing, this should work but like i said, its not going to be easy or efficient. i'll post an example after i try it



thanks for trying the suggestion, but I can't see how could I control exposure with that method. How will my hands now when to move 1/60 and when 1/250 -assuming they could move that fast, which they obviously can't.

Now, for long exposures, your method can be an option


----------



## panocho (Jul 10, 2007)

glaston said:


> That line no longer exists. If you think about it though, it never really existed at all.
> One of the strangest phenomenon is the "purist" photographer. I know that's not what you're advocating, you're talking more "minimalist".
> All I'm saying is that if becoming better acquainted with new tools improves your work as an artist, then it's the right choice to make. Assuming you're looking to be a better artist. Anyone who thinks they can't or don't need to be a better artist doesn't really understand the artistic process.



You yourself say it: assuming you're looking to be a better artist. I'm not an artist nor I aim to be one who uses photography as a means to produce artistry. I like making photographs with a camera. And in such case, I do think there's a clear line.
When the camera starts the job and editing just ends it, it's alright with me, as I perfectly assume editing as a neccesary extension of the camera's work (in fact, unless you have a polaroid, you need to continue after the camera to have any photo at all). Now, when the camera just appears at the beginning of a looong process that actually starts at a computer screen, I rather call that image editing.




glaston said:


> I just think that being a photographer at this point in time, means being an "image editor" and a "Graphic Artist". It would've always meant that had there been such an easy and accessible way to edit images before the computer.



I completely disagree, I'm afraid. First of all, with the connection between the word "photographer" and the word "artist". Second, with the connection between photographer and edition (understanding edition as a major process that implies a significant transformation of the image taken with the camera).



glaston said:


> The reality was it took expensive equipment and chemicals that weren't nearly as easy to experiment with as a computer.
> Now the equipment is cheaper, more accessible and the possibilities are limitless.



Again, you yourself say it. Software does not simply substitute a darkroom; it goes far beyond it. With a computer you can do things you could never have even tried at a darkroom. That is already image editing. Part of photography? If you like it so, I won't object, of course! But that doesn't make image editing a part of photography as such; it's just a part of your photos.
I think that something that somehow shows my point is that Photoshop is not really photography software, but Image editing software, which makes that (as it has often been commented here) many of its features go unnoticed and unused by most photographers, as I understand (please, correct me if I'm wrong).



glaston said:


> IMO, the best part of digital photography is that you CAN do things that weren't possible with traditional photography and film.



And does not precisely this draw a line between the two?


----------



## shorty6049 (Jul 10, 2007)

like i said, its not a good idea to do it the way i did, i just did it that way (very quickly by the way) to show that it IS possible, just really tough to get perfect ever...
eosjd- what i was doing in mine was a double exposure of 1- a window, and computer, and 2 a wall with a poster on it


----------

