Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Biweekly Shoot Out

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 17, 2004, 11:32 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 112
Default Seeing Double: Red Geranium

Barbara sent me to my Fuji S2 manual once again, this time to recall the multiple exposure thing. So this was done in-camera except for sharpening, cropping and re-sizing in photoshop. 1/4000 at f8 (film speed 100) with the blossom in focus, which was about two stops less than a spotmeter reading of the petals in order to keep the color from getting washed out by the second exposure, which was de-focused and 1/4000 at f5.6 with a polarizer to tone it down about 1-1/2 stops without increasing the depth of field by stopping down. Got that? I'm not sure I do either, but here it is:

toners is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 17, 2004, 12:23 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

Toners, that is stunning! The only thing I might wish for--and I bet you might too--is a little more detail in the focused flower.
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2004, 12:34 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

oh man.....all this multiple exposure stuff is making me want a camera that could do it!....

great shot of a classic idea
i would like a little more detail too...but it is very nice how it is
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2004, 7:41 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
monkey143's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,131
Default

Toners, this is breathtaking! Absolutely gorgeous!

Uh, oh, Vito - do you have camera envy?! Ireally am enjoying mine and think it was $1500 (gulp) well-spent.
monkey143 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2004, 7:49 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

Superb...I agree with Barbara as my overall eye wallows in the splendor as my specific eye keeps wandering.

What a great job!
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2004, 10:41 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

darn..yours was only twice the price of mine! i could handle that
just another birthday and a month or two of work! np
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2004, 11:05 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
oh man.....all this multiple exposure stuff is making me want a camera that could do it!....Sad
Actually, Vito, I think this could have been done better as two separate exposures combined later in an image editor. That way the blurred image could be overlayed on the sharp image, and made transparent where the sharp image needed to show through clearly, like the flower center and the petals.

Here's an interesting image, though, done with a triple exposure in-camera by nature photographer Pat O'Hara. At a workshop I attended last fall, he explained that it was a very windy day, so he made the best of it by making one image focused on the foreground flowers with as fast a shutter speed as he could, a second one stopped down for depth of field at a slow shutter speed that caught the wind motion of the flowers, and a third image defocused. He said that he used only one third of the normal exposure for each image. Click on the top image - "aolian poppies"

http://www.patohara.com/mindseye.htm
toners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2004, 11:24 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 397
Default

That's a beautiful picture!
Puck M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2004, 12:08 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

thanks for posting that! very cool
i have an idea for a shot now....i'm gonna try to do a multiple exposure...but instead of in camera (since i can't) do it on the pc....

use2-4 shots with 1/2-1/4 exposure for each one...and see if i can find a layer mode that will blend them nicely

that photo was inspirational thanks
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2004, 11:09 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

Toners, that photo isn't just beautiful. It also proves something--to me anyway--about the nature of photography. Plenty of people think photos should exactly replicate reality. This is a fine idea just as long as it isn't believed to be a natural photographic law, a notion that drives me absolutely mad. Pat O'Hara has proven that photography need not be realistic. His picture is reminscent of Impressionism, a fine style of painting that is just as valid in photography.
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:24 AM.