Double exposure possible with digital camera?

[cdteo]

Hello everyone,



I was wondering if I could get a double exposure from my Nikon D70. I like the effect but I have not heard if some one has tried this with a digital SLR any information would be glady appreciated



Thank you

[Mikefellh]

Should really ask that question in the Nikon SLR forum since it's specific to that camera.

Have to say though that if you ask MOST digicam users, they *prefer* to do multiple exposure techniques on the computer later where they have more control about how much blending, whether to blend together the entire picture, etc.

For instance, this page describes increasing dynamic range through blending of multiple exposures:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...blending.shtml

Someone wanting to buy a new camera was actually asking about multiple exposure, and it turns out that very few digicams actually do it...someone pointed out that a few Fujis does it. Again if you ask on the Nikon forum here, maybe someone has a suggestion.

[maflynn]

Just thinking how a digital camera works seems to preclude that ability. You snap a picture, it processes it down to a jpg and then writes it to the memory card.

Even if the camera had a feature for doing this, it seems to me you'd have better control and more flexability by mimicking this with Photoshop.

Mike

[Freefly]

It is Sooooo much easier doing it on Photoshop. I used to play with double/multi exposures years ago, with film. Very difficult! Now with digital you simply;

Put camera on tripod, take photo 1, move/do whatever you want, and take photo 2, being careful not to move the tripod. Then, in Photoshop or similar, open both images, and just clone the added bit from picture 2 over to picture 1. Should work!!!

Good luck and have fun!!!

[gruss]

There is in article in the current Popular Photography about double exposures, witha sidebar for digital. I don't know if I'd recommend the mag, but since its specific to your needs might want to pick up the issue

[ohenry]

DRebel and Photoshop

[BillDrew]

Do some reading on stitching panoramas - it is much the same technique

[EOS RT]

I'm the one who was asking about multiple exposures in digital cameras last week.

When I look at the two photos in this thread, and read how they were created, I cannot consider this to be photography. Yes, they are interesting images - but their entire existence is owed to devices and techniques which are not domains of photography - i.e. computers and software. One can enjoy and appreciate such images - and that's fine - but one cannot refer to it as photography. It is computer manipulation, which is a separate process from photography.

As Freefly mentioned, it is "Sooooo much easier doing (multiple exposures) on Photoshop." I have no doubt it is - if you know what you are doing. I'm sure I'm not alone, however, in NOT wanting things to be "sooooo easy"; in preferring the challenge of getting the proper exposures to produce a multiple exposure image using only the camera - as we did with film, where the exposures were exposed on the same frame. Surely, trying todo it this way, using only the camera, is more challenging photographically than is usinga software program, where every effect withinone's imagination (and beyond) is only a couple of clicks away.

All this simply to say that there are still some people who do not see Photoshop as the ultimate answer to everything; that there are still people who wish to do things more 'difficultly', because it affords them a greater fulfillment if/when successfully accomplished.

That said... in reference to 'maflynn'... I was fooling around with a Fuji S-7000 last week, and stumbled upon its multiple exposure option. I was able to test it quite well, despite the lack ofmemory card (does the camera have internal memory? I don't think so - but it saved a few images somehow). I took the multiple exposures in much the same way that one would take them with a 35 mm camera. There were options to keep or deleteas each layer was added, and the number of exposures to layer on seemed infinite. I have no idea how this is done with digital cameras - but I doknow that it is possible - I saw it with my own eyes, and was rather impressed.

No doubt other users of multi-exposure capable digital cameras can provide more detailed information than I, who only tried it for 15 minutes or so in a store.

[EOS RT]

EOS RT wrote:

sorry - clicked on 'quote' instead of 'edit'...

Can't we delete our own posts here?

[BillDrew]

EOS RT wrote:

I'm the one who was asking about multiple exposures in digital cameras last week.

When I look at the two photos in this thread, and read how they were created, I cannot consider this to be
photography. Yes, they are interesting images - but their entire existence is owed to devices and techniques which
are not domains of photography - i.e. computers and software. One can enjoy and appreciate such images - and
that's fine - but one cannot refer to it as photography. It is computer manipulation, which is a separate process from
photography.

As Freefly mentioned, it is "Sooooo much easier doing (multiple exposures) on Photoshop." I have no doubt it is -
if you know what you are doing. I'm sure I'm not alone, however, in NOT wanting things to be "sooooo easy"; in
preferring the challenge of getting the proper exposures to produce a multiple exposure image using only the camera
- as we did with film, where the exposures were exposed on the same frame. Surely, trying to do it this way, using
only the camera, is more challenging photographically than is using a software program, where every effect
within one's imagination (and beyond) is only a couple of clicks away.

All this simply to say that there are still some people who
do not see Photoshop as the ultimate answer to everything;
that there are still people who wish to do things more 'difficultly', because it affords them a greate
fulfillment if/when successfully accomplished.
...

Nothing really wrong with what you are trying to do, but it is a bit like rebuilding an old farm tractor with a turbine engine
(http://www.marvinbaumann.com/turbineight.html). Interesting, but why go to all that work. I admire folks who do that sort of thing, but don't have the ambition to do it myself.

I can understand your feelings about PhotoShop - I felt the same way about processing chemical photographs. Didn't
enjoy working in a darkroom at all, so I didn't do it. Of course that meant my options with chemical photography was
either limited or very expensive. Same situation with digital photography, but I don't mind doing the digital
processing of my images.

You are correct that if you don't get the exposure, composition, timing, ... right while using the camera, no
amount of processing (chemical or digital) will result in a great photo. A point that does seem to be missed more
often with digital than chemical photography.