Digital SLR's and double exposure

[kyle baker]

Just a question out of sheer curiosity. Can DSLR's shoot an equivilant of a

double exposure? or is it just expected that you do any such things post

shooting with photoshop or other programs? I have never so much as even

held a DSLR, but was thinking if they could, it could be good practice for film.

[phule]

Nikon D2X

 

That's it.

[godfrey]

Didn't someone ask this question just last week?

 

Photoshop or the Nikon D2X are your choices. But why would you want to shoot double

exposures in the camera when it's SO much easier to composite in Photoshop?

 

Godfrey

[akikana]

Pentax *istD offers multiple exposure funtionality

[phule]

<< Pentax *istD offers multiple exposure funtionality >>

 

I'm not sure how I missed that, but indeed, dpreview.com mentions this. I'm surprised they didn't go into any more detail than what's on page 6:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistd/page6.asp

 

Thank you Guy for pointing that out.

[steven_clark]

The effect is probably still essentially identical to compositing in photoshop however.

[michael focus97.com lee]

It's kind of like the cameras that can shoot monochrome: why do it when you can easily work it in photoshop? Shoot in B&W with digital, and you lose the opportunity to capture color (at least with the 20D). Shoot the scenes, manipulate in Photoshop, and preserve the originals for decades. You may just want them later.

[Hamor Photography]

Some photo contests that accept digital submissions require that the original unretouched

or lightly-retouched image get submitted. So, compositing two photos into a double

exposure in Photoshop would constitute major retouching while a camera-generated

double exposure would constitute an unretouched image.

[steve_swinehart]

"But why would you want to shoot double exposures in the camera when it's SO much easier to composite in Photoshop?"

 

You don't do architectural photography do you? If you did, you'd understand how invaluable multiple exposure capability is, and how you can't get the same results in Photoshop.

 

I would also challenge the assertion that "..it's so much easier in Photoshop." It's not. Interior photos often take 8-10 exposures, and I've had shots with 50 separate exposures - composite those in 10 minutes - the amount of time it took for the multiple exposures.

[michael focus97.com lee]

"<i>If you did, you'd understand how invaluable multiple exposure capability is, and how you can't get the same results in Photoshop.</i>" ... I'm curious; can you post something to show why your multiple exposure method can't be reproduced in PS?

[phule]

<< You don't do architectural photography do you? >>

 

What makes interior photography unique that you have to shoot that many exposures on a single frame?

[alvinyap]

Could he be shooting in mixed/multiple lighting situation? I believe I read a bit about this in Gerry Kopelow's book about professional architectural photography. Or was it another book? Lots of these in the public library.

 

I'd be interested to hear the reason as I like architectural photography too!

 

Alvin

[steve_swinehart]

Been away for awhile on a trip. Hope this explains the comment.

I'll give you an example of how interior shots are done and why multiple exposures are so important.

 

I did the interior of the USAF Safety Command Building for the architect.

 

Let's take the theatre for example. The theatre had fluorescent wall wash lighting, fluorescent overhead lighting, dimmable overhead incandescent lighting, incandescent stage lighting directed at a podium, and a projector screen.

 

To really help setup the shot and do something with the large white projector screen, I got a slide of the building to project onto the screen during the photo exposure sequence.

 

Starting with the stage and all the other lights off I shot the stage lighting on the podium. This was incandescent and filtered only slightly and not totally color corrected because I like to see the incandescent light color a bit in photos as it warms up the scene.

 

The incandescent lights took two exposure because I was shooting 160 ISO daylight balanced negative film rated at ISO 100 and the aperture at f/32. It's easier to balance a whole lot of light sources to daylight rather than 3200 K - especially fluorescent lights. It's easier to match the 100 ISO Polaroid test shots to ISO 100 film than figure the exposure difference, and Portra 160 likes a bit of over exposure in my experience.

 

Turn off the incandescent stage lights. Turn on the projector, and shoot the image on the projector screen. This took 4 exposures because I filtered the 3200 K projector lamp light to daylight so the image appeared correct and the white clouds in the photo weren't tinted orange from the projector lamp.

 

Turn off the projector and turn on the wall wash lights. One exposure for the fluorescent wall wash lights filtered to daylight. Leave the wall wash lights on and turn on the fluorescent overhead lights. Two exposures filtered to daylight. This gives the walls three exposures and the rest of the room two exposures. It makes the walls slightly lighter and makes the appearance of the room larger plus shows that there are wall wash lights.

 

Lastly, turn off all fluorescents and turn on the overhead incandescent lights. Give them two exposures slightly filtered so that they appear in the photo, but aren't burned out white. Without photographing those lights, you have black holes in the ceiling with no detail.

 

So, there you have an interior shot with different light sources built-up from multiple exposures. With an assistant, this shot took about 6 test Polaroids to figure the correct sequence of lights on/off, checking color balance etc.

 

The final exposure took about 10 minutes, with the assistant in-charge of managing the lights on/off. Waiting for him to get out of the photo between flipping light switches was the majority of the time.

 

Now, wasn't that easy? How did I know it would come out? If you can make it look good on a Polaroid, the final result is about 10x better.

 

The negative is easy to print as all of the exposures have been individually managed and there really is no dodging / burning required.

[michael focus97.com lee]

That's a lot of explanation. But, it seems that shot could be done digitally by taking one RAW shot, making as many layers as needed to get the right white balance in each area of the room (adjusting each layer's color temp.), then flatten the layers. For me, that's easier, and it requires no assistant. I would argue about detail w/ 8MP, but the Imacon 22MP digi-backs have huge resolution, and much better dynamic range, so that wouldn't be a problem either.

 

I suppose it's about what you're comfortable with...

[santa1]

just another "you can't do that in digital" that would, in fact, involve a single exposure and

then a few minutes on the computer instead of all those multiple exposures that have to

be developed.

[phule]

I missed another Digital SLR with multiple exposure mode: The Fuji S3

[misty_coss]

I just wanted to answer to one thing that people were saying. They were asking why would you want to use a camera and not photoshop. Well some of us can either get a camera or get photo shop its one or the other.

[marek_pitera1]

<p>(I know it's an old thread). Misty, those than cann't afford Photoshop can get 95% of its functionality (including being able to combine separate digital exposures) with the completely free program GIMP.</p>