same person appearing twice in a photo

[amir_vii]

<p>how does this technique work? I know that you got put the camera on a tripod, take a shot, and take another one without moving the camera, but my question how do you combine the two images on photoshop? what is this technique called? i want to see if there is a tutorial on it on the web or if someone here can help me out figure this out.<br>

I have attached an example photo of what i mean.<br>

http://www.nazeeabbassi.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/wine-1-web.jpg<br>

thanks in advance</p>

 

[jcuknz]

<p>At Christmas I had a mental block and couldn't get my camera give me a 10 second delayed release so I could press the trigger and get in the photo with my wife, for a greetings email to family far away.<br>

So I took a photo of the table and chairs either side with my wife in one side, then I sat down and she took a photo of me.<br>

Opening both shots I selected all, copied all, of one shot and pasted it as a fresh layer over the other shot. Camera was on tripod so no need to line up both shots, would be facilitated by reducing the density of the upper layer so one can 'see through it' to register the two layers.<br>

The next job was to delete the area on the top layer [ me without wife ] to reveal my wife sitting at the table by using the erase brush. With a low density it is possible to make a sort of soft disolve between the layers. I am using Paint Shop Pro which has these contrrols more readilly accessible it seems to me than Photoshop.<br>

There is nothing to stop you combining any number of people or multi versions of one person in a shot simply by taking them in the different positions and stacking them in editing as layers and erasing what you don't wnt from each layer in the stack. The advantage of working with each 'person' on a separate frame is that you can accurately position each relative to others and if you make a mistake you simply delete that layer and get a fresh one from the original photo/file and put it is the stack.<br>

I have worked with up to twenty layers for some creations, complicated but it can work fine.<br>

I am having trouble getting a file to open and will post an example if I can solve my problem.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Not the photo I first thought of but about five frames combined after being registered in the manner described above.</p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>There have been a couple of previous threads on this technique, right here on photo.net last summer:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00ZCDn<br>

http://www.photo.net/sports-photography-forum/00Z00b</p>

<p>HTH,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p> </p>

[richard_mudd]

<p>Amir,<br>

Take a look at Gavin Hoey's site. He desrcibes exactly how to do it using Photoshop and layers. I followed the instructions and it was pretty easy.<br>

Link:http://www.gavtrain.com/?p=12<br>

It is the most viewed and called "<strong>How to shoot an unusual self portrait</strong>."<br>

Hope this helps,<br>

Richard</p>

 

[jim_manganella]

<p>It's a multiple exposure setting on some cameras. My Nikon D3 has it. I can set it to shoot any number. You must use a tripod for the best results so the background stays set.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Jim, unfortunately, in-camera multiple exposures will not give the same effect as the masking technique described in the link to my old thread and Gavin Hoey's video. </p>

<p>The difference is that using the in-camera technique, the subjects look transparent / ghostly unless photographed on a totally black background. </p>

<p>Compare the appearance of the subject(s) in the image cited by the OP, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nazeeabbassi.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/wine-1-web.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.nazeeabbassi.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/wine-1-web.jpg</a>, to the appearance of the subject(s) in the examples of multiple in-camera exposures on sites such as this: http://sherrimeyer.com/Blog/?p=1072.</p>

<p>The masking technique eliminates this problem.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p> </p>

[ervinbacik]

<p>Here's my quick try, made not so long ago, following the above mentioned Gavin Hoeys tutorial.</p><div></div>

[jcuknz]

<p>Tom Mann .. thank you for your explanation of masking back in July ... I'd read about masks but only people suggesting their use and contented myself with adjustment layers. From your description the advantages of masks would seem to be very similar to those of adjustment layers. </p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Hi JC - I think that there may be a difference in terminology between PSP (the program I believe you use) and Photoshop, and this is causing a bit of confusion. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with PSP's nomenclature, so I'll have to address your question completely from the PS side of the aisle. ;-)</p>

<p>In PS terminology, adjustment layers (... at least, UN-masked adjustment layers) adjust the entire image at once. They are not localized to one area of the image. A list of all the adjustment layers in PS CS5 is shown in the attached screen grab...</p>

<div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Because adjustment layers operate on all pixels in the frame in the same way, ie, have no spatial selectivity, they can't be used for the core operation in compositing, ie, selecting individual objects and placing them on individual layers of the layer stack.</p>

<p>However, PS has two techniques that can be used to do this: (a) erasing the part of an image that you don't want, and (b) using a "layer mask" to select which parts of an image will be visible. The critical difference between them is that layer masks are non-destructive, where as erasing is destructive. Specifically, if you go too far when erasing, you have to pretty much start over with a fresh copy of the image. This is exactly what you stated in one of your earlier posts in this thread: <em>"...if you make a mistake you simply delete that layer and get a fresh one from the original photo/file and put it is the stack..."</em></p>

<p>Layer masks eliminate the need to "start over". You can endlessly tweak black areas to hide parts of the layer, and tweak the white areas to select those parts of the layer to be revealed and contribute to the final image. There are a lot of tutorials on this subject on the web, e.g., http://buildinternet.com/2009/03/quick-tip-use-layer-masks-to-erase-in-photoshop/ . I find this flexibility so important that I essentially stopped using the erase tool about 5 years ago, completely replacing it with layer masks. </p>

<p>So, to reply to your statement, <em>"...the advantages of masks would seem to be very similar to those of adjustment layers..."</em>, no, masks do very different things than adjustment layers.</p>

<p>I hope I interpreted your question correctly and didn't address an issue and technique that you were already familiar with.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

[jim_manganella]

<p>Tom - with all due respect you are absolutely wrong in regards to your comment about the images appearing ghostly using the multiple exposure setting on a Nikon D3.</p>

[jim_manganella]

<p>Mulitple Exposure Setting - Nikon</p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Jim, I suspect there is some sort of misunderstanding, so, can you either:</p>

<p>(a) Supply an example image (not on a black background); or,</p>

<p>(b) Explain how the firmware in the D3 knows what to mask to prevent this problem; or,</p>

<p>© Explain why hundreds of examples of in-camera multiple exposures on the web using Nikon equipment, and not on a black background all exhibit this problem, but your system does not? (e.g., <a rel="nofollow" href="http://sherrimeyer.com/Blog/?p=1072" target="_blank">http://sherrimeyer.com/Blog/?p=1072</a>, http://lbsphoto.smugmug.com/2008-Olympics/Beach-Volleyball/Multiple-Exposure/5725377_VcdqQf/3#353438822_9RvBR, http://glyndewisblog.com/2009/05/09/multiple-exposure-and-the-about-glyn-collage/, http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=604356, etc. ).</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>HI Jim -</p>

<p>Whoops - we were writing at the same time. </p>

<p>So, did you do any erasing or use layer masks to get that image? Also, my questions (b) and © still stand.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Ahh ... I just Googled you, and found this article that you wrote:<br /> http://www.dslrgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=187</p>

<p>in which you clearly state: <em>"...Now, you need select the eraser tool..."</em></p>

<p>The eraser tool does exactly what masking does, except with a slightly different user interface. As I explained in my earlier posts, it is essential to use one or the other of these to prevent ghosting.</p>

<p>You are taking multiple separate exposures (ie, producing one file per exposure). This can be done manually, with the self-timer, or, my guess is that you are probably using the mode that Nikon calls "interval timer mode" ( http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3S/D3SA5.HTM ) and confusing this with the "multiple exposure" mode.</p>

<p>I was discussing and using the meaning of in-camera "multiple exposure mode" as used by Nikon ( same link, just scroll down a bit further ), ie, one file / one image with multiple exposures automatically overlaid by the camera firmware. Using the latter mode, it is impossible to avoid ghosting unless you are shooting against a black background. This mode is essentially equivalent to shooting multiple exposures on film by not advancing the film -- ghosting was the hallmark of that film technique, as well (unless shot against a black background).</p>

<p>Tom M<br /> <br /></p>

[jim_manganella]

<p>I was only using that photo as a readily available example. That is not my photo or article. The point I'm trying to make is this same thing can be done without stacking and erasing. Take it away Tom, I'm done with it.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>a) It is against the terms of service to post any image on photo.net that you didn't take. Hence, I assumed that you took that shot.</p>

<p>b) If you had actually read the thread that you cited, you would have seen that the author of it stacked several exposures and erased parts of each layer, so your assertion is most definitely not supported by it.</p>

<p>Yes, I, agree that there is no reason to continue this discussion.</p>