Multiple exposures - help

[Charles Choi]

Hi guys, I've recently become an owner of a new DSLR.

I've been experimenting with multiple exposures, without much luck.

My first series of photos were done with a shoe on a plain surface. I exposed five times, with the shoe in a different position (accross) the frame each time.

My problem comes when the camera captures the shoe, but then effectively replaces the image of the shoe with the colour of the plane surface. Ultimately, the first image becomes extremely faint.

Anyone have any ideas to maintain the capture of the first image so that it's only relatively weaker to the last (and not so faint)?

 

[Rob]

Use separate exposures and then combine them in photoshop, or use more shoes!

Rob

 

[Big Mike]

I didn't know that there was any Digital SLR that would allow multiple exposures....like Rob said, just combine the images with Photoshop.

 

[Rob]

You could of course splice negatives together if you're still film. Hertz has probably done this! :hertz:

 

[gravespinner]

What type of camera are you using? I, also, was under the impression that digital multiple exposures were post processing only.

 

[Charles Choi]

Hey guys, thanks for all your responses. I'm currently using a Pentax *ist D, with a Sigma 18-200mm, and Sigma EF-500 flashgun.

If the general consensus is post-process, can anyone confirm if Photoshop 7.0 can handle this multiple exposure composition? This is the only version I have (can't afford the latest).

However, I have just downloaded a fully functional Demo version of Pain Shop Pro 10 - anyone know if I can do the same composition on Paint Shop Pro 10? I've only got 30 days with this demo though...

 

[Big Mike]

Photoshop 7, I'm quite sure, will allow you to do this.

Simply copy & paste one photo over another. They will each be on a separate layer. From there, all you need to do is erase or mask off the parts that you want to show though on each layer.

Alternatively, you could select & cut out, only the multiple versions of the subject from each image and put them into the base image...again, each would be it's own layer.

The trick to making it look good is to make the cut outs (or masks) very precise but with not too hard of an edge.

I'm sure you could search the internet for many helpful tutorials on how to do this.

 

[woodsac]

Here's a recent thread about this exact thing. There is a link in the final post with some good info :thumbup:

 

[darich]

Mike
You're right about images being in seperate layers however for multiple exposures i think the best way may be to use the "opacity".
There is a slider in the layer control box that controls the opacity of each layer varying from 100% (totally opaque) to 0% (totally see through).

I think this may be a better approach for multiple exposures than cutting and pasting although your method may be what he's after.

 

[Big Mike]

Well, lowering the opacity would be helpful if you were moving & placing the layers. But in the final image, I doubt you would want to see though the subject to the background. That's what we were trying to avoid in the first place.

 

[Jeff Canes]

The Opacity option depends on the look your going. With the old in camera method of making MEs the results will have a transparent look to them.

 

[uberben]

Are you looking for something like this???? both were done using the lasso and copy paste to a base layer. Then using the eraser and healing brush to touch it up.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

You could of course splice negatives together if you're still film. Hertz has probably done this! :hertz:

No need - do it on one neg using mattes.

 

[Mumfandc]

The "Overlay" mode in the layers palette mimics what would happen if you take two film slides and stuck them together.

I don't think sliding down the opacity gives the effect of film double-exposures.