Another one to figure out how it's done

Another Image I produced for a client a few years ago. How did I do it :mrgreen: :mrgreen: Philip.

 

Well, if it was post-processed to look like that, i would say clone brush. But that doesn't look to be it. It looks like you set up a remote strobe, somewhere to the right on a remote trigger, set the camera for bulb/a very long exposure, took the shot, moved to each position and fired the flash.

Am I close?

Or did you find a model and make 15 clones?

 

Sorry "midget patrol" not even close, but thanks for trying.

 

Did you use layers the same as I did in this http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54139

 

Sorry "Hoppy" nothing like that. A completely different method. Philip

 

Not a clue here but it is very cool!! : )

 

Thanks "photo gal" for your comments. I'm just trying to get people to think about a shot, and how to do it prior to Digital. So many want to complicate an image, when so often the method is so simple.

 

It seems to be the exact same pic repeated several times, and you obviously used film, not digital.
So I'm goin to guess you used a negative and printed it several times in the same paper, just moving it around?

 

Getting close [Ghastly] Krueger, but if you think it through, it couldn't be done from a negative...I'm just about to post a similar one but a different method. Have a look in five minutes.

 

You made an interneg from several exposures of one slide then printed from the neg?

 

No "Mohain" that's not how i did it. Thanks for trying.

 

you are able to control the opacity when and where you want to it looks like.

double exposure / with long exposures on the doubles.

with light painting is my guess....