digital multi-exposure?

[EOS_JD]

My avatar is a multi exposure created in Photoshop. 4 images blended together with masks and took about 15 minutes.

 

[Garbz]

No. Sorry but unless your camera has that feature that specifically allows for it (this goes for film cameras too) you can't. With film I guess there's the ability to make mechanical modifications to achieve this effect, but on digital you need software for it loaded into the firmware.

I know how you fell though. There's a very fine line between using photoshop for things that would normally be done in the darkroom (correct colour casts, and fix brightness / contrast) to becoming a graphic artist instead of purely a photographer.

 

[glaston]

I know how you fell though. There's a very fine line between using photoshop for things that would normally be done in the darkroom (correct colour casts, and fix brightness / contrast) to becoming a graphic artist instead of purely a photographer.

That line no longer exists. If you think about it though, it never really existed at all.
One of the strangest phenomenon is the "purist" photographer. I know that's not what you're advocating, you're talking more "minimalist".
All I'm saying is that if becoming better acquainted with new tools improves your work as an artist, then it's the right choice to make. Assuming you're looking to be a better artist. Anyone who thinks they can't or don't need to be a better artist doesn't really understand the artistic process.

I just think that being a photographer at this point in time, means being an "image editor" and a "Graphic Artist". It would've always meant that had there been such an easy and accessible way to edit images before the computer.
The reality was it took expensive equipment and chemicals that weren't nearly as easy to experiment with as a computer.
Now the equipment is cheaper, more accessible and the possibilities are limitless.

IMO, the best part of digital photography is that you CAN do things that weren't possible with traditional photography and film.
If you're serious about your skill, why limit yourself to only using Photoshop to do things that you would normally have done in the darkroom?

 

[shorty6049]

ok heres how you can do it, but not easily or efficiently..... set your exposure to bulb. then expose the first image VERY quickly with a black card over the lens, then go to the second image and do the same thing, this should work but like i said, its not going to be easy or efficient. i'll post an example after i try it

 

[shorty6049]

ok, here it is, looks terrible, i should have used a tripod or something, the problem with this technique is that the two things you're photographing need to be pretty close together or moving the camera while still exposing will generate a lot of extra noise..

 

[EOS_JD]

ok, here it is, looks terrible, i should have used a tripod or something, the problem with this technique is that the two things you're photographing need to be pretty close together or moving the camera while still exposing will generate a lot of extra noise..

To do it this way a tripod is absolutely essential....
THe things you are shooting only need to be in the frame of the camera whilst shooting. They should probably be static as if they are moving, they will most likely move out of the frame and just be a blur (or may not even be exposed at all).

This is not a great way to shoot as you ahlso have to estimate exposure time yourself..... I don't really see what you did in your image?

Do it digitally - so much easier.....

 

[panocho]

ok heres how you can do it, but not easily or efficiently..... set your exposure to bulb. then expose the first image VERY quickly with a black card over the lens, then go to the second image and do the same thing, this should work but like i said, its not going to be easy or efficient. i'll post an example after i try it

thanks for trying the suggestion, but I can't see how could I control exposure with that method. How will my hands now when to move 1/60 and when 1/250 -assuming they could move that fast, which they obviously can't.

Now, for long exposures, your method can be an option

 

[panocho]

That line no longer exists. If you think about it though, it never really existed at all.
One of the strangest phenomenon is the "purist" photographer. I know that's not what you're advocating, you're talking more "minimalist".
All I'm saying is that if becoming better acquainted with new tools improves your work as an artist, then it's the right choice to make. Assuming you're looking to be a better artist. Anyone who thinks they can't or don't need to be a better artist doesn't really understand the artistic process.

You yourself say it: assuming you're looking to be a better artist. I'm not an artist nor I aim to be one who uses photography as a means to produce artistry. I like making photographs with a camera. And in such case, I do think there's a clear line.
When the camera starts the job and editing just ends it, it's alright with me, as I perfectly assume editing as a neccesary extension of the camera's work (in fact, unless you have a polaroid, you need to continue after the camera to have any photo at all). Now, when the camera just appears at the beginning of a looong process that actually starts at a computer screen, I rather call that image editing.

I just think that being a photographer at this point in time, means being an "image editor" and a "Graphic Artist". It would've always meant that had there been such an easy and accessible way to edit images before the computer.

I completely disagree, I'm afraid. First of all, with the connection between the word "photographer" and the word "artist". Second, with the connection between photographer and edition (understanding edition as a major process that implies a significant transformation of the image taken with the camera).

The reality was it took expensive equipment and chemicals that weren't nearly as easy to experiment with as a computer.
Now the equipment is cheaper, more accessible and the possibilities are limitless.

Again, you yourself say it. Software does not simply substitute a darkroom; it goes far beyond it. With a computer you can do things you could never have even tried at a darkroom. That is already image editing. Part of photography? If you like it so, I won't object, of course! But that doesn't make image editing a part of photography as such; it's just a part of your photos.
I think that something that somehow shows my point is that Photoshop is not really photography software, but Image editing software, which makes that (as it has often been commented here) many of its features go unnoticed and unused by most photographers, as I understand (please, correct me if I'm wrong).

IMO, the best part of digital photography is that you CAN do things that weren't possible with traditional photography and film.

And does not precisely this draw a line between the two?

 

[shorty6049]

like i said, its not a good idea to do it the way i did, i just did it that way (very quickly by the way) to show that it IS possible, just really tough to get perfect ever...
eosjd- what i was doing in mine was a double exposure of 1- a window, and computer, and 2 a wall with a poster on it