Double exposure

[limr]

I wish I had done this intentionally but I didn't. I mean, I can tell that the second picture (the one that captured the couple) would have turned out the way I'd planned it, so I can be pleased about that, but the rest of it was just the result of my absent-mindedness in not advancing the film.



Lubitel 166B
Tri-X 400
Settings? Who remembers? Evening light...maybe 6-ish stops from Sunny 16? 1/30 and f5.6 maybe?

 

[Big Mike]

Worked out pretty well IMO. Happy accident.

 

[jbmyersphotography]

I like it!

 

[timor]

It looks like accidental double, but as such came out interestingly. Despite your doubts you should at least try planning for multiexposure, it's a real fun and very good exercise for "visualization" skill. I don't think your Double vision gees were that accidental.

I find utterly useless info about settings of the camera, to me, as a viewer of the picture. Much more fun would be to know on which zone the exposure was made. That would say something about the photographer intentions.

 

[limr]

It looks like accidental double, but as such came out interestingly. Despite your doubts you should at least try planning for multiexposure, it's a real fun and very good exercise for "visualization" skill. I don't think your Double vision gees were that accidental.

I find utterly useless info about settings of the camera, to me, as a viewer of the picture. Much more fun would be to know on which zone the exposure was made. That would say something about the photographer intentions.

I do want to make some intentional double exposures but this one was just a happy accident. I agree that it's a good exercise for visualization.

What do you mean by 'zone'? I know that sounds like a newbie question but my doubt is more about the word itself. I might know what you're referring to but don't know that it's called a 'zone.'

I put the settings because I always see people asking about them on these photo gallery threads. It was evening light, so I figured an EV of about 10, though the couple was in shadows so I probably went down to a 9 or so to expose for them, not the brighter just-past-sundown light behind them on the river. They were far enough away that I just set the focus to infinity.

 

[timor]

What do you mean by 'zone'? I know that sounds like a newbie question but my doubt is more about the word itself. I might know what you're referring to but don't know that it's called a 'zone.'

I put the settings because I always see people asking about them on these photo gallery threads. It was evening light, so I figured an EV of about 10, though the couple was in shadows so I probably went down to a 9 or so to expose for them, not the brighter just-past-sundown light behind them on the river. They were far enough away that I just set the focus to infinity.

Zone - like in Zone System ? Settings itself say nothing as we don't know the light conditions at the given moment. This would be described by number of foot-candles falling on your subject. Incident meter can show you that and calculate average exposure for zone 5. If your settings are for more exposure than that you expose for shadows, if above, for highlights. 1 stop more - exposure for zone 4, 2 more, zone 3 etc. From that I can see, if you succeeded in your vision.

In case of this picture I guess you just eyeballed the exposure. Good enough.

 

[limr]

Oh yeah, totally eyeballed it. I don't have a light meter on most of my cameras and the only external meter I have is an app on my phone, but I don't rely on it. I essentially think in Exposure Values and Sunny 16 rules.
Ultimate Exposure Computer

But this Zone System intrigues me! I know what I'll be reading about for the next few days...

 

[limr]

So...after a very brief skim of an explanation on Wikipedia, if I'm remembering correctly and interpreting the System correctly, I think is was Zone 5, maybe 4. Well, the wider scene was more of a 5 (and that was the first shot - a wider landscape shot with more sky, so I exposed more for highlights), but the couple was standing in the shadows under trees near the river, and I exposed for shadows, so that part of the second picture was probably Zone 4.

 

[timor]

So...after a very brief skim of an explanation on Wikipedia, if I'm remembering correctly and interpreting the System correctly, I think is was Zone 5, maybe 4. Well, the wider scene was more of a 5 (and that was the first shot - a wider landscape shot with more sky, so I exposed more for highlights), but the couple was standing in the shadows under trees near the river, and I exposed for shadows, so that part of the second picture was probably Zone 4.

People and trees look more like zone 2, just slight detail.
With incident meter like Sekonic L-398a (get this one, life gonna be easier) one cannot establish zones, we can only guess from experience. The same with reflected light built -in (cameras) meters, I don't trust them, I don't use them. L-398 would be very useful for your Konstruktor if you can use filters on it. (Most likely modification would be an easy task) ND for color or yellow, orange and red for b&w.

 

[gsgary]

This is probably the best double expose i have seen Mick Jagger
Google Image Result for http://vortexstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/3300_micj_jagger_rolling_stone.jpg

 

[Derrel]

Look in the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary under the term "lucky accident", and this picture is there. I just know it.

 

[limr]

Thanks, gents, for the kind words!

Thanks to timor for the tip about the Zone System.

gsgary: That picture is Bad.Ass.

 

[Ilovemycam]

I don't like it. Too confusing.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I like the double image of the slope and tree trunks, the sky seems somewhat splotchy and not quite as easy to make it out but it's pretty interesting for an accident. I've gotten my share of partial double exposures because I'm always trying to squeeze one more on the end of the roll (works with some of my cameras, I can push the film release and advance maybe one more time...). Of course I just try it if the last couple of shots are just playing around and worth experimenting on, not sure I've gotten anything all that interesting but sometimes it works.

Don't know that this would have worked so much in color but it does in B&W I think at this time of day, with the people and objects silhouetted.

 

[limr]

I agree, color wouldn't have worked.

The sky was really interesting that evening and I had a shot of some funky clouds over the mountain on the other side of the river. The next shot was the one of the couple and that's when I realized I hadn't advanced the film. The Lubitel is the only camera I have at the moment that allows me to take double exposures...no wait. I take that back. The Polaroid will allow double exposures. So I definitely want to try some intentional ones.

What's good about trying this with either of those cameras is that the big negatives will give me flexibility with cropping. I played with this image a bit and there are actually several different close crops that work well.