Multiple Exposure Help - D7000

[480sparky47 47]

Unless you create and work with masks while shooting, which is a chore, especially for complex masking.

Still won't work. If you use a black mask to create a un-exposed portion of one image, that part will simply be black, and any other image you try to impose on that area simply is rendered underexposed. The camera combines the subject of the second exposure with black. It doesn't create a transparent layer.

You might be able to over-expose the subject, but that will create other issues.

 

[brian_f2.8]

Basically, your in-camera ability simply 'stacks' the images together, much like viewing 2 or 3 slides together. You can't mask or do 'layers' like you can in post.

For instance, if you're taking photos of a bride in her white dress at the beach, and you want to combine a wide-angle, full-length shot of the entire dress with a close-up of the bride with her flowers in the upper corner, the blue sky & clouds in the first shot will appear right along with the bust shot in the second.

Thank you this is what kind of help Im looking for. If you get time go on fstoppers and check out the recent video of someone doing some multiple exposure photography. She provides a few examples and Im wondering if they were all done in camera on in PS. Thanks again for your help.

 

[brian_f2.8]

this is a photo forum not a graphics forum.

Doh! In part it is.
Graphics Programs and Photo Gallery
A place to show off your post processing skills, with explanations on how you achieved the results, including specialty images such as HDR. Share information and techniques using Adobe's Photoshop and other popular graphics software.

No kidding, Im trying to make a point - Im asking for photo help.

 

[brian_f2.8]

The reason why Im trying to do is is because when I shoot for a press wire, you can't submit photoshop'd images. I have some ideas I would like to try. Id like to be able to to perfect this technique because all images must be photos not illustrations.

 

[480sparky47 47]

Google 'compositing images'. (It has nothing to do with leaves and coffee grounds in a pile in your back yard!)

 

[Buckster]

Unless you create and work with masks while shooting, which is a chore, especially for complex masking.

Still won't work. If you use a black mask to create a un-exposed portion of one image, that part will simply be black, and any other image you try to impose on that area simply is rendered underexposed. The camera combines the subject of the second exposure with black. It doesn't create a transparent layer.

You might be able to over-expose the subject, but that will create other issues.

When using masks, you expose properly for each exposure as though it were a single shot, not as a calculated cumulative exposure value, using say, half the exposure value for each shot.

 

[brian_f2.8]

thanks again add it to my tab

 

[brian_f2.8]

Unless you create and work with masks while shooting, which is a chore, especially for complex masking.

Still won't work. If you use a black mask to create a un-exposed portion of one image, that part will simply be black, and any other image you try to impose on that area simply is rendered underexposed. The camera combines the subject of the second exposure with black. It doesn't create a transparent layer.

You might be able to over-expose the subject, but that will create other issues.

When using masks, you expose properly for each exposure as though it were a single shot, not as a calculated cumulative exposure value, using say, half the exposure value for each shot.

if you could, please go take some images and post them and how you did

 

[480sparky47 47]

When using masks, you expose properly for each exposure as though it were a single shot, not as a calculated cumulative exposure value, using say, half the exposure value for each shot.

If you shoot with half the frame covered by a black mask, any subsequent image superimposed on that area will be rendered underexposed.

I set my d7000 up at my computer screen and metered it, using Manual mode. I set the camera for a 2-shot ME, and covered the left half of the frame for the first exposure.

Result:

The left side is underexposed.

 

[brian_f2.8]

I'm on the same page but how is this done

 

[Buckster]

Still won't work. If you use a black mask to create a un-exposed portion of one image, that part will simply be black, and any other image you try to impose on that area simply is rendered underexposed. The camera combines the subject of the second exposure with black. It doesn't create a transparent layer.

You might be able to over-expose the subject, but that will create other issues.

When using masks, you expose properly for each exposure as though it were a single shot, not as a calculated cumulative exposure value, using say, half the exposure value for each shot.

if you could, please go take some images and post them and how you did

My Canon DSLRs don't have the capability to do multiple exposures in-camera, but here's one from my film days that I have handy, and it should apply equally to your situation:

First, I masked off half the lens. Then I shot the frame, exposing properly, just as though I were taking a single shot. If I'd left it at that, I'd have gotten a photo that's half black (unexposed) and half a Statue of Liberty from the waist up.

Instead, I then flipped the mask to mask off the other half of the lens, reset the shutter without moving the film, flipped the camera 180 degrees, and took the second shot, exposing the side that was still all black (unexposed).

The result is as you see above.

There's a little ghosting in the middle because my mask wasn't perfect and my aperture was not as tight as it could have been.

We did the same with partial masks, where you cut out a shape from the black mask, say a circle, star, keyhole or other shape, then have a corresponding shape as the other mask, inverted. So, one mask has a hole in it to shoot through, the corresponding mask has a black dot on it so that you can shoot everything but. Through those methods, we'd double-expose to put photos of couples in champaign glasses and so on.

You could cut and mask several shapes, do several exposures, and by being very creative and very carefully masking, you could do quite a bit with them, but as I said earlier, it was a real chore, and you never knew for sure how well it was going to work back in the film days until you'd gotten it developed.

 

[480sparky47 47]

I'm on the same page but how is this done

Definitely done in post using layers and masks.

 

[brian_f2.8]

Or this, if its in PS, I'm all set but in camera how do you get these clean cuts n mask. This is where I'm lost.

 

[Buckster]

When using masks, you expose properly for each exposure as though it were a single shot, not as a calculated cumulative exposure value, using say, half the exposure value for each shot.

If you shoot with half the frame covered by a black mask, any subsequent image superimposed on that area will be rendered underexposed.

I set my d7000 up at my computer screen and metered it, using Manual mode. I set the camera for a 2-shot ME, and covered the left half of the frame for the first exposure.

Result:

The left side is underexposed.

So, on the D7000, you can't control the exposure while in multiple-exposure mode? That's a bummer, if true.

 

[480sparky47 47]

My Canon DSLRs don't have the capability to do multiple exposures in-camera, but here's one from my film days that I have handy, and it should apply equally to your situation:

First, I masked off half the lens. Then I shot the frame, exposing properly, just as though I were taking a single shot. If I'd left it at that, I'd have gotten a photo that's half black (unexposed) and half a Statue of Liberty from the waist up.

Instead, I then flipped the mask to mask off the other half of the lens, reset the shutter without moving the film, flipped the camera 180 degrees, and took the second shot, exposing the side that was still all black (unexposed).

The result is as you see above.

There's a little ghosting in the middle because my mask wasn't perfect and my aperture was not as tight as it could have been.

We did the same with partial masks, where you cut out a shape from the black mask, say a circle, star, keyhole or other shape, then have a corresponding shape as the other mask, inverted. So, one mask has a hole in it to shoot through, the corresponding mask has a black dot on it so that you can shoot everything but. Through those methods, we'd double-expose to put photos of couples in champaign glasses and so on.

You could cut and mask several shapes, do several exposures, and by being very creative and very carefully masking, you could do quite a bit with them, but as I said earlier, it was a real chore, and you never knew for sure how well it was going to work back in the film days until you'd gotten it developed.

It works for film, but not for digital.