Multiple exposure

[plastii]

Hi there.

I was wondering how to achieve this type of result? I was trying to play with multiple exposure on my camera, but for some reason other than the first exposure the rest looks like "ghost" exposures.

Thanks

Here is the link: (third from the top)
adler planetarium | Chicago Wedding Photographer | Destination Wedding Photography

 

[Buckster]

On a tripod, in manual with shutter and aperture dialed in for proper exposure and used the same for each shot, you need to take separate exposures, then layer them in Photoshop (or other program that allows this method), then use masks to paint through each layer in the appropriate places to show what you want from each layer until you have the composite image you want.

 

[Markw]

This is a long one, but it shows you two different ways of doing it, as well as how to fix it if you mess up.



Mark

 

[plastii]

Thanks guys!

 

[Sbuxo]

Do it on film betterrrr.

 

[Buckster]

Do it on film betterrrr.

How so? Think about the masking you have to do - pulling it off on one frame of film is vastly more difficult than punching through layer masks in PS with multiple frames.

 

[Sbuxo]

Lol Buckster.
I hope that was sarcasm. ._.
You just do it all in camera If the camera is the type that must advance before the next frame, then just rewind a bit, advance and shoot.
Or stack the negatives.

 

[Buckster]

Lol Buckster.
I hope that was sarcasm. ._.
You just do it all in camera If the camera is the type that must advance before the next frame, then just rewind a bit, advance and shoot.
Or stack the negatives.

It's not that simple. If you don't do something to mask it, you'll have ghosting, where the things behind the people show up through the people in the final image.

I'm guessing you've never actually tried this technique, or you'd be well aware of the problems inherent in pulling it off. It's one of the things that digital shooting and processing have made so much easier that it's hard to describe. Getting it in camera on film was a huge pain in the behind!

 

[Sbuxo]

I have, but I usually shoot two frames with that in mind already.
Like a rose bush and then a girl's face or something like that. You have to be aware of the frames you're putting together.
Getting it in camera on film is just more work, and people are so lazy these days.

 

[Buckster]

I have, but I usually shoot two frames with that in mind already.
Like a rose bush and then a girl's face or something like that. You have to be aware of the frames you're putting together.
Getting it in camera on film is just more work, and people are so lazy these days.

Go to the link provided in the OP's first post and get a grip on what's being asked here.

Then show us all how to do that on a single frame of film.

Lazy indeed.

 

[Sbuxo]

woooow. rude much.
didn't even notice he put a link, i thought that was part of his signature.

 

[Buckster]

woooow. rude much.

Sometimes it takes a little extra to wake someone to their senses. You with us now?

(By the way... You're the one who inferred that people are lazy - after you were too lazy to read the post and see the link and fully comprehend the situation before blurting out incorrect info.)

didn't even notice he put a link, i thought that was part of his signature.

It happens. Can't say I haven't made the same mistake, not reading what was right there in front of me, then giving erroneous information because of it. Others have corrected me as well when that happens, which is good for everyone involved.

Now then, since you see what's really going on at this point, would you like to correct your earlier contentions, so that the OP and anyone else tuned in to this convo who doesn't know already won't get the wrong info?

It's okay to say you were mistaken you know.