Mutli-exposure
Posted 06/07/2007 - 13:26
Link
Just a matter of research and development -- with a bit less on the research?
Actually, I suppose there are fewer cases where rapid fire multi-exposure would come into use than a slower, methodical and well laid out series of photos would.
Probably a toss of the coin really as to which method was chosen although there are surely technical aspects that limit what can be done with the space, speed and costs available. (I wont try to guess on those areas).
Anyway, each photo is processed on top of the buffered image. So you're going to have some lag between each shot. But a second is all it takes? I remember trying this with the istD. Ugh! I would be happy with a second.
You'd get much better control doing such merges yourself in Photoshop or similar program anyway. I generally have not been happy with the in-camera blending. (although probably technically consistent with multi-exposure on film??)
Actually, I suppose there are fewer cases where rapid fire multi-exposure would come into use than a slower, methodical and well laid out series of photos would.
Probably a toss of the coin really as to which method was chosen although there are surely technical aspects that limit what can be done with the space, speed and costs available. (I wont try to guess on those areas).
Anyway, each photo is processed on top of the buffered image. So you're going to have some lag between each shot. But a second is all it takes? I remember trying this with the istD. Ugh! I would be happy with a second.
You'd get much better control doing such merges yourself in Photoshop or similar program anyway. I generally have not been happy with the in-camera blending. (although probably technically consistent with multi-exposure on film??)
Posted 06/07/2007 - 18:19
Link
Quote:
Just a matter of research and development -- with a bit less on the research?
Actually, I suppose there are fewer cases where rapid fire multi-exposure would come into use than a slower, methodical and well laid out series of photos would.
Probably a toss of the coin really as to which method was chosen although there are surely technical aspects that limit what can be done with the space, speed and costs available. (I wont try to guess on those areas).
Anyway, each photo is processed on top of the buffered image. So you're going to have some lag between each shot. But a second is all it takes? I remember trying this with the istD. Ugh! I would be happy with a second.
You'd get much better control doing such merges yourself in Photoshop or similar program anyway. I generally have not been happy with the in-camera blending. (although probably technically consistent with multi-exposure on film??)
I guess that is what I'll do. Falling, spinning moving objects need a fast shutter speed.
Just a matter of research and development -- with a bit less on the research?
Actually, I suppose there are fewer cases where rapid fire multi-exposure would come into use than a slower, methodical and well laid out series of photos would.
Probably a toss of the coin really as to which method was chosen although there are surely technical aspects that limit what can be done with the space, speed and costs available. (I wont try to guess on those areas).
Anyway, each photo is processed on top of the buffered image. So you're going to have some lag between each shot. But a second is all it takes? I remember trying this with the istD. Ugh! I would be happy with a second.
You'd get much better control doing such merges yourself in Photoshop or similar program anyway. I generally have not been happy with the in-camera blending. (although probably technically consistent with multi-exposure on film??)
Posted 06/07/2007 - 18:46
Link
What type of objects? Is this for sports, or small studio work?
For small studio/desktop work, you may want to look at electronic flash triggers that will fire on queue or laser triggered, etc... Just keep the shutter open (in a dark room) and flash when required. The object will only show up where/when the flash triggers.
For sports or outdoors, of course, the rapid fire shutter release, and merging after the fact is the way to go.
For small studio/desktop work, you may want to look at electronic flash triggers that will fire on queue or laser triggered, etc... Just keep the shutter open (in a dark room) and flash when required. The object will only show up where/when the flash triggers.
For sports or outdoors, of course, the rapid fire shutter release, and merging after the fact is the way to go.
Posted 06/07/2007 - 21:52
Link
Quote:
What type of objects? Is this for sports, or small studio work?
For small studio/desktop work, you may want to look at electronic flash triggers that will fire on queue or laser triggered, etc... Just keep the shutter open (in a dark room) and flash when required. The object will only show up where/when the flash triggers.
For sports or outdoors, of course, the rapid fire shutter release, and merging after the fact is the way to go.
Fast action outdoors, so I guess PP is the only option. I wanted to save a little time and use the in camera multi-exposure, but I guess it is more of a marketing gimmick.
What type of objects? Is this for sports, or small studio work?
For small studio/desktop work, you may want to look at electronic flash triggers that will fire on queue or laser triggered, etc... Just keep the shutter open (in a dark room) and flash when required. The object will only show up where/when the flash triggers.
For sports or outdoors, of course, the rapid fire shutter release, and merging after the fact is the way to go.
Posted 06/07/2007 - 22:22
Link
Yeah with multi-exposure you're going to ed up with overlapped exposures anyway. If outdoors, it means that your first image is going to be severely washed out by the subsequent lack of subject in that location (i.e the sky, water, ec...) since the whole frame is re-exposed each time then blended.
I'm guessing you want something like the image of a windsurfer in multiple positions through a jump. You would not get good results with normal multi-exposure.
Although if anyone that actually makes these shots has other opinions/options, I would be very interested if it is not all done via post processing.
Multi exposure works great with a dark background, filters that block off areas of the frame, or if you're interested in faded/overlapping images.
I'm guessing you want something like the image of a windsurfer in multiple positions through a jump. You would not get good results with normal multi-exposure.
Although if anyone that actually makes these shots has other opinions/options, I would be very interested if it is not all done via post processing.
Multi exposure works great with a dark background, filters that block off areas of the frame, or if you're interested in faded/overlapping images.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
2176 posts
19 years
West Midlands
Continuous shooting is fine (2GB Extreme III cards) and it will keep up with the shutter speed chosen.
Why does it seem to slow down a lot for multi-exposures when surely it should take the 2-9 exposures, store them in the buffer and then work on them when you have finished, not before.
Dan
https://www.flickr.com/photos/honourabletyr/