| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/10/2016 05:27:15 AM · #1 |
Neither of my cameras can do the in-camera double exposures. (I was hoping the lumix did, but I don't see it in the manual)
So I'd need to combine them in post. Since it's listed as advance, not expert, do I have to just blend what's there together? Or can I pick and choose which parts to blend and delete/ignore other parts? |
|
|
|
08/10/2016 07:41:45 AM · #2 |
I'm not sure about the rules, but in terms of the spirit of the challenge I'd say you have to blend everything.
On a related note I was wondering whether the blend mode has to be normal.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2016 08:32:08 AM · #3 |
My understanding is that each image needs to conform to the Standard Ruleset. Thus, if you delete or mask out part of one image, then it would fail this:
"You may use cloning or similar tools to remove unwanted objects from your image. Objects removed must be replaced with with what actually would be visible if the distracting object were not there in the first place."
Because you are not replacing what would actually be visible. |
|
|
|
08/10/2016 09:23:34 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
My understanding is that each image needs to conform to the Standard Ruleset. Thus, if you delete or mask out part of one image, then it would fail this:
"You may use cloning or similar tools to remove unwanted objects from your image. Objects removed must be replaced with with what actually would be visible if the distracting object were not there in the first place."
Because you are not replacing what would actually be visible. |
Yet the double exposure in camera does something completely different. I've always wanted to be able to do some of the effects you get this way -- so it seems like you should be able to try to copy what the in camera can do:
 |
|
|
|
08/10/2016 09:33:14 AM · #5 |
| Wendy, maybe I am not seeing it, but I don't think the camera did any masking there at all. It's all in the blend mode. I don't know what blend mode it used, but I don't see anything nessecarrily masked. |
|
|
|
08/10/2016 09:42:16 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by giantmike:
My understanding is that each image needs to conform to the Standard Ruleset. Thus, if you delete or mask out part of one image, then it would fail this:
"You may use cloning or similar tools to remove unwanted objects from your image. Objects removed must be replaced with with what actually would be visible if the distracting object were not there in the first place."
Because you are not replacing what would actually be visible. |
Yet the double exposure in camera does something completely different. I've always wanted to be able to do some of the effects you get this way -- so it seems like you should be able to try to copy what the in camera can do:
|
It's for this reason that I felt that double exposure should have been split into two challenges. I'm not sure if that can be done in standard editing Photoshop.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2016 12:57:36 PM · #7 |
If it helps at least two of us agree thusly ...
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As I read the challenge description anything allowed under standard editing is OK -- masking, erasing/cloning, using alternate blend modes, etc. -- with the only restriction being a limit of two source pictures. |
Correct |
|
|
|
|
08/10/2016 12:59:59 PM · #8 |
| Mask away to your heart's content. There's no requirement that you use all of either source image, nor is there any restriction on layering modes. Let's see what we all come up with. |
|
|
|
08/10/2016 01:07:37 PM · #9 |
Right.
I think playing with blending modes in addition using cropping / rotation / enlargement of the two images would be my personal way to approach this.
I'm thinking of it as reminiscent of the days of the darkroom - with a little more flexibility.
As with most challenges, SC will ultimately decide if there is reason to DQ. I tend to be pretty lenient - in this case, I would think either image could be used as a layer and exposed very little or over-exposed while impacting the other image via an adjustment layer. I would be sure to keep a layered file if at all possible to be sure that SC can recreate what is created if necessary to validate.
It should not be treated as unlimited editing where pieces and parts could be moved to create something new that wouldn't be considered part of either image. That being said, there is still opportunity to find a nice synergy between the two images - looking forward to seeing what people come up with ...
Originally posted by giantmike:
Wendy, maybe I am not seeing it, but I don't think the camera did any masking there at all. It's all in the blend mode. I don't know what blend mode it used, but I don't see anything nessecarrily masked. |
|
|
|
|
08/10/2016 01:09:37 PM · #10 |
| yeah, okay. I'm beginning to think we should have had separate challenges. (I am so not into a lot of pp). |
|
|
|
08/10/2016 01:28:26 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by tnun:
(I am so not into a lot of pp). |
You can process as simply as you want -- there's not even a requirement that you must use two images ... |
|
|
|
08/10/2016 01:39:52 PM · #12 |
| what I meant was that it is 2 different things, almost entirely, the xx in camera, the legere de main in pp, so much so that the latter may entirely lose the rapture of the former. |
|
|
|
08/10/2016 05:32:05 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by tnun:
what I meant was that it is 2 different things, almost entirely, the xx in camera, the legere de main in pp, so much so that the latter may entirely lose the rapture of the former. |
Agree. True double exposure is technically an in-camera technique -- 1% planning and 99% serendipity, and therein lies its appeal. Not that all that picking and choosing and forcing can't produce interesting stuff. It's just something different. |
|
|
|
08/10/2016 07:24:50 PM · #14 |
| I miss Picasa. It had a double exposure option in its collage application - with results very much like the in camera style of double exposure. |
|
|
|
08/10/2016 07:50:20 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by tnun:
what I meant was that it is 2 different things, almost entirely, the xx in camera, the legere de main in pp, so much so that the latter may entirely lose the rapture of the former. |
I'm still thinking that it's a little closer than you might think. After all, just because we can mask and clone out does not give us the flexibility to move things around in the frame. (I'm guessing). Because you really can't pick up a squirrel and move him to the other side of the flower in the same shot. So while we can have two images and blend them as we want, we can't do the full moving and placing individual pieces within like you can in expert. |
|
|
|
08/10/2016 08:19:13 PM · #16 |
| It's worth noting there's a practical aspect to this from the SC's POV: if we had chosen to restrict in some way the various modes in which the images could be combines, we'd have been stuck with the task of trying to replicate the combined image in validation in order to determine that the rule had been followed. That creates an obvious gray area and runs counter to our current trend towards minimizing same. |
|
|
|
08/10/2016 09:33:05 PM · #17 |
| not a big deal. and in fact, from hahn's post we learn that in camera tweaks to multiple exposures are not negligible. still prefer my wooden shoes, je ne suis pas si vilaine avec mes sabots... |
|
|
|
08/10/2016 09:52:25 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by tnun:
not a big deal. and in fact, from hahn's post we learn that in camera tweaks to multiple exposures are not negligible. still prefer my wooden shoes, je ne suis pas si vilaine avec mes sabots... |
More like rawhide moccasins and stone-tipped spear in this neighborhood ... ;-)  |
|
|
|
08/10/2016 10:44:19 PM · #19 |
|
|
|
08/11/2016 10:33:51 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by tnun:
what I meant was that it is 2 different things, almost entirely, the xx in camera, the legere de main in pp, so much so that the latter may entirely lose the rapture of the former. |
I'm still thinking that it's a little closer than you might think. After all, just because we can mask and clone out does not give us the flexibility to move things around in the frame. (I'm guessing). Because you really can't pick up a squirrel and move him to the other side of the flower in the same shot. So while we can have two images and blend them as we want, we can't do the full moving and placing individual pieces within like you can in expert. |
i second Wendy's comment/question...
is this really a "composite" challenge limited to only 2 captures, in which which we can mask and resize the elements of each capture any way we want, then blend the two any way we want?
OR
do we need to keep the objects in the final result in the same size, orientation, and locafion as they were in the two captures? |
|
|
|
08/12/2016 12:19:33 PM · #21 |
I guess I miss having a dark room in my basement but I'm thinking of it as 2 pieces of film being exposed through an enlarger.
We can crop/rotate/mask/enlarge etc to create a result that says: 'double-exposure' even though, as mentioned, this is traditionally done in-camera.
2 distinct subjects that could otherwise not find themselves together in such a way would be most interesting I would imagine.
Originally posted by mefnj:
is this really a "composite" challenge limited to only 2 captures, in which which we can mask and resize the elements of each capture any way we want, then blend the two any way we want?
OR
do we need to keep the objects in the final result in the same size, orientation, and locafion as they were in the two captures? |
Message edited by author 2016-08-12 12:22:01. |
|
|
|
08/12/2016 01:03:15 PM · #22 |
| I'm assuming that the exposures have to be conservative? As you would take them in camera to be a true double exposure. |
|
|
|
08/12/2016 01:24:23 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by tate:
I guess I miss having a dark room in my basement but I'm thinking of it as 2 pieces of film being exposed through an enlarger.
We can crop/rotate/mask/enlarge etc to create a result that says: 'double-exposure' even though, as mentioned, this is traditionally done in-camera.
2 distinct subjects that could otherwise not find themselves together in such a way would be most interesting I would imagine. |
In-camera certainly was ONE of the tyraditional ways of doing it, sure, but so was Exposing through the enlarger onto print media. See Jerry Uelsmann for examples.
People, you're worrying about nit-picking "rules" too much. Combine two images using Standard Editing rules otherwise, and have fun. |
|
|
|
08/12/2016 06:15:21 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by tate:
I guess I miss having a dark room in my basement but I'm thinking of it as 2 pieces of film being exposed through an enlarger.
We can crop/rotate/mask/enlarge etc to create a result that says: 'double-exposure' even though, as mentioned, this is traditionally done in-camera.
2 distinct subjects that could otherwise not find themselves together in such a way would be most interesting I would imagine. |
In-camera certainly was ONE of the tyraditional ways of doing it, sure, but so was Exposing through the enlarger onto print media. See Jerry Uelsmann for examples.
People, you're worrying about nit-picking "rules" too much. Combine two images using Standard Editing rules otherwise, and have fun. |
Tyraditional - what a wonderful typo. I'm going to add that on to my vocabulary. |
|
|
|
08/12/2016 07:37:52 PM · #25 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/31/2024 08:05:30 PM EDT.
