Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Clix Pix, May 9, 2006.
...I don't see what you're talking about. Have you never taken a picture of the spirit of a duckling?
LOL!!! (Actually it's a gosling....) Just discovered the other day that my D200 has this nifty multiple exposure feature and unlike the old days you can set it for however many exposures you want and the camera automatically figures out the correct exposure values for each element. Also unlike the old days you can see what you're getting immediately so that then you can reshoot if need be. (I had a lot of shots which will never see the light of day.)
Very cool - I hadn't heard of DSLR's doing multiple exposures before. Damn that D200 is tempting...just pricey and hard to come by.
Ah, but it's worth every penny! Hard to get? Yessss!
The D70 and D70s don't have the multiple exposure feature, and I don't know about the D50. As for Canons, I've no idea of whether or not they do, but my hunch is that it would be, as with Nikon, in the higher-end ones, not in the consumer Digital Rebel type.
i dont see the big deal of multiple exposures - you can do that in photoshop with more control using your layers an opacity.
I suppose you don't get the same feeling of doing it straight from a camera without adapting/manipulating your image, different people like things different ways.
Thats my opinion anyway.
I MUCH prefer working in-camera than wrestling with PS CS2 and still not getting what I want. I have yet to successfully pull off a decent-looking composite image in that program. Aside from that, IMHO doing something in PS is more "manipulation" and not really what the camera actually saw and recorded; it no longer is truly "a photograph," but rather a manipulated creative image. Shooting this, I set the camera for three shots and then made the decision of what to shoot; this is what the camera saw and recorded. Later in PS it was simply a matter of a slight adjustment of levels/curves and then a quick resizing...
i disagree, i think composting in cs2 and in camera are both legitimate photographs - neither is of a single frame, its combining them. but u know its all opinion and fluff
i find i get better composites in cs2 than in camera (i do multiple exposures in film) mainly because i can move around the elements ie the moon so as it doesnt overlap with say an element in the first shot
Sure, it's easy to get better composition and arrangement of a composite in PS! In the camera it requires some thinking, planning, careful shooting and then in the end, pure luck as well. With PS you have all the control; in shooting an image and presenting it you have quite a bit of control, too, but skill and luck come into play as well. I've no doubt that someone could pull together something in PS that would not be unlike the image I show here, but I take pride in the fact that this image of goose/goslings is "pure," a genuine photograph so to speak, right out of the camera....
Whatever. Basically I am not a fan of overly-manipulated images such as can be done in PS and I strongly feel that they should then be referred to as "digital art" rather than presented as a "photograph."
Yet what your camera is doing is in essence the exact same thing you would do in Photoshop with 3 images to do a multiple exposure. Just because the camera company decided to put in an algorithm for combining the multiple images (which is probably pretty much the same basic thing as photoshop) doesn't qualify the image any more as a photograph than someone who took three pictures and put them in different layers. If you gave me those three photographs, I could make the same multi-exposure in PS...does your image qualify as a 'photograph' whereas mine does not?
What about people who modify their film shots on the enlarger and in the dark room, ultimately doing Photoshop-type stuff by hand? I know people who edit pictures so well by hand that you can't tell if it's real or fake. Are their images 'photographs'?
From my perspective, the difference is that with Photoshop, I could hand-pick three separate images and then spend a fair amount of time putting them together "just so" as a composite. With the camera, I set the multiple exposure function and then I shoot -- whatever I shoot is what I get. In the end, much depends upon my creative vision and whether or not the camera will echo that as well as in this particular instance, pure old-fashioned luck. Couldn't very well have asked the goose and gosling to pose that way! To me that is what makes this image created in-camera more unique and honest than had I merely sifted through all my images of geese and goslings and composited three together in PS to attempt to produce a similar image....
We all edit our images in post-processing, just as some of us used to do in the darkroom, and yes, there are definite similarities between working on an image in the darkroom or in the computer to improve exposure levels, and intensify contrast, cropping it to get rid of distracting elements or to improve composition and balance, burning-in or dodging, etc. This maintains the integrity of the photographic process -- the tools are different but can produce the same results. However, when you get into CS2 and start tinkering around and doing things which are not possible in the darkroom or when actually shooting the image, coming up with a result which is very different from the way the image started out in the camera, in my mind this takes the item out of the realm of "photography" and into the realm of "digital art." Nothing wrong with this, it's just...different. I've seen some wonderful examples of digital art and it is a medium all unto itself. Many juried shows have a separate category for digital art and many galleries do as well.
I have to say I don't see the difference in darkroom manipulation and digital manipulation.
However, I do try to do as much in camera as possible.
Here's a shot of my own I just did today for class - sort of the same effect as yours Clix. Mine's just one long exposure though. btw - the person in the image is a friend, not me.
20 second exposure at f/29.
I know photoshop better than I do actual photography, and I think it's far more impressive to get this effect organically [without photoshop]. I love it.
some ppl are "purists" and thing the only away to achieve certain things are in camera, other ppl think its okay to do it pp. i say whatever you did to get the image, as long as your happy with it is fair game, just so long as you dont say you did one thing, while you did the other
Oh, I like this! Very cool!
Darkroom manipulation and digital (computer) manipulation can be similar and achieve the same end up to a point -- but then digital has an advantage after that, offering far more flexibility and creative enhancements than were possible in-camera or in the darkroom.... and that's when we cross over from "photography" to "digital art."
Agreed! Especially on the idea of presenting an image as being a photograph with effects shot in-camera with minimal processing, when in fact the image has been seriously enhanced and manipulated in PS or some other digital editing program. So there's a competition: which is the fair winner, the one who did the image in-camera, with minimal processing or the one who shot an image and then did a lot of processing to enhance/improve it?
i dont think there is a "winner", if the workflow is transparent and a picture isnt purported to be something that it isnt, then there is no issue.
but as to the arguement that digital processing is digital art and not photography, i dont entirely agree, there are somethings that traditional photographers do (on film) that they cannot do "in camera" that are replicated in programs like cs2 etc, thigns like cross-processing (processing bw film as color, or a slide as a negative or vice versa) - these would still be called photographs, yet using your arguement, if done on a computer they would be digital art. semantics aside, a nice picture is a nice picture.