pdpfilms said:...I don't see what you're talking about. Have you never taken a picture of the spirit of a duckling?
Rower_CPU said: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.
virividox said:i dont see the big deal of multiple exposures - you can do that in photoshop with more control using your layers an opacity.
Clix Pix said: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...
virividox said: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
Clix Pix said: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."
OutThere said: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'?
Mike Teezie said: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.
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?virividox said: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