Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NV Whino

(20,886 posts)
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 10:36 PM Jul 2013

Okay, can someone please tell me what I did.

I've done in-camera double exposures before with film cameras, but not with digitals. I have no idea how I got this in-camera double exposure. No, I wasn't anywhere near a window. Although i had the camera set for multiple shots, that's not what I did here. These are two distinct sunflowers, and I had to move the camera (and me), refocus and shoot so they were not shot in quick succession.

19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Okay, can someone please tell me what I did. (Original Post) NV Whino Jul 2013 OP
Wow! NYC_SKP Jul 2013 #1
Nice! Pharaoh Jul 2013 #2
Definitely a nifty gift NV Whino Jul 2013 #6
My guess.... Locut0s Jul 2013 #3
My first thought was reform/reset. alfredo Jul 2013 #5
Maybe you accidentally set your camera to do double exposures. alfredo Jul 2013 #4
I don't think I can do that. NV Whino Jul 2013 #7
Good idea. I've had my camera for years and I'm still thumbing through the manual. alfredo Jul 2013 #8
Well by George, I can do it. NV Whino Jul 2013 #9
I had to learn that too. I don't mind converting in PP. alfredo Jul 2013 #11
I wish my Olympus would do that. JohnnyRingo Jul 2013 #13
Raw files and 3rd party software don't play nice most of the time. ManiacJoe Jul 2013 #15
You're right NV Whino Jul 2013 #17
NO idea, don't do digital (yet,) elleng Jul 2013 #10
I don't care how you did it Mira Jul 2013 #12
Whatever spirit possessed your camera Joe Shlabotnik Jul 2013 #14
Good to see that you found the settings. ManiacJoe Jul 2013 #16
A rather serendipitous error! Richard D Jul 2013 #18
I have some like that but I did it on purpose. Solly Mack Jul 2013 #19

Locut0s

(6,154 posts)
3. My guess....
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 10:44 PM
Jul 2013

Software or hardware glitch. Could be a bug in the software or somehow the image sensor maintained an after image of the previous shot? Otherwise I have no idea :p Neat effect though even if it is a mistake.

NV Whino

(20,886 posts)
9. Well by George, I can do it.
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:07 PM
Jul 2013

It's called, duh, multiple exposure. I was mucking around trying to set the camera to black and white to shoot photos for a yoga book and must have turned this setting on somehow.

The black and white, by the way, was a bust. Yeah, it showed B&W in the viewer and the thumbnails, but (because I was shooting RAW, I guess) when I imported into Photoshop they imported in color. So much for saving a step in the processing.

alfredo

(60,074 posts)
11. I had to learn that too. I don't mind converting in PP.
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:33 PM
Jul 2013

I shot a roll of color film this weekend. I can't wait to see how they turned out.

JohnnyRingo

(18,636 posts)
13. I wish my Olympus would do that.
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 01:04 AM
Jul 2013

I purposely scanned replies for the solution, hoping it was possible.
I really like that image.

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
15. Raw files and 3rd party software don't play nice most of the time.
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 06:15 PM
Jul 2013

There are lots of settings in raw files that third-party software, including all the Adobe software, does not read. The b&w flag in the raw file is just that, a flag. The picture image in the raw file is always color. However, the imbedded JPG will have all the camera settings baked into it.

One advantage to using the b&w setting on the camera is that you get a good idea of what the image will look like in b&w immediately so that you can adjust any exposure settings as needed during the shoot.

One down side to the camera's b&w conversion is that it is normally a poor conversion. You will get much better results when doing the conversion in your post-processing.

NV Whino

(20,886 posts)
17. You're right
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 06:35 PM
Jul 2013

Being able to see the exposure in B&W was a plus. I had hoped to save the work of converting over 300 photos, though. But, it wasn't too bad. I set up a batch script and watched a movie on my iPad while I processed 8 at a time.

elleng

(130,970 posts)
10. NO idea, don't do digital (yet,)
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 11:20 PM
Jul 2013

but reminds me of a 'great' one I did about 27 years ago. Old, great Nikon SLR.\

Visiting my folks in Florida with 10-11 month old daughter. She took her first steps, I shot some pics, and continued during the visit. Brought roll home to develop and WTH, we said???!!! Clearly a 'hardware' or mechanical problem: EVERY shot I took on that roll was developed IN A SINGLE FRAME!!! 27x exposure! Can still spend HOURS studying that one 'pic,' and discovering new shots each time!

Thanks for the memory!!!

Mira

(22,380 posts)
12. I don't care how you did it
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 12:11 AM
Jul 2013

I just want what you're having. It's plain gorgeous.

All kidding aside, I think you figured out, as I read this thread, what happened. Experiment with it!

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
16. Good to see that you found the settings.
Mon Jul 29, 2013, 06:17 PM
Jul 2013

All of my cameras will do multiple exposures, but I have never actually attempted it.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Photography»Okay, can someone please ...