Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (
More info?)
JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> In message <41877508.124A1CDF@aol.com>,
> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >JPS@no.komm wrote:
> >>
> >> In message <4186EBCE.54AD20D@aol.com>,
> >> Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Gymmy Bob wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Most digital cameras have a multiple exposure capability. I am sure it is
> >> >> accomplished in various ways.
> >> >
> >> >That would be a neat trick...
> >>
> >> Mount camera on tripod.
> >>
> >> Take one picture.
> >>
> >> Take another.
> >>
> >> Take all pictures.
> >>
> >> Load them all into software.
> >>
> >> Make an image of all of them averaged together.
> >
> >Stupid moron.
>
> Thank you. That's a compliment coming from you, as you have already
> insulted the intelligence of some of the most intelligent people that
> post in these newsgroups.
>
> >That is not a multiple exposure, and not
> >an ability to _accumulate_ light IN A SINGLE EXPOSURE.
>
> That ability has been obsoleted. There are so many more ways to apply
> one image to another digitally than there are on an enlarger.
>
> >Don't you THINK I know this? Don't you think I have
> >used the BEST digital equipment and software available?
>
> No. I think you are a person who thinks that everything has already
> been said and done inside your head, and is resisitant to learning
> anything new. You may have handled what someone told you was the best
> digital camera at the time, but I doubt that you took the time to learn
> how to use it, or handle its data.
>
> >I HAVE. Try Sinar, a $50,000 digital system and software.
> >Not your little prosumer P&S.
>
> Be specific. I don't know if you're including $900-$1800 (US) DSLRs in
> this group. I have Canon's latest in that class (20D), and projected an
> image taken hand-held at night pushed to ISO 18000 to a photo club the
> other night. No noise in the shadows after being downsized with bicubic
> to projector resolution, and lots of detail. Have you done this?
>
> I bring up the shadows about 2 stops on ISO 800 images, and the noise is
> barely noticeable.
>
> >Digital CANNOT do multiple exposures. It MIMICKS what
> >film can do with software, but cannot do what film
> >actually does.
>
> It does better, obsoleting the way it is done with film. What do you do
> with film if you decide that one exposure is over or under?
>
> >Idiot.
>
> OK, I'm taking my valedictorian award off the wall.
>
> >> Make an image that has the darkest pixel for an offset.
> >>
> >> Make an image that has the brightest pixel for an offset.
> >>
> >> Make an image that is the luminance from one image and the hue from
> >> another.
> >>
> >> Multiply the images together.
> >>
> >> Lower the contrast of one image, average the rest, and raise that to the
> >> power of the decontrasted image divided by the mid-grey value.
>
> >This is not a multiple exposure. It a software ***COMPOSITE***
>
> >You don't have a clue...
>
> You have yet to demonstrate that there is any benefit to doing it in one
> frame on film. The only thing I can think of is that there may be some
> exploitable effect of reciprocity failure where a trail of light in one
> exposure affects how it is recorded, but this can be simulated
> mathematically as well.
>
> It seems that you are stuck on film as an end in itself, and all of the
> things you hold precious about film are about film, and not about
> photography per se. You are a film-worshipper; a cultist.
On multiple exposures...
One has to wonder why anytime a legitimate imaging
difference between digital and film imaging is pointed out,
someone disputs it by repeating digital marketing
propaganda. Such as digital can do "multiple exposures."
Could it be they aren't actually professional photographers
and know nothing more than what they are told? And don't
care? Or just too dense to understand the differences?
A photographer gets a high profile client who needs a still
life. It's a big ad. National. A huge break for a small
studio. The space rate alone could pay this photographer's
overhead for a year. There's only one problem, after the
shot is all set up the photographer discovers he doesn't
have enough watt seconds to do the ad in one shot. What to
do? Should he use film, or digital?
He uses film. Due to it's unique ability to accumulate light
and exposure _in the same shot_, film can do this no
problem. So, the photographer carefully plans his exposures,
testing and metering the number of strobe flashes required
to attain the needed full exposure.
He cocks the shutter and makes the first exposure. It's
underexposed, but no matter. A second exposure is made, the
exposures accumulating in one total exposure on the film.
Since intermittancy states two exposures don't equal a
single exposure of the same length, a third exposure is
made. The photographer then moves the strobe and makes
additional exposures for backlighting and highlights,
according to his polariod tests. The result is a complete
and perfectly lit still life on a single sheet of film but
made using _divided_ exposures -- a single exposure divided
into lesser exposures that accumulate on the film as if only
one exposure had been made. Even if the photographer had
enough watt seconds to do this, a divided exposure allows
very fine control over the lighting, allowing very detailed
gradations between shadows and highlights, or over colors.
The result is unique and beautiful lighting *unattainable*
in any single exposure or post exposure composite of
separately exposed images.
Digital simply _can't_ do this, since silicon sensors cannot
hold an image on the image plane and accumulate additional
exposure, divided exposures, or any other exposures. Digital
makes one separate image with each exposure and downloads it
for processing. No more exposures possible. Different
digital images can be manipulated and then merged as a
composite, but it simply won't have the same brilliance and
look of an actual multiple exposure. At minimum it will lack
the continuity of subtle highlight and shadow gradations.
It's a fake, a composite, a manipulated image that doesn't
reflect the skill and creative lighting techniques a
professional photographer typically uses when working with
film.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram