Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.darkroom (
More info?)
"Tom Phillips" <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message
news:418821A4.5626CC85@aol.com...
>
>
> 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.
Perhaps they should of hired somebody who could of evaluated the required
lighting better instead of pratting about being 'arty'
😉
....
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram