PhotoTyler said:How much do you underexpose for multiple exposure? How many stops for each extra shot?
I wanna take a bunch of multiple exposure stuff of the ocean, but i don't know how to expose for it.
Thanks for your help, i'm leaving tommorow morning, so i'd like to know quick if possible.
PhotoTyler said:How much do you underexpose for multiple exposure? How many stops for each extra shot?
I wanna take a bunch of multiple exposure stuff of the ocean, but i don't know how to expose for it.
Thanks for your help, i'm leaving tommorow morning, so i'd like to know quick if possible.
roy said:One of the types of multiple exposure that interests me, is the effect created by UK photographer and teacher John Blakemore, who achieved a 'transparent' look where he was building up images rather in the form of layers. Looking at a still life for example, you would realise that there were other images underneath, not strikingly obvious at first glance. That, I would like to try but am not sure how to go about it. He also made some images in a 'windscape' series, where the foliage on trees took on the appearance of cotton wool and I assume that was by using the technique outlined by Les.
Les McLean said:Roy
John's still life images are photographed at various stages as he arranges them so that those elements that were in the frame as he started to construct it receive full exposure and those placed in the set up part the way through receive only partial exposure hence the ghost like appearance.
The wind series that you mention were a mix of multiple and long single exposures in very windy conditions. As I write I'm looking at two of his multiple exposure water images and one of the trees in Ambergate Derbyshire where he shot the "Leila" series. They have been a constant source of inspiration and pleasure in the 20 years that I have had them.
roy said:I suppose this would lead to dense negatives if the picture were to be made too complicated.
Roy,
The negatives you would produce would be just normal densities, if such a thing exists. Dense negatives are the result of overexposure and/or over development but adding elements into a still life subject part the way through the exposure cycle will not result in over exposure for you do not change the exposure that you had decided on at the start.
lallan said:I saw some interesting multiple exposure prints last year by Lucien Clergue at the John Stevenson Gallery in NYC (Dead Link Removed). Apparently, Clergue takes daylight rated film, makes exposures indoors, and then lets the film sit for about a year, then goes out and exposures outdoors over the same negatives. The prints are very interesting. ....lyle
Les McLean said:roy said:I suppose this would lead to dense negatives if the picture were to be made too complicated.
Roy,
The negatives you would produce would be just normal densities, if such a thing exists. Dense negatives are the result of overexposure and/or over development but adding elements into a still life subject part the way through the exposure cycle will not result in over exposure for you do not change the exposure that you had decided on at the start.
Sorry Les, I am with you now ! Thanks.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?