Multiple exposure questions

Chris L

Chris L

Suspended / Banned
Messages
931
Name
Christian
Edit My Images
No
I want to create some multiple exposures but I'm struggling to find much information to ensure I get the effect I'm after. As far as I understand things, I should underexpose each shot by the number of exp. I want eg double exp. would mean underexposing by 1 stop on each shot?
I've seen a range of shots using multiple exposures but can anyone offer any advice on how I can work out what parts of the exposures will be dominant as it were? I'm guessing that the lightest part of each shot will be the ones that show but I'm unsure of to get the "ghostly" effect IYSWIM?
Cheers,
Chris
 
Actually, having found a site with a bit more information it would seem that actually I should only be "slightly" underexposing rather than going as far as 1 stop per shot? If there was a shot I wanted to get that metered as an ordinary shot would be be f/4 @ 1/125th then would doing one exposure of say 1/180th give me the "dominant" image and then a shot of say 1/360th for the "ghostly" effect?
 
Did you only want to experiment with double exposures when shooting? or would you consider creating double exposures during printing from ordinary one-shot negatives? During college I experimented with combining negatives on one print before putting the paper thru the development process. I'd expose the paper using one negative in the enlarger using burning in techniques & then re-expose it with another using more burning & dodging. I got some interesting prints.
 
At the moment I'm only looking to do this in camera as I don't have the equipment or space for home printing. The effect I'm after is for the background and the main subject of the shot to be solid and then to have objects in the image moving (incorporating motion blur) with a ghostly/semi-transparent quality...if that makes sense?
 
Two exposures = twice the amount of light. 1 stop less means half the amount of light. So if, say, you're meter is saying 125th at f4, you would expose each at a 60th at f4 or 125th at f2.

1 extra exposure requires 1 stop down per exposure
2 extra exposures requires 2 stops down per exposure
andsoonandsoforthandsoonandsoforthandsoonandsoforth

However, you won't get anything coming out solid unless you keep it in the same place for each exposure.
Here's an example

3 exposures, camera set at -3 stops for all. The background is perfectly exposed because it didn't move because it's a wall. All 3 of me are 3 stops under exposed because I did move because I'm not a wall. To get something that isn't a wall to come out as solid you'd need to use a flash & give it a bit of thought exposure-wise.




Hope that isn't to complicated :D
 
Fair enough, it does makes sense.. & Looks like @joenail's covered your enquiry. Have fun experimenting & don't forget to post about any interesting results you produce! I'll be interested to see ~ Best wishes :}
 
Joenail said:
Two exposures = twice the amount of light. 1 stop less means half the amount of light. So if, say, you're meter is saying 125th at f4, you would expose each at a 60th at f4 or 125th at f2.

1 extra exposure requires 1 stop down per exposure
2 extra exposures requires 2 stops down per exposure
andsoonandsoforthandsoonandsoforthandsoonandsoforth

However, you won't get anything coming out solid unless you keep it in the same place for each exposure.
Here's an example

3 exposures, camera set at -3 stops for all. The background is perfectly exposed because it didn't move because it's a wall. All 3 of me are 3 stops under exposed because I did move because I'm not a wall. To get something that isn't a wall to come out as solid you'd need to use a flash & give it a bit of thought exposure-wise.




Hope that isn't to complicated :D
Click to expand...

Isn't that the wrong way or am I just easily confused?

If the meter says 1/125 @ f4 and you did 1/60 @ f4 or 1/125 @ f2 you'd be over exposing but to do multiple exposure you want to under expose each part of it?

I think of it as 2 halves of a full exposure, but then that gets kinda confusing if one exposure is in bright light and one in dim light.

I normally do them on a pinhole Holga too so it's more like full seconds or even tens of seconds rather than tenths but concept is the same.
 
hahah, sorry, yes, it's the other way round. :runaway:
 
In the manual for my Minolta Dynax 5 its recommended to expose 2 exposures 1 stop underexposed and 1/2 a stop less for every other exposure i.e -1 (2 exposures), -1.5 (3 exposures), -2.0 (4 exposures), -2.5 (5 exposures), -3.0 (6 exposures) and so on. However it does say that compensation is usually not required for subjects with dark backgrounds and to experiment.
 
I think it's all down to experimenting really. From this thread you should have a good idea of what might/will work, but the truth is it's a really difficult thing to make 'rules' for because each subject(s) produce completely different results. Just go & do it with a few rolls experimenting with exposure, shadows, contrast & various other things. :thumbs:
 
I did a double exposure during college using pin hole, it was just an experiment but it used the same theory. The overall exposure for this print was seven & a half minutes altho throughout the day my single exposures were only about four & a half minutes. I exposed myself standing against the wall for four & a half minutes, then sitting on the bench for three minutes. Perhaps you get a better outcome when overall the finished double exposures will be slightly overexposed? To avoid the main focus of the photograph being more underexposed than you'd hoped. Just something to consider thinking about ~ bracketing could get some interesting results?

PinHolePhotograph06.jpg

This overexposed print produced the best double exposure. I apologise if I've gone a little off topic but it might be worth considering the two exposures to create an overall slight overexposure. I might have lost you as I'm not amazing at explaining things hahaha. As Joe said, experiment!

Best wishes!
 
Last edited:
Sorry to go off topic a bit, but what paper did you make that with Ashly?
 
IamAshlyRose said:
I did a double exposure during college using pin hole, it was just an experiment but it used the same theory. The overall exposure for this print was seven & a half minutes altho throughout the day my single exposures were only about four & a half minutes. I exposed myself standing against the wall for four & a half minutes, then sitting on the bench for three minutes. Perhaps you get a better outcome when overall the

this post is nothing without pictures :lol: :lol: :coat:
Click to expand...
 
I used Ilford Multigrade IV Deluxe RC in Satin :}
8x10 cut in half to fix the size of my pin hole box.

@donutagain Perhaps the photograph in the post hasn't loaded for you? Odd.
 
no - i'm pretty sure he's just wanting to see a picture of you exposing yourself :nono:
 
OH |: hahahaha {this is my nervous laugh}.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the advice everyone.:thumbs: Although there's several other ideas I'm still going to try out with multiple exposures I think the only way I'll get the specific image I had in mind at the start of the thread is either in printing or via photoshop by merging them.
 
You simply divide the amount of light. If you want to do X exposures, you need that each gives you 1/X amount of light to get a properly exposed negative. Therefore you for instance multiply the shutter speed by X.
 
tigger6 said:
You simply divide the amount of light. If you want to do X exposures, you need that each gives you 1/X amount of light to get a properly exposed negative. Therefore you for instance multiply the shutter speed by X.
Click to expand...

Works fine if you're shooting a grey wall. But as said, different areas of light and dark in each scene make it a bit more complicated / random than that. :thumbs:
 
I've been thinking about doing multiple exposure experiments too. Got lots of old film to use up so may as well.

I found some old prints that were multiple exposures due to either user error or camera error. Most seem to have strong colour shifts so I'm assuming it was full exposure on each frame for each shot rather than the usual one stop under. Getting exposures completely wrong also seems to produce some interesting effects. Being totally overexposed makes lots of scenes very dreamy.

I'd also think the exposure latitude of the film would also make some difference as to the final effect.

The dynax 7 also has something called STF mode which takes 7 shots on one frame!
 
Joenail said:
Two exposures = twice the amount of light. 1 stop less means half the amount of light. So if, say, you're meter is saying 125th at f4, you would expose each at a 60th at f4 or 125th at f2.

1 extra exposure requires 1 stop down per exposure
2 extra exposures requires 2 stops down per exposure
andsoonandsoforthandsoonandsoforthandsoonandsoforth

However, you won't get anything coming out solid unless you keep it in the same place for each exposure.
Here's an example

3 exposures, camera set at -3 stops for all. The background is perfectly exposed because it didn't move because it's a wall. All 3 of me are 3 stops under exposed because I did move because I'm not a wall. To get something that isn't a wall to come out as solid you'd need to use a flash & give it a bit of thought exposure-wise.




Hope that isn't to complicated :D
Click to expand...


This was really helpful! I am going to shoot a roll of double exposures this weekend of both landscape and portrait. I read somewhere that you will need to increase the ASA on the second batch of exposures to compensate for the additional light. For example, first 36 exposures of landscapes like lakes, fields etc all shot at 200ASA. Reloading the same film, and increasing the asa to 400 will be needed. is this right? or am i rambling on and making no sense ha.
 
If the subject can be split in half with the same background then it's easy with a Cokin thingy that covers half the lens e.g.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top