Frankly, the ability of the D200 is much closer to how film cameras worked anyway. I find doing multiple exposures in digital to be awkward. So this is one example where the advancement of technology has actually made a well known effect harder.
Well you can already fake this to some extent by using just one raw file converted multiple times. I learned this not too long ago even though it flies in the face of what the rules state about multiple exposures.
This is not the same thing. It is a single exposure.
Is it time to rephrase the rules? After all most of us do not have the capability to capture three frames in one within the camera. To do this in photoshop is against the rules in both basic and advanced! Is it time to level the playing field again?
Well you can already fake this to some extent by using just one raw file converted multiple times. I learned this not too long ago even though it flies in the face of what the rules state about multiple exposures.
This is not the same thing. It is a single exposure.
It's a single exposure out of the camera yes but I wouldn't consider it a single exposure once I have converted the same file multiple times to get different exposures out of it.
Multipleexposure is this:
1) ahead of time, you say how many clicks you want.
2) Presumably, there's some default delay between them or you can set it
3) Click 1. You run to set up the next one.
4) Click 2. You run to set up the next one.
5) Repeat until finished.
Is that right?
Okay, that sounds an awful lot like the genius stuff graphicfunk and others have done, but made easier. I'm much less uncomfortable with that than I am with combining images under what you say is called "imageoverlay."
And glad2badad: yes. A multiple-exposure image just won a magic/mystery ribbon, as shown in the first post of this thread.
Still uncomfortable, but much less so.
Well you can already fake this to some extent by using just one raw file converted multiple times. I learned this not too long ago even though it flies in the face of what the rules state about multiple exposures.
This is not the same thing. It is a single exposure.
Nah, it's not. Would you consider it legal to combine three bracketed exposures, taken on a tripod so the pixels line up, 1/1000s apart?
Because from what I understand about RAW conversion, that's what you're doing: creating three completely different exposure levels from the same pixel placement and combining them somehow.
Multipleexposure is this:
1) ahead of time, you say how many clicks you want.
2) Presumably, there's some default delay between them or you can set it
3) Click 1. You run to set up the next one.
4) Click 2. You run to set up the next one.
5) Repeat until finished.
Is that right?
Okay, that sounds an awful lot like the genius stuff graphicfunk and others have done, but made easier. I'm much less uncomfortable with that than I am with combining images under what you say is called "imageoverlay."
And glad2badad: yes. A multiple-exposure image just won a magic/mystery ribbon, as shown in the first post of this thread.
Still uncomfortable, but much less so.
correct (except each image is a shutter click) they are not written to media & combined in buffer - no image will be recorded if the camera is turned off / battery dies / etc ...
Well you can already fake this to some extent by using just one raw file converted multiple times. I learned this not too long ago even though it flies in the face of what the rules state about multiple exposures.
This is not the same thing. It is a single exposure.
Nah, it's not. Would you consider it legal to combine three bracketed exposures, taken on a tripod so the pixels line up, 1/1000s apart?
Because from what I understand about RAW conversion, that's what you're doing: creating three completely different exposure levels from the same pixel placement and combining them somehow.
Exactly. The only difference is if you have just one file to work with the data (s/n) isn't going to be as good to work with than say three bracketed shots but the concept is the same. You're giving yourself multiple exposures to work with whether that is with one file or several.
it's just going to get worse. When the 400D comes out how long is it going to be before someone uses the dust mapper in basic and someone else complains about it? The arms race for camera superiority will just continue ad infinitum...
hehe... my d70 has a feature similar to dust map...
again... advantage NIKON!
;)
as for the actual discussion, in all seriousness, if your camera will do it before it hits your computer, i think it should be legal...
and this opinion is in no way affected by the fact that i'm quietly saving up for a d200 of my own...
Well you can already fake this to some extent by using just one raw file converted multiple times. I learned this not too long ago even though it flies in the face of what the rules state about multiple exposures.
This is not the same thing. It is a single exposure.
Nah, it's not. Would you consider it legal to combine three bracketed exposures, taken on a tripod so the pixels line up, 1/1000s apart?
Because from what I understand about RAW conversion, that's what you're doing: creating three completely different exposure levels from the same pixel placement and combining them somehow.
You can do similar things with some RAW converters, but either method is really used to work around the limitations of both the JPG standard and the color space of most monitors. That is, you're squeezing 13 or so bits of luminance into 8 bits...
* Off: The camera carries out no dynamic range optimization.
* Standard: The camera optimizes the image by automatically adjusting the tone curve used to the linear RAW data into the final image (hence the brightness / contrast).
* Advanced: The camera optimizes the image by selectively adjusting the brightness of areas of the image, it 'masks' certain areas for lightening, others are darkened slightly. This can be thought of as a digital 'dodge and burn'. *
I thought basic editing disallowed selective editing?
The same shot can be repeated in one long exposure by cleverly using black cardboard to cover the frame instead of clicking the shutter. It probably won't be as easy but it is certainly doable and it is the same concept. I don't see how you can DQ this unless you start saying that exposures longer than n number of seconds cannot be entered.
special rules allowed / d70 can not do this in camera
Notice that that shot was also done with the person who did the first in the thread. Probably a borrowed camera with a forgotten change to the details.
The same shot can be repeated in one long exposure by cleverly using black cardboard to cover the frame instead of clicking the shutter. It probably won't be as easy but it is certainly doable and it is the same concept. I don't see how you can DQ this unless you start saying that exposures longer than n number of seconds cannot be entered.
He says in his description that he used three exposures and rotated one of them...
The same shot can be repeated in one long exposure by cleverly using black cardboard to cover the frame instead of clicking the shutter. It probably won't be as easy but it is certainly doable and it is the same concept. I don't see how you can DQ this unless you start saying that exposures longer than n number of seconds cannot be entered.
He says in his description that he used three exposures and rotated one of them...
I'm saying I don't see any difference using cardboard as your shutter curtain instead of using the built in metal one. Lower quality cameras with sufficient exposure time can reproduce this shot.
