Why do so few cameras offer a double exposure feature or mode?

Started Sep 28, 2013 | Questions thread
Chikubi
Contributing MemberPosts: 685
Like?
Re: and what would you do with it?
In reply to tko, Sep 30, 2013

tko wrote:

Honestly, seems like a totally useless feature devoid of any benefit to a pro or an amateur. What would you use it to do? The results could not possible look good. Blending two layers is silly when done without purpose and control.

Give me a example of simple double exposure (or two layer blend) that achieves some type of purpose.

Here's a beautiful one done by wedding photog Sarah Byrne completely in-camera w/ 5DIII:

I also use in-camera multiple exposures in an abstract series I've been working on shot with my D3, which has the feature. The advantage to doing it in camera as opposed to in post is that I can blend up to ten exposures into one file at the RAW data level and get a single RAW file same as if I shot a single frame. That means I can work with it in post for final tuning same as any other RAW file and with all the benefits that that brings. In other words, the output is higher quality than what you can do in post alone. That has merit. And you're not lacking in control - I can shoot multiples traditionally with no help from the camera, or I can let the camera handle the gain for blending with a set parameter if I prefer. The final benefit of doing it in camera is that it changes your approach to shooting and introduces a certain level of unpredicability into the shot which can lend itself to a much more organic and natural feeling in the final product. In-camera or PP - neither is bad, just different, so it's only your own level of creativity that makes either tool work or fail for you.

selected answer This post was selected as the answer by the original poster.
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow