Multiple exposures - possible methods

One project I'm working on is multiple exposure photography. I had a brief play by (ab)using the in-camera pixel shift mechanism in my Lumix G9 to do rapid bursts of 8 images of a single subject while moving the camera (including rotation) in mid burst. The G9 is convenient because it automatically combines the images in camera for you.

I've also been exploring an alternative: combining different images using the image stack tool in darktable (mean or median blend). This has the advantage that it allows me to combine unrelated images and extend the stack up to around 16 frames before the script fails.

With these sorts of images you have no real idea what will look good and what won't; there is a large degree of serendipity. Here's an example of one that came out looking reasonably cohesive:





I'm new to attempting this kind of thing and naive as to all the possible techniques available (no Photoshop, though!). Any suggestions of other methods and approaches to try would be appreciated.





--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

DMillier said:

One project I'm working on is multiple exposure photography. I had a brief play by (ab)using the in-camera pixel shift mechanism in my Lumix G9 to do rapid bursts of 8 images of a single subject while moving the camera (including rotation) in mid burst. The G9 is convenient because it automatically combines the images in camera for you.

I've also been exploring an alternative: combining different images using the image stack tool in darktable (mean or median blend). This has the advantage that it allows me to combine unrelated images and extend the stack up to around 16 frames before the script fails.

With these sorts of images you have no real idea what will look good and what won't; there is a large degree of serendipity. Here's an example of one that came out looking reasonably cohesive:



I'm new to attempting this kind of thing and naive as to all the possible techniques available (no Photoshop, though!). Any suggestions of other methods and approaches to try would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

I've been doing this for a long time, using Ps and layer blending.







--

How do you achieve the clear stationary figure surrounded by the jitter effect elsewhere?

There's a guy called David Goold whose work I like:

DMillier said:

How do you achieve the clear stationary figure surrounded by the jitter effect elsewhere?

Click to expand...

Panning with the camera from a moving car.

DavidMillier said:

There's a guy called David Goold whose work I like:

https://www.davidgoold.com/?lightbox=dataItem-jx90xclz2

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

There's a guy called David Goold whose work I like:

https://www.davidgoold.com/?lightbox=dataItem-jx90xclz2

Click to expand...

Those are more like this series that I did:























--

JimKasson said:

DMillier said:

How do you achieve the clear stationary figure surrounded by the jitter effect elsewhere?

Click to expand...

Panning with the camera from a moving car.

JimKasson said:

There's a guy called David Goold whose work I like:

https://www.davidgoold.com/?lightbox=dataItem-jx90xclz2

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You get a hard edge to the transitions on some of yours rather than a smooth blend.

If you had to venture as guess, how do you think this one was made?

DMillier said:

JimKasson said:

DMillier said:

How do you achieve the clear stationary figure surrounded by the jitter effect elsewhere?

Click to expand...

Panning with the camera from a moving car.

DavidMillier said:

There's a guy called David Goold whose work I like:

https://www.davidgoold.com/?lightbox=dataItem-jx90xclz2

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You get a hard edge to the transitions on some of yours rather than a smooth blend.

Click to expand...

Short exposures.

DavidMillier said:

If you had to venture as guess, how do you think this one was made?

https://flic.kr/p/2pAxG6A

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

JimKasson said:

If you had to venture as guess, how do you think this one was made?

https://flic.kr/p/2pAxG6A

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Handheld camera, a bunch of short exposures combined in post.

JimKasson said:

JimKasson said:

DMillier said:

If you had to venture as guess, how do you think this one was made?

https://flic.kr/p/2pAxG6A

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Handheld camera, a bunch of short exposures combined in post.

Click to expand...

I was planning on testing different exposure lengths to see what effects it had. Nice to have that confirmed by an expert in the techniques.

Multiple exposures, also with G9. One shot is in focus; the other is out of focus. Sandra Bartocha is known for her poetic images using this technique. She got really upset when Nikon eliminated raw support for multiple exposures (and so did I).

I like the result in this image very much.

I enjoy making multiple exposure images and stacking them in post.

In the following image I wanted to create an impression of the pampas grass leaves gently wafting in the breeze.


Pampas Grass in Late Summer - Three separate, stacked exposures.

Keep experimenting, Dave.

--
Regards,
Vitée
Capture all the light and colour!

You may find this useful: Film Simulation Recipes for Double Exposure Photography.

You can certainly fill a card quickly doing this stuff. 650 frames in about 20 minutes.

DMillier said:

One project I'm working on is multiple exposure photography. I had a brief play by (ab)using the in-camera pixel shift mechanism in my Lumix G9 to do rapid bursts of 8 images of a single subject while moving the camera (including rotation) in mid burst. The G9 is convenient because it automatically combines the images in camera for you.

I've also been exploring an alternative: combining different images using the image stack tool in darktable (mean or median blend). This has the advantage that it allows me to combine unrelated images and extend the stack up to around 16 frames before the script fails.

With these sorts of images you have no real idea what will look good and what won't; there is a large degree of serendipity. Here's an example of one that came out looking reasonably cohesive:



I'm new to attempting this kind of thing and naive as to all the possible techniques available (no Photoshop, though!). Any suggestions of other methods and approaches to try would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

This is astonishing, one of the best images I've ever seen lately!

Would results in general (not on this pic) be better if the camera is stationary on each shot?

Is this possible using the GFX pixel shift?

Any particular image stack settings to try this in photoshop?

Thanks

--
Apollon

Jim, these are awesome and some other ones I saw you posting a couple of months ago. It would be great if you could make a blog about this - showing a few of the initial photos along with any tips, like do you use any special stacking settings while combining those in photoshop? I understand of course some of this may be proprietary and thanks for any info shared here.

I see this stuff in galleries all the time so some people must like it.

It looks really AI-generated to me. But I guess it is a form of digital art, not photography really.

I bet it is fun to do.

But I react to this stuff like you react to Cherubs. LOL.

--
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

One of my favorite series that I have seen is Jim's Staccato series... very captivating images.

Greg7579 said:

I see this stuff in galleries all the time so some people must like it.

It looks really AI-generated to me. But I guess it is a form of digital art, not photography really.

I bet it is fun to do.

But I react to this stuff like you react to Cherubs. LOL.

Click to expand...

A matter of taste, of course.

But I consider it photography rather than digital art on the grounds that there is nothing technique-wise that isn't standard photography. Multiple exposures, deliberate or accidental, have been used since the very dawn of photography. The processing is just standard brightness, contrast, sharpening, clarity. There are no CGI effects or PS filters being used, no compositing of images using selections or layers or texture screens, nothing like that. It's just what happens when you double expose 15 shots on top of one another. I'm not a fan of those shots with a giant eyeball replacing the moon, that sort of stuff. All we are trying to do with multiple exposures is smudge the edges and abstract things a bit.

There are lots of techniques used to produce different effects. I just tried a bunch using normal handheld shutter speeds and another bunch using slow speeds. I imagined that the slow speeds would blend the frames better but it didn't really turn out like that. The blending of slow exposures just gave a blend of camera shake images. It looked better with faster speeds. I'm guessing slow speeds will work better with moving subjects. One method used by some people involves walking around your subject in a circle capturing images of the subject from all angles. I tried it today, it gave kind of odd results. I suspect it works better with trees, something that doesn't have a recognisable front and back.

Ap0ll0n said:

DMillier said:

One project I'm working on is multiple exposure photography. I had a brief play by (ab)using the in-camera pixel shift mechanism in my Lumix G9 to do rapid bursts of 8 images of a single subject while moving the camera (including rotation) in mid burst. The G9 is convenient because it automatically combines the images in camera for you.

I've also been exploring an alternative: combining different images using the image stack tool in darktable (mean or median blend). This has the advantage that it allows me to combine unrelated images and extend the stack up to around 16 frames before the script fails.

With these sorts of images you have no real idea what will look good and what won't; there is a large degree of serendipity. Here's an example of one that came out looking reasonably cohesive:



I'm new to attempting this kind of thing and naive as to all the possible techniques available (no Photoshop, though!). Any suggestions of other methods and approaches to try would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

This is astonishing, one of the best images I've ever seen lately!

Would results in general (not on this pic) be better if the camera is stationary on each shot?

Is this possible using the GFX pixel shift?

Any particular image stack settings to try this in photoshop?

Thanks

Click to expand...

This particular image is a combination of unrelated shots rather than multiple shots of the same subject. I chose a selection of pictures from my recent holiday in the south of france. I just aimed to pick source images that had similar colours.

I don't know much about photoshop, I did this in darktable. It was a median or mean stack.

My 50s has no IBIS, so no pixel shift. But I've done some with the pixel shift in my G9. It works pretty much the same as stacking in software as far as I can see. The Lumix pixel shift method is neat because it does it in camera, producing a combined raw file.

As to whether the camera (or subject) should be stationary, I think that just depends. You get different looks depending on what techniques you employ and what works depends on subject and lighting as much as the technique. You will have to take a lot of pictures to find something that works well, it's decidedly hit or miss. I'm a novice at this, Jim has way more experience.

This guy is worth stealing ideas from




--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

What I think I learned from this outing:

1 If you shoot handheld, multiple exposures of static subjects look better if you use a hand-holdable shutter speed. Very slow shutter speeds handheld look like blended camera shake images. Maybe if you add deliberate ICM as well, it would look better?

2. If you use the walk all away around the subject shooting 360 degrees, it looks better if the subject looks broadly the same all around. More recognisable subjects look a bit weird if you blend shots from all angles.



--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)