Old 11-01-2007, 11:44 PM   #26
Northern Limits
Senior Member
 
Northern Limits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias
Ahh, I see how you did it now.
There you go. Have fun during the next full moon. I was surprised at how easy it was to do.
__________________
Cheers, Jim.


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Northern Limits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 12:52 AM   #27
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Limits
There you go. Have fun during the next full moon. I was surprised at how easy it was to do.
Can't do it with a 350D, although I can get a pretty decent moon shot once in a while...



(that was during an eclipse)

Last edited by JimThias; 11-03-2007 at 05:48 PM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 10:06 AM   #28
Lee Baxter
Member
 
Lee Baxter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 38
Default Double Exposure

Just thought i would share a couple of photos i took back around 98/2000. The process was the same as Jim, Northern Limits, only in reverse. I took the scene first with a 28 mm lens then rewound the film and waited for the next full moon, then i reloaded the film and captured the moon with a telephoto some where between 200mm and 400mm. I drew a basic map of the scene as close to scale as possible so i knew where to place the moon and how much zoom to use. I went through a phase of double exposing the moon in everything, although this was the last lot of double exposure photos i took. Regards Lee



Last edited by Lee Baxter; 11-03-2007 at 10:54 AM.
Lee Baxter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 05:47 PM   #29
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,863
Default

Ok, I understand the process...double exposure and you place the moon in the corner (or where ever you want it) when you zoom in. Since I've never done double exposures with a film camera, I guess I'm left with one question: How come the dark sky doesn't "mask" over the rest of the previously exposed picture? Or, does it, but the exposure is quick enough that the dark sky doesn't cover up the original scene?
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 09:15 PM   #30
M.L.Gabert
Senior Member
 
M.L.Gabert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: State of Confusion
Posts: 121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SP3197
Well checking historical data, the moon appears to be in the correct phase for that day.

The following information is provided for Port Jervis, Orange County, New York (longitude W74.7, latitude N41.4):



Sunday 26 August 2007 Eastern Daylight Time SUN Begin civil twilight 5:50 a.m. Sunrise 6:19 a.m. Sun transit 1:01 p.m. Sunset 7:42 p.m. End civil twilight 8:11 p.m. MOON Moonrise 6:25 p.m. on preceding day Moonset 3:53 a.m. Moonrise 6:57 p.m. Moon transit 11:58 p.m. Moonset 5:08 a.m. on following day Phase of the Moon on 26 August: waxing gibbous with 96% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.

Full Moon on 28 August 2007 at 6:34 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
All I can say is it must be nice to have this much extra time on your hands for all this research.
M.L.Gabert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 10:32 PM   #31
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias
Ok, I understand the process...double exposure and you place the moon in the corner (or where ever you want it) when you zoom in. Since I've never done double exposures with a film camera, I guess I'm left with one question: How come the dark sky doesn't "mask" over the rest of the previously exposed picture? Or, does it, but the exposure is quick enough that the dark sky doesn't cover up the original scene?
Jim, it's cumulative exposure to light that matters. Dark sky can't mask because dark sky does not increase the exposure. If you tried a double exposure and the second image were blue sky instead of night and a moon, you would end up with overexposed blue sky in the final image and a loss of everything in the first exposure.

Put another way, a dark exposure does not paint the negative black! It's the absence of light, not the presence of a black shade of light.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 10:59 PM   #32
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias
Ok, I understand the process...double exposure and you place the moon in the corner (or where ever you want it) when you zoom in. Since I've never done double exposures with a film camera, I guess I'm left with one question: How come the dark sky doesn't "mask" over the rest of the previously exposed picture? Or, does it, but the exposure is quick enough that the dark sky doesn't cover up the original scene?
You're misunderstanding how film works here: It starts out dark, and becomes a picture when light is applied to it, a dark area will not mask over anything. (Well, technically it depends on the type of film whether it starts off black or white, negative verses diapositive)
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 11:00 PM   #33
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
Jim, it's cumulative exposure to light that matters. Dark sky can't mask because dark sky does not increase the exposure. If you tried a double exposure and the second image were blue sky instead of night and a moon, you would end up with overexposed blue sky in the final image and a loss of everything in the first exposure.

Put another way, a dark exposure does not paint the negative black! It's the absence of light, not the presence of a black shade of light.
That's what I get for not refreshing after leaving for half an hour!
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 11:16 PM   #34
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
Jim, it's cumulative exposure to light that matters. Dark sky can't mask because dark sky does not increase the exposure. If you tried a double exposure and the second image were blue sky instead of night and a moon, you would end up with overexposed blue sky in the final image and a loss of everything in the first exposure.

Put another way, a dark exposure does not paint the negative black! It's the absence of light, not the presence of a black shade of light.
Ok, that makes perfect sense. I guess I'd never even contemplated the concept of double exposures with film...although in my youth, it happened a few times with crappy cameras...and the results were bizarre, yet amazing to a youngster who didn't know better.


Alright, and since the moon is MUCH brighter than stars, the time it takes for a perfect exposure of the moon would not be enough time to allow stars to saturate the previous photo.

Everything makes sense now. Thanks, guys.

Now...I suppose it's safe to say that the original picture in question is a double exposure. So presenting a "fake" scene with a double exposure is acceptable on RP, eh?
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 11:33 PM   #35
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

If it's a double exposure, I have no problem with it. If in fact it was edited in in photoshop (Or, heaven forbid, MS paint!) then I would have trouble accepting it as genuine!
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 11:38 PM   #36
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40
If it's a double exposure, I have no problem with it. If in fact it was edited in in photoshop (Or, heaven forbid, MS paint!) then I would have trouble accepting it as genuine!
So...what's the difference? Double exposure on film is acceptable but the same exact double exposure using a different tool (photoshop/computer) is unacceptable? Beginning is the same, end is the same, middle is different.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 11:38 PM   #37
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40
If it's a double exposure, I have no problem with it. If in fact it was edited in in photoshop (Or, heaven forbid, MS paint!) then I would have trouble accepting it as genuine!
That is logically inconsistent. If the end result is the same, why is it acceptable to do via double exposure but not via PS?

In my view, not every manipulation that is possible should be acceptable for RP. I think this one should not have been accepted. Unless RP is turning a new leaf in terms of the dimensions of allowable creativity. Their site, of course, not mine.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 11:40 PM   #38
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
That is logically inconsistent. If the end result is the same, why is it acceptable to do via double exposure but not via PS?
Beat'cha.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2007, 11:54 PM   #39
Northern Limits
Senior Member
 
Northern Limits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Limits
Just as another thought. This could be argued as manipulation because you can put the enlarged moon in the finished picture where it would not exsist in true life. (One for the Administrators to think on )
How is adding something any different than removing something like wires from the picture?
Where are the purists (Joe, Ween) to comment?
__________________
Cheers, Jim.


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Northern Limits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2007, 12:08 AM   #40
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Limits
How is adding something any different than removing something like wires from the picture?
Where are the purists (Joe, Ween) to comment?
Another good point.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2007, 12:12 AM   #41
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias
Beat'cha.
Hey, how come your 7:38 PM beats my 7:38 PM????????

__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2007, 12:26 AM   #42
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
Hey, how come your 7:38 PM beats my 7:38 PM????????


Ahh, it feels good to be on top.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2007, 12:32 AM   #43
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias
Ahh, it feels good to be on top.
And you have more views than I do! With fewer shots in the database!
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2007, 12:34 AM   #44
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
And you have more views than I do! With fewer shots in the database!
It's all about quality, not quantity, man! Didn't anyone ever tell you that?
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2007, 12:54 AM   #45
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Limits
How is adding something any different than removing something like wires from the picture?
Where are the purists (Joe, Ween) to comment?
I'm a purist? Ha! I'm sure the goat-sacrificing, Satanic cult that I lead will find that humorous. Did you really think the goat in my avatar was for the GN?

Just kidding. But I already did weight in:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me on Page 1 of this thread
Well, multiple exposures on the same frame would be the same as using the layer feature in PS, would it not? The end result is an image that is not a representation of reality...
If that's not clear enough, I don't think it should be acceptible...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2007, 12:56 AM   #46
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias
It's all about quality, not quantity, man! Didn't anyone ever tell you that?
Just because I have never run across a MoW crew...

Congrats on the multiple PCAs!
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2007, 01:22 AM   #47
Northern Limits
Senior Member
 
Northern Limits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween
I'm a purist? Ha! I'm sure the goat-sacrificing, Satanic cult that I lead will find that humorous. Did you really think the goat in my avatar was for the GN?

Just kidding. But I already did weight in:


If that's not clear enough, I don't think it should be acceptible...

Its not GN? OK, score one for the goat.
Clear now.
__________________
Cheers, Jim.


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!

Last edited by Northern Limits; 11-04-2007 at 09:41 PM. Reason: innapropriate respnse
Northern Limits is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2007, 04:57 AM   #48
DelmonteX
Senior Member
 
DelmonteX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 214
Default

Where are the stars?
DelmonteX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2007, 06:21 AM   #49
Arne H. B.
Senior Member
 
Arne H. B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tracy, CA
Posts: 171
Default

Maybe I'm a little off topic here but there's something I don't really like about long exposures. I'm not talking about stationary trains for a few seconds, I mean holding the shutter fir the length of the train type shots. They certainly don't qualify as manipulated, but still, it's just not what you see in real life. When I watch trains, even at night they're hardly a streak of light. I've never seen the stars appear to swirl above the earth either, at least not at a glance. But anyway, those shots are within the capabilties of the camera itself, no PS needed or double exposure etc., but I still don't care much for it. I do like night shots of cityscapes though, because a long exposure is the only way to get it bright enough to appear as it would to your eyes. As for the photo in question, has the photographer posted a reply yet, I'm not sure if there is a different name used in the forums or not? I'm sure admin has caught notice by now and will probably handle it from here.
Arne H. B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2007, 09:16 AM   #50
Wizzo
Senior Member
 
Wizzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 545
Default

Has anyone noticed this one

Image © Pete Lerro - www.Lerroproductions.com
PhotoID: 210058
Photograph © Pete Lerro - www.Lerroproductions.com


While its a very clever image, and I appreciate how difficult it is to add the steam effect digitally - doesn't this count as blatent digital manipulation, as it clearly doesn't represent the scene as photographed, yet its been accepted and made Screeners Choice as well ?

If thats the case, then why can't I remove obtrusive poles, wires and other objects digitally as well ? Maybe add a tornado or 2 in the background, or make it snow in June ?

Screeners - please can you explain this decision so that we know what is acceptable and what isn't
__________________
STEVE

Press here to see my pics on railpictures.net

More pics here D1059 on Flickr

Last edited by Wizzo; 11-04-2007 at 09:19 AM.
Wizzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.