How to get a shine on....
Discussion
Very appropriate for this month, I think the photo in this thread is fantastic....
www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/201328
www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/201328
it's defitently worth registering there - some of the photographs displayed are incredible!
This is the picture taken from that thread:
The only forum you need to register for is the one which has people in it IIRC (edit:: and monthly competitions it appears). It's all to do with the fact there are nude photography discussed hence the need for regulation, understandably.
>> Edited by docevi1 on Sunday 3rd April 10:46
This is the picture taken from that thread:
The only forum you need to register for is the one which has people in it IIRC (edit:: and monthly competitions it appears). It's all to do with the fact there are nude photography discussed hence the need for regulation, understandably.
>> Edited by docevi1 on Sunday 3rd April 10:46
Rob_O said:
Four 8-second exposures blended to create a single image.
I tried to do a single 20-30 second exposure, moving from position to position after 6-8 seconds or so at each ... but it didn't work as well.
20D, Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM lens, ISO 200, Av between 5.3 and 6.0 (varied for each image), Tv 8 seconds (x4), focal length 53mm, no noise reduction, USM 100/.3/0.
Rob_O said:
These shots -- which are four (4) 8-second exposures blended, as opposed to a single 24-second exposure -- were indeed done very late in the day and well after the sun was below the horizon. In reality, it was damn near dark (notice the lights on the house off in the distance, as well as reflections of lights in the front bumper). No ND filter employed however.
Note that I was able to pull of up to 30-second exposures without blowing out details, but those looked like mid-day photos they were so bright.
He explains it better than I
I did a couple of ones like that for an A level photograpy project, based on some work by Martin Smith I think - he did a series of photos called "Make my Night" about a night out where he plays every person in the scene.
Here's one of my efforts, not as good as the one above though...
Here's one of my efforts, not as good as the one above though...
darthdicky said:I actually prefer yours. It's a lot like that Michael Keaton movie and is pretty cool. I assume it's a digital splice of three shots made with the same exposure from a static camera?
Here's one of my efforts, not as good as the one above though...
>> Edited by -DeaDLocK- on Sunday 3rd April 19:15
Ok, silly question maybe but does the front number plate of that Audi sit on the grill or is it under that cut out bit above?. I don't think he's PSed over the plate as the reflection carries on through the paintwork, and i don't think it has a rotatating bond style cover as i imagine that would be illegal.
Steve!??, i'm gonna look at yours i think.
Steve!??, i'm gonna look at yours i think.
Hows this for semi transparent simpo 
It's a multiple exposure in some sense of the term, the camera was on a tripod and I just took a few frames as my dad moved around (no identical triplets here I'm afraid, and I've got far more hair than him!) then as DeadLock says, spliced the appropriate section of the image into the right place - it's suprising how easy it is to do as long as the tripod doesn't move. You don't have to select any shapes, just do a rectangular box around the person as the background will match up anyway.
Here's another one I did of my brother falling off his bike:
Might have looked better with a bit of transparency but it had to be solid for the project, and I quite like the way it turned out anyway - it makes it more obvious that it isn't a normal multiple exposure
It's a multiple exposure in some sense of the term, the camera was on a tripod and I just took a few frames as my dad moved around (no identical triplets here I'm afraid, and I've got far more hair than him!) then as DeadLock says, spliced the appropriate section of the image into the right place - it's suprising how easy it is to do as long as the tripod doesn't move. You don't have to select any shapes, just do a rectangular box around the person as the background will match up anyway.
Here's another one I did of my brother falling off his bike:
Might have looked better with a bit of transparency but it had to be solid for the project, and I quite like the way it turned out anyway - it makes it more obvious that it isn't a normal multiple exposure
darthdicky said:
Might have looked better with a bit of transparency but it had to be solid for the project, and I quite like the way it turned out anyway - it makes it more obvious that it isn't a normal multiple exposure
I like that. Digital just gives you more ways to do things. With film you had to take the shots on the same piece of film by cocking the shutter but not winding on, so to get multiple images with the b/g correctly exposed, the moving subject had little choice but to be semi-transparent as it was only contributing part of the exposure.
Now you need to get an SB800 (if you're using Nikon) and practice with the strobe setting
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff