Double exposure

[cyrus]

We're all familiar with the double exposure technique where one image is super-imposed on another image. This involves taking photos of two different scenes.

How about taking two shots of the same scene, but with different apertures? I came across this in "Primitive Photography" but had never heard about it before. It supposedly creates and "aura-like" effect. Does anyone else do this or something similar?

[BrianShaw]

Interesting technique. Can't say that I've heard of that before but might give it a try. Good only on static subjects, thoguh. Sort of a "poor man's soft focus lens". The closest I've gotten to this technique are the times when I've acidentally kicked a tripod leg on timed exposures.

[Colleen K]

Are you talking about the Orton effect? That uses one image out of focus and one in focus to create the aura type effect I think you are talking about. It was very popular a few years back on some nature photography sites-you can easily Google it to see if that is what you are thinking of.

Colleen

[polyglot]

You should have a look first at the 135 STF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_STF_135mm_f/2.8_T4.5_lens) (see also (http://www.the135stf.net/)) which uses an apodisation filter to give gaussian instead of disc (sharp-edged) bokeh.

The Minolta 7 SLR has a "Pseudo-STF" mode which attempts to mimic this effect by taking multiple exposures across a wide range (about 7 stops I think) of apertures so that the core of the bokeh is brightest and the edges are dimmest - sort of a step-wise approximation to the gaussian shape of the STF's apodisation filter.

So by taking multiple exposures with varying aperture (and not varying the focus!) you're doing a pseudo-STF effect. Your out of focus areas will have (e.g. with 2 exposures) two steps to the blur-edge; areas that are in-focus will remain in-focus with no visible difference.

The Orton Effect is similar except that one exposure has lots of stuff out of focus, which gives a strong glowing effect even to areas that were in-focus on the first frame. Obviously you could do even funkier versions of this with a view camera than you can with 35mm and just bringing the focus in close.

[jloen]

I did a double exposure of water near a ferry dock that came out (I thought) quite spectacular, with a shimmering effect to the water that I really liked. I printed a 11x17 and entered it in a local (juried) photo contest and it was eliminated out of hand and not displayed. Some seem to view a double exposure as an inexcusable mistake, although I've never seen such a riveting effect.
I've decided that I'm not ashamed of it...
I think that double exposures are worth experimenting with, if you want a truly uncanny different look that forces people to look closely and think.

[cosmicexplosion]

I did a double exposure of water near a ferry dock that came out (I thought) quite spectacular, with a shimmering effect to the water that I really liked. I printed a 11x17 and entered it in a local (juried) photo contest and it was eliminated out of hand and not displayed. Some seem to view a double exposure as an inexcusable mistake, although I've never seen such a riveting effect.
I've decided that I'm not ashamed of it...
I think that double exposures are worth experimenting with, if you want a truly uncanny different look that forces people to look closely and think.

post it here, sounds great!

[cyrus]

I did a double exposure of water near a ferry dock that came out (I thought) quite spectacular, with a shimmering effect to the water that I really liked.

I'd love to see that.