View Full Version : What's it called and how is it done?
tangman31
18th of December 2007 (Tue), 13:57
I am sure the instructions are on here somewhere, but I don't know what it is called so I can't search for it.
What are the photos called where it is the same person in the photo, but they are at various points in the photo such as stitting across the table from each other, opposite ends of the couch, etc.
How is it done?
Thanks!!!
Lidor7
18th of December 2007 (Tue), 16:17
Here's a basic explanation of the simplest example:
So you have two of the same person sitting across the table from each other. Set up your camera on a tripod so your picture will always be framed the same. Take a picture of the person sitting on the left. Then move them and take a picture of them sitting on the right -- all with the same framing.
Then in an image editing program (i.e. photoshop) slice each photo in half and put them back together with the person on each side. Since the framing is exactly the same, the halves should fit together flawlessly.
rammy
18th of December 2007 (Tue), 16:30
It's called "multiplicity". Google it and you'll have loads of tutorials such as this one:
http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/articles.php?action=expand,7520
John_B
18th of December 2007 (Tue), 16:47
tangman31,
It can also be done with what is called a double exposure (from the film days). A double exposure is when you take a photo and then take another photo on the same piece of film. It can also be done with a DSLR by taking a photo then put the lens cap on while leaving the shutter open rearrange the subject and take the lens cap off for a second exposure.
Here are two examples
Seeing Double!! was done with one stuffed animal with triggering the flash manually twice. No software was needed other than for resizing for the web. :)
Seeing Double!!
http://johnbdigital.com/special_beauty/seeing_double.jpg
click for specs (http://johnbdigital.com/special_beauty/seeing_double.htm)
Hot Apple luckily this Red Delicious apple isn't really on fire
This was done with a 60 second exposure (no software except for resizing and for my name + frame). I set the apple in a dark room and manually fired the flash (580ex) which was not attached to the camera and set at 1/16th power. Then put the lens cover on (the camera still thought it was taking a photo), and moved the apple and lit the candle. I placed the candle right where the apple was and removed the lens cover for less then a second and ended the exposure.
Hot Apple!
http://johnbdigital.com/special_beauty/hot_apple.jpg
click for specs (http://johnbdigital.com/special_beauty/hot_apple.htm)
MattMoore
18th of December 2007 (Tue), 17:37
Can easily be done with a tripod, a remote switch/timer, and photoshop layering (or photo editor of choice)
I believe the term is multiplicity (as mentioned above).
EDIT : Here is one my brother did with a tripod, the camera's 10 second timer, and photoshop. - http://themoores.zenfolio.com/p472705836/?photo=h2C644127#744767783
rammy
18th of December 2007 (Tue), 17:51
The "movie" with Michael Keaton was quite poor though, eh?
MattMoore
18th of December 2007 (Tue), 18:02
The "movie" with Michael Keaton was quite poor though, eh?
I think that applies to most Michael Keaton movies.
_aravena
18th of December 2007 (Tue), 18:18
BAH! Batman pwns! Screw the new ones. Aniwho, which is easier, long exposure or different frames all together?
MattMoore
18th of December 2007 (Tue), 18:45
BAH! Batman pwns! Screw the new ones. Aniwho, which is easier, long exposure or different frames all together?
Sorry to tell you this...but Adam West would easily win in a fight against Michael Keaton (thats just a fact of life).
When Adam West was Batman...that was ALL Adam. Who needs molded plastic abs? Michael Keaton...thats who!
I guess that new Batman Begins one is kinda cool too....but not as cool as Adam West.
And different frames by far, a long exposure would have a lot of blurring when you (or the subject) changed positions.
_aravena
18th of December 2007 (Tue), 21:36
^Kinda figured. Ah yes Adam West, now just get him a decent outfit.
tangman31
19th of December 2007 (Wed), 00:12
Thank you all for your response! I appreciate it a lot!!
lostdoggy
19th of December 2007 (Wed), 00:33
In my younger days they call it multiple exposure and the SLR in those day just requires you to take a picture and press the button on the bottom of the camera and then crank the film advance and take another shot and you can keep doing this until your frame gets saturated.
bbulldog
19th of December 2007 (Wed), 01:54
This sort of thing can be fun....
deadpass
19th of December 2007 (Wed), 02:48
I think the easiest is using photoshop instead of a long exposure, but both ways are good.
azpix
19th of December 2007 (Wed), 03:24
I am sure the instructions are on here somewhere, but I don't know what it is called so I can't search for it.
What are the photos called where it is the same person in the photo, but they are at various points in the photo such as stitting across the table from each other, opposite ends of the couch, etc.
How is it done?
Thanks!!!
my crack at is below, from earlier this year (all the same baby). Here is how i did it. Camera on Tripod, took 6 pix, making sure only the subject moves. then decided which pic would be bottom layer in ps. i then cut them out and pasted them on a new layer. The cutouts don't have to be precise at all as long as you don't have any camera movement.
good luck .
tangman31
19th of December 2007 (Wed), 11:20
The examples are great. Now I have to find the time to do this. I am sure my kids will love it!!!
lostdoggy
19th of December 2007 (Wed), 12:31
my crack at is below, from earlier this year (all the same baby). Here is how i did it. Camera on Tripod, took 6 pix, making sure only the subject moves. then decided which pic would be bottom layer in ps. i then cut them out and pasted them on a new layer. The cutouts don't have to be precise at all as long as you don't have any camera movement.
good luck .
http://www.coreyschimmel.com/jpgweb.jpg
Now if the camera is on a tripod and everything except the baby is not moved, wouldn't it be easier to just stack the layers and then use vector mask to add the babies at different points then to cut and paste???
queenbee288
19th of December 2007 (Wed), 13:40
But Michael Keaton was hot as Batman. ;)
azpix
30th of December 2007 (Sun), 12:20
Now if the camera is on a tripod and everything except the baby is not moved, wouldn't it be easier to just stack the layers and then use vector mask to add the babies at different points then to cut and paste???
lost,
your going outside my very elementary knowledge of PS. I don't know if it would have been easier.
slimninj4
6th of January 2008 (Sun), 08:47
This is pretty cool. I found some decent tutorials and will mess around with it this week with the wife.
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.