Double exposures

In the old days if I want to make double exposures without advancing the film on my Hasselblad was quite easy. But what about now, with my DSLR is there ways to do double exposures? My cameras: Canon 5D and Canon 40D.
Thank you.

The 5D III has a multiple exposure feature, as well as one for HDR. I've used the HDR but not the multiple exp. on my 5D, since I couldn't think of a subject. There are other ways to combine multiple images with software, such as Photoshop.

It's so much easier to combine images via software with a greater degree of control that the demand for double exposures is fairly small.

After the introduction of these features in some of the more recent cameras, like the 1DX and the 5D Mark III, Canon also updated their (free) post-processing software Digital Photo Professional to offer the same capability as is supported by these cameras. So the only thing you need to do is to take your double exposure images separately with your 40D, then play with them in DPP to get the double exposure results.
Will cost you nothing, except maybe the time to download the updated DPP.

I have tried multiple exposures on my 5d iii. Its quite easy to do but like it was mentioned earlier it will definately be easier with software so you can move the overlay picture around more.

Thanks for the DPP tip. I didn't realize it could do that.

Played around a bit with the 5D3, its fun but probably better in most cases to do it via software later.

The double exposure feature is one on the 6D that I'm not overly impressed with. It's fun but it's still not the same as double exposing film. For me its still easier to get what I want with software.

This is a double exposure self-portrait that I did in-camera on my 6D. Only minor exposure, white balance, and contrast adjustments.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …asselmudarris/9​265288702/

Let me help you with that...

Yeah. A couple years ago when I jumped back into photography after a 13 year hiatus, I had the same concerns. When people first responded with "Why mess with all that when you can just do it in post", I got a little irritated. I've always been big into getting it right in the camera and I didn't want to mess with post-processing if it wasn't necessary.

Then after a few months of working with layers in photoshop I realized just how wrong I was. If you do it in-camera, then you only have one shot to get two photos to come out right and you have very little control. Doing it in post lets you reposition, resize, and change all aspects of both images as necessary and it is incredibly easy. And you can do cool stuff like this as well. I shot this in about 5 minutes, then spent about another 5 minutes in post.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/kevinfreels/9​293445037/

It is easy to compose your shots in camera though, just something I would point out.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16122833
It is easy to compose your shots in camera though, just something I would point out.

Have you used the new double-exposure features in any of the newer cameras? I haven't. I was curious how they actually worked. Can you actually see on the live-view both the first shot and the second shot overlayed on top of it? If not, that would be cool.

Yes, at a very minimum, you can use the first shot as an overlay, I haven't used more than 2 exposures though. However, no matter what you try, you get ghostly exposures of each item, either additive or average. To do the moon over a city, I think you have to use the light or dark option to get the best result. It is alot of work, I would rather just do it in software with the control I would have, although there are some great ideas out there that produce instant results for potential customers.

You can't get anything nice like what you produced above though, that was very well done!

It used to be pretty simple to do double exposures using black backgrounds and masking. Masking would also work by itself but was much simpler in larger formats than using a 35mm camera. But I still cant think of any option where doing it in camera would yield better results than doing it in post. I think of it like the difference between shooting raw and jpg.