One of the less serious ways that I have used a camera involved taking a triple exposure through red/green/blue filters. Anything that moved, e.g. clouds, water, would have natural colors except where the image changed and that change would register in the color of the filter at the time of exposure. This may be what Emily was referring to. Has anyone tried 3 exposures through 3 filters on digital and then overlaid in PS? Or how about just 3 exposures and then pulling out a separate channel for each and overlaying those? Does that make sense?
Don
Bob Talbot wrote:
Time. Spend a moment shooting onsite, the image is complete when
you
download it.
Emily
OK: I knew there would be one ;o)
Can you post one of the double exposures you did in your former film days to the gallery sometime so we can see what digital is robbing us of ;o)
OK, with the exception of time (though frankly it seems a tiny fraction of the total workflow time) ... any other reasons?
Thinks: is an image really complete until not only you have downloaded it but done something with it. Thinks, for saving time, get the two half-exposures right in camera then after download it is a trivially simple answer to 50:50 combine them byte for byte. You don't need photoshop, a PDA would do. But later, if you had more time, you could slide the 50:50 about to see what gave the best mix etc ...
With film you don't have the choice - you have to get it right.
--
======================================================
Don Roberts * Bittersweet Productions * Iowa City, IA
* *
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Martin Luther King
=======================================================
