A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Featured Equipment Deals

Introduction to Lightroom Tabs: Develop (Video Tutorial) Read More

Introduction to Lightroom Tabs: Develop (Video Tutorial)

Learn how to use the Lightroom Develop Tab to ensure your image is just as you want it to be, including presents, tone curve, lens correction, and more!

Latest Equipment Articles

Nikon D810 versus D750: Which to Choose? Read More

Nikon D810 versus D750: Which to Choose?

Both the Nikon D810 and D750 are excellent FX-format DSLRs. Shun Cheung compares the two models to help you choose which one is the right choice for you.

Latest Learning Articles

State of the ART: The Little Lens That Could Read More

State of the ART: The Little Lens That Could

Fine art photographer Pete Myers talks about his love for the Cosina Voigtländer CV ULTRON 40mm SLii, a lens he considers to be "The Little Lens That Could."


double exposure

Alex Endo , Mar 13, 2007; 07:28 p.m.

Hey everyone I was wondering if there is any way to make a double exposure through the camera on a canon 30d. I know that you can on the elan 7e because I was able to do it on my old camera, but with the 30d i can't find out how to do it anywhere and i would rather not just do it in photoshop.

thank you, aj

Responses


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Bob Atkins , Mar 13, 2007; 07:35 p.m.

You can't. You have to do it in Photoshop.

Actually, with digital, there's no reason not to use Photoshop for double exposures, even if you could do it "in-camera".

Leszek Scholz , Mar 13, 2007; 10:41 p.m.

About the only way I can think of would be to set the camera to Bulb exposure, use very high F-number (small aperture), and use flash. This way you could open the shutter, fire the flash manually, cover the lens, move to the next scene, uncover the lens, fire the flash again...just speculating, but it should be possible - I will give it a go today and check it out.

Johnson D. , Mar 14, 2007; 12:56 a.m.

"...i would rather not just do it in photoshop"

Why? It seems to me that Photoshop would be much easier and provide for much more control over the result. I'm curious about what you are trying to do that would not make this the case.

Simon George , Mar 14, 2007; 05:25 a.m.

I agree that it's quite simple to do it in Photoshop - but an obvious barrier is the need to own a multi-hundred dollar piece of software!

It might be more difficult to achieve in digital camera than in a film one due to the nature of the actual image...? Perhaps overlaying 1s and 0s in a relatively low processing power piece of hardware is a problem?

Leszek Scholz , Mar 14, 2007; 08:23 a.m.

BTW, Picture Window will do the combination of two images with no problem at a fraction of the price (plus lots of other goodies there) so you could try PW, I guess... Of course PW is not "the latest and greatest" and does not look as flashy as for instance Lightroom, but it is a damn good piece of software AFAIAC.

virginia sustarsic , Mar 14, 2007; 11:28 a.m.

Photoshop Elements is fairly inexpensive and can do it.

Alex Endo , Mar 14, 2007; 03:36 p.m.

Yeah i downloaded photoshop but all this registering crap is impossible to keep it on your computer

Bob Atkins , Mar 14, 2007; 05:54 p.m.

Tens of thousands of photographers have no problem keeping PhotoShop on their computer.

If you have a legal, licensed version, you shouldn't have either.

You can find cheap, or even free, software to combine images. You don't need full blown PhotoShop.

Jose Gil , Mar 14, 2007; 09:20 p.m.

Gimp or Gimpshop will do.

If you want to emulate a true double exposure, create a new layer with the blend mode set to screen. That's mathematically the same thing as a double exposure.


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses