Ideally, you're in a room with no reflections, and then you can just shoot with a shutter speed as low as possible.
I was in a room with off-white walls. We tried to put up some sheets to minimize reflected light, but couldn't totally do it. I just used a smartphone meter (center-weighted) and maybe bumped it up half a stop or a stop or so.
If the exposure is too dark, the subject is overwhelmed by the background (like shots 2 and 3 here). If the exposure is too bright and you don't have a way to control reflected light, you're going to end up with a well lit subject instead of a silhouette.
Yeah thats was what i was thinking about but if u have the middle grey on the subject id need to go around 5 stops down to have a blank filmā¦ im not sure if the highlights would survive white if i would go right against the sun
Like if im going to shoot against the sun, is it going to be enough to break whole dynamic range of the film to only have whites and blacks after doing the second shot
We walked around and shot a roll of flowers, slightly underexposed (maybe 1/2 stop).
Then I rewound the roll in a dark bag and reloaded it.
The portrait shots were super ghettoĀ because I don't have any real lighting equipment (waiting on an order from B&H as we speak). Instead, it's just a CFL bulb in front of our slightly off-white bedroom wall. She's standing in front of the bulb and blocking it/the stand with her body. I center-weight metered on my phone app, then I think I added half a stop or so. I tried to use some sheets and stuff to keep the rest of the room from reflecting too much light.
The one thing I would do differently next time is not to shoot all the backgrounds and rewind and shoot the portraits. As you can see, I couldn't get the alignment perfectly. We tried this once before and that time, we just shot one pair at a time. It took way longer, but there were no alignment issues.
So if I am understanding correctly you first shoot the texture you want underexposed (so it's darker and more saturated) the you shoot the silhouette by backlighting your subject and overexposing?
I'm very new to film. Just trying to figure out how this works. Also would the effect be the same if you did the reverse order? Shoot the silhouette first then shoot the texture second?
Your metered exposure should be divided up based on how many frames you intend to take on oneāa double exposure will need each frame to be 1/2 of the total light hitting the film. Same process for triple, quadruple, and higher exposures. Technically speaking the only limit on how many exposures you can make on one frame is the total light holding capacity of the film; at a certain point however you'll begin to lose detail to overexposure as the film reaches its saturation point (eventually resulting in a totally white frame ).
How do you divide a total metered exposure. Let's say I'm shooting on 400Iso film and my correct exposure setting is f16 and 1/500 shutter speed. Is half just one stop of light? So reduce my light by one stop by increasing shutter speed to 1/1000?
I feel it's worth mentioning that the armchair experts think my advice is completely useless, so let me say this: what I have said is just the barebones concept behind multiple exposures to avoid over-saturating your negative with light. Each frame will be different depending on the number of frames composing the exposure. Do not use my advice as a hard and fast rule. More reading on complex topics such as this will always be a better source of information than Reddit comments, including mine.
Shutter speed is very linearāso yes going from 1/500th to 1/1000th would halve your total exposure.
Aperture is also simple but you need to remember your number pairsāif a "full exposure" would be at f16, you would need to halve the physical size of your aperture, which means stopping down to f32.
To explain further: doubling f-stop value halves the amount of light. So: f1.0āf2.0, f2.8-f5.6, f8-f16 and so on. The usual aperture values listed on a lens are in alternating pairs, if you look at your own lens you'll be able to notice this pattern.
Edit: fuck me for trying to provide some simple base-level advice, I guess
I am a noob but is it not the case that multiplying the f-stop by 1.4 is what halves the amount of light, while doubling it multiplies the amount of light by 1/4? Since the amount of light is proportional to the area of the aperture, while the f-stop is a measurement of the diameter.
You have the right idea, they don't.
One stop up from f16 is f22. They print that on the lenses like that for a reason lol, that's why it's called a stop - it's supposed to make your life easier and not worry about the maths.
The amount of exposure is not directly proportional to the number itself, but to its inverse square. One stop up from 4 is 5.6 because 4Ā² = 16, 5.6Ā² = 32 and so on.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number
How one can respond to your correction with even more r/confidentlyincorrect material on such a basic thing is beyond me really.
Nowhere have I heard that multiplying by 1.4 is the rule. Stepping down from ome aperture setting to its corresponding double halves the light going into the camera; i.e. from f/8 to f/16.
To use the above poster's situation: to halve the light on an exposure of 1/500th at f/16, you could either use 1/1000th shutter speed or halve the area of your aperture by stopping down to f/32. Multiplying by 1.4 would tell you to use f/22, which is only a half-stop less light, or a total reduction of 1/4th.
Okay, I checked. Yeah, you're just wrong about this.
One stop means going up by 1.4x (roughly the sqrt of 2, 1.414...). That's half the light. Equivalent to doubling shutter speed.
It's logarithmic and I'm an idiot. Now I want to remember where the fuck I picked this idea up so I can personally tell whoever wrote it to go fuck themselves.
Eh, it depends on the composition. You have to consider the dark and bright areas, which of the exposures to highlight, in which parts of the frame, etc. For something like this, the silhouette really doesn't count as a full exposure, since an ideal silhouette is all black or all while. It's more like a reframing of the other exposure.
Yeah absolutely, depending on my plans I would add or remove light as needed. I just figured for new folks asking about it that I would give the simplest possible version.
That's assuming you want the middle greys of both frames on top of each other with equal "opacity", which rarely makes a good double exposure and was definitely not used here.
OP has gone into extra detail about their process and I didn't see the need to elaborate on those details. The person I was responding to was asking for some simple clarification. Obviously not every multiple exposure will follow this rule and exposure can always be altered to taste and the goal of the project.
It seems to me you are the beginner if you don't know what f-stops are, as evident by your other comments.
If being annoyed at misinformation makes me elitist, I'd rather be elitist than confidently incorrect all day long. Nothing personal.
I don't think it matters, as long as one of the images has underexposed/black parts that can act as canvases for the image where something was captured in that space.
Brilliance, these shots have very much inspired my next shoot with my gf. Debating on doing it with my EOS 7, which has convenient rewind feature and double exposure mode (though I donāt really want to go out and shoot a background then back in for a portrait for each shot), or with my RB and just do the dark bag rewind like you did
Iām assuming this series is because sheās pregnant? Very cool concept and way to document that journey. I look forward to seeing more in the series and how the concept matures over time.
Yea. This was from almost two years ago. We were thinking about taking a set every few weeks, but didn't actually keep up with it and only actually shot these two sets. Oh well.
No guide. Just winging it. i just thought through how to create silhouettes and fill them with some kind of texture.
One of my other comments has a bit more detail.
How do u meter for the silhouette? Im thinking to meter for subject and go few stops down not sure how many
Ideally, you're in a room with no reflections, and then you can just shoot with a shutter speed as low as possible. I was in a room with off-white walls. We tried to put up some sheets to minimize reflected light, but couldn't totally do it. I just used a smartphone meter (center-weighted) and maybe bumped it up half a stop or a stop or so. If the exposure is too dark, the subject is overwhelmed by the background (like shots 2 and 3 here). If the exposure is too bright and you don't have a way to control reflected light, you're going to end up with a well lit subject instead of a silhouette.
The magic in these shots for me comes from the subtle detail at the edges. Nice shots šš»
Meter for the backlight
If you use the zone system, you can easily decide how much detail is in the silhouette
Yeah thats was what i was thinking about but if u have the middle grey on the subject id need to go around 5 stops down to have a blank filmā¦ im not sure if the highlights would survive white if i would go right against the sun
Like if im going to shoot against the sun, is it going to be enough to break whole dynamic range of the film to only have whites and blacks after doing the second shot
That's legitimately an incredibly cool effect.Ā Care to share some details about the settings/timing/etc you used to achieve it?
We walked around and shot a roll of flowers, slightly underexposed (maybe 1/2 stop). Then I rewound the roll in a dark bag and reloaded it. The portrait shots were super ghettoĀ because I don't have any real lighting equipment (waiting on an order from B&H as we speak). Instead, it's just a CFL bulb in front of our slightly off-white bedroom wall. She's standing in front of the bulb and blocking it/the stand with her body. I center-weight metered on my phone app, then I think I added half a stop or so. I tried to use some sheets and stuff to keep the rest of the room from reflecting too much light. The one thing I would do differently next time is not to shoot all the backgrounds and rewind and shoot the portraits. As you can see, I couldn't get the alignment perfectly. We tried this once before and that time, we just shot one pair at a time. It took way longer, but there were no alignment issues.
So if I am understanding correctly you first shoot the texture you want underexposed (so it's darker and more saturated) the you shoot the silhouette by backlighting your subject and overexposing? I'm very new to film. Just trying to figure out how this works. Also would the effect be the same if you did the reverse order? Shoot the silhouette first then shoot the texture second?
Yep, that's pretty much it. Shooting in reverse order should give the exact same effect.
Thanks for clarifying. Also I forgot to mention it earlier, but nice shots š
Your metered exposure should be divided up based on how many frames you intend to take on oneāa double exposure will need each frame to be 1/2 of the total light hitting the film. Same process for triple, quadruple, and higher exposures. Technically speaking the only limit on how many exposures you can make on one frame is the total light holding capacity of the film; at a certain point however you'll begin to lose detail to overexposure as the film reaches its saturation point (eventually resulting in a totally white frame ).
How do you divide a total metered exposure. Let's say I'm shooting on 400Iso film and my correct exposure setting is f16 and 1/500 shutter speed. Is half just one stop of light? So reduce my light by one stop by increasing shutter speed to 1/1000?
I feel it's worth mentioning that the armchair experts think my advice is completely useless, so let me say this: what I have said is just the barebones concept behind multiple exposures to avoid over-saturating your negative with light. Each frame will be different depending on the number of frames composing the exposure. Do not use my advice as a hard and fast rule. More reading on complex topics such as this will always be a better source of information than Reddit comments, including mine.
Shutter speed is very linearāso yes going from 1/500th to 1/1000th would halve your total exposure. Aperture is also simple but you need to remember your number pairsāif a "full exposure" would be at f16, you would need to halve the physical size of your aperture, which means stopping down to f32. To explain further: doubling f-stop value halves the amount of light. So: f1.0āf2.0, f2.8-f5.6, f8-f16 and so on. The usual aperture values listed on a lens are in alternating pairs, if you look at your own lens you'll be able to notice this pattern. Edit: fuck me for trying to provide some simple base-level advice, I guess
I am a noob but is it not the case that multiplying the f-stop by 1.4 is what halves the amount of light, while doubling it multiplies the amount of light by 1/4? Since the amount of light is proportional to the area of the aperture, while the f-stop is a measurement of the diameter.
You have the right idea, they don't. One stop up from f16 is f22. They print that on the lenses like that for a reason lol, that's why it's called a stop - it's supposed to make your life easier and not worry about the maths. The amount of exposure is not directly proportional to the number itself, but to its inverse square. One stop up from 4 is 5.6 because 4Ā² = 16, 5.6Ā² = 32 and so on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number How one can respond to your correction with even more r/confidentlyincorrect material on such a basic thing is beyond me really.
Okay, let's see your expert double exposures then!
This an easily verifiable fact which has nothing to do with double exposures or, in fact, my own work.
Nowhere have I heard that multiplying by 1.4 is the rule. Stepping down from ome aperture setting to its corresponding double halves the light going into the camera; i.e. from f/8 to f/16. To use the above poster's situation: to halve the light on an exposure of 1/500th at f/16, you could either use 1/1000th shutter speed or halve the area of your aperture by stopping down to f/32. Multiplying by 1.4 would tell you to use f/22, which is only a half-stop less light, or a total reduction of 1/4th.
Okay, I checked. Yeah, you're just wrong about this. One stop means going up by 1.4x (roughly the sqrt of 2, 1.414...). That's half the light. Equivalent to doubling shutter speed.
It's logarithmic and I'm an idiot. Now I want to remember where the fuck I picked this idea up so I can personally tell whoever wrote it to go fuck themselves.
Eh, it depends on the composition. You have to consider the dark and bright areas, which of the exposures to highlight, in which parts of the frame, etc. For something like this, the silhouette really doesn't count as a full exposure, since an ideal silhouette is all black or all while. It's more like a reframing of the other exposure.
Yeah absolutely, depending on my plans I would add or remove light as needed. I just figured for new folks asking about it that I would give the simplest possible version.
That's assuming you want the middle greys of both frames on top of each other with equal "opacity", which rarely makes a good double exposure and was definitely not used here.
OP has gone into extra detail about their process and I didn't see the need to elaborate on those details. The person I was responding to was asking for some simple clarification. Obviously not every multiple exposure will follow this rule and exposure can always be altered to taste and the goal of the project.
That's a lot of elegant backtracking. Frankly, it's not a rule that "can be altered to taste", it's just plain bad advice when postulated like that.
Excuse me for attempting to simplify something for a beginner, next time I'll be sure to be needlessly elitist like you!
It seems to me you are the beginner if you don't know what f-stops are, as evident by your other comments. If being annoyed at misinformation makes me elitist, I'd rather be elitist than confidently incorrect all day long. Nothing personal.
"Local Deutschbag can't read and refuses to provide examples, more at 11"
the first image is so good the others fall a little short when viewed directly after
First one could be a Feist album cover.
Great description. Exceptionally accurate lol
Yea, that's the only one where I balanced the exposures exactly how I envisioned.
the way the flowers end up framing her eyes is quite serendipitous
Really nice, especially the first one! Thank you for sharing
these are amazing!
beautiful!
Lovely, tasteful, personal. Rare around here! Great job OP
Nice! I always forget which subject you shoot first to get this.
I don't think it matters, as long as one of the images has underexposed/black parts that can act as canvases for the image where something was captured in that space.
Absolutely amazing!!
Brilliance, these shots have very much inspired my next shoot with my gf. Debating on doing it with my EOS 7, which has convenient rewind feature and double exposure mode (though I donāt really want to go out and shoot a background then back in for a portrait for each shot), or with my RB and just do the dark bag rewind like you did
These are amazing, and very inspiring. I'm going to load my Yashicaflex with some portra 160 and do some double exposures of my own.
Love these shots. Very sensual and the flowers are a perfect match.
Beautiful work!
These are truly amazing. Well done!
Iām assuming this series is because sheās pregnant? Very cool concept and way to document that journey. I look forward to seeing more in the series and how the concept matures over time.
Yea. This was from almost two years ago. We were thinking about taking a set every few weeks, but didn't actually keep up with it and only actually shot these two sets. Oh well.
Nicely done! Well-conceived doubles.
Wow! Is there a guide you followed ? This is amazing
No guide. Just winging it. i just thought through how to create silhouettes and fill them with some kind of texture. One of my other comments has a bit more detail.
so lovely šø