What am I missing here? What is the advantage, if any, of in-camera multiple-exposures over simply layering however many captures you want in post, and composing them together with far more control and precision?

I have found that I have far more control and precision shooting ME on my Ricoh than what I can get in post. There's more to just layering two images in taking multiple exposure, there's getting each frames exposure right for the greatest joint exposure of each combination of scenes. By getting each exposure right, I don't mean as one would for a single frame, there's more technique to it than just that. Doing it in camera isn't as simple as merely taking two properly exposed scenes and plonking them in top of each other and blending then with different opacity and with use of layer masks. It requires the right measure of under exposure or over exposure in accordance to each particular scene to achieve the optimal joint exposure for the combined scene for optimal effect. A good starting point can be under exposing each shot by a stop to get a joint correct exposure, but this isn't always the case. Sometimes my first frame is two stops under and my second 1 over, etc. it can be hard to know what were the right exposures for each snap until it's actually done. (perhaps scene a. Is a dark subject, scene b a bright subject, or visa versa. Or both bright. Or both dark. It's never the same). I find there is far more control in obtaining correct blended exposure in camera than in post. Getting it right in camera first time though can be tricky and without the review feature, this becomes far more laborious and far less of an enjoyable experience. Hence why the review feature in the GR is invaluable as a creative tool. Not to mention I find it is way easier and less time consuming than in post when shot with a review feature like in the GR. Shooting live view allows the composition in camera and it can be very precise. I'd take a well implemented ME function in camera over post any day. Could I get the same results in post as what I could in camera? Maybe. But it would take me a lot more work. Id much rather get it right upfront in camera and have a great starting point to work from in the raw file. Dont get me wrong. ME in post has its merits also. There are effects and looks that can be achieved with it that can differ to in camera.

---

Last edited by Unregistered User; 03-30-2016 at 03:43 PM.

[indy]

It has the same utility as scene modes, in-camera custom image processing, in-camera HDR, and excess chrome on an automobile. There is some potential utility, but are seldom used by experienced/advanced photographers. Think of it as photo bling. Some is good, but unless there is clear return on investment, it is unlikely that Ricoh will risk product stability to pad the feature stack.


Steve

Yes, variations on tools or work flow are seldom used/adopted by experienced and tallented individuals to advance their craft (insert sarcastic clap here). In all seriousness; what constitutes "photo bing" and can we make a list? Oh let's do two lists; another for the descriptors of "experienced and advanced photographers". I would be happy to start, but I have no idea where to begin. One last question: does bling sell cameras?

It has the same utility as scene modes, in-camera custom image processing, in-camera HDR, and excess chrome on an automobile. There is some potential utility, but are seldom used by experienced/advanced photographers. Think of it as photo bling. Some is good, but unless there is clear return on investment, it is unlikely that Ricoh will risk product stability to pad the feature stack.


Steve

Last print I sold I got $400 and it was a multiple exposure. In terms of selling personal work, I've made more from selling ME prints than anything else thus far. I'm still only new to photography as a career as well. Got my whole future ahead of me also. Only just getting warmed up.

On another note, ME has been a feature in cameras even back to film days. Heck. I've even heard stories of they who hacked some of their film cameras that didn't offer this feature on their film cameras so they could. Professionals, in fact I'd even go as far to call them innovators to a certain extent.

Now that we are in a digital era, why not develop the possibilities further! You might not take multiple exposures, fair enough, each to their own. I'd like to keep making cash from them if possible and the better the results the more I potentially can make.

Further more, it's a regular occurrence to see ME shots entered into our Australian "professional" photographer awards. Let alone that they go home with silver or gold awards (nationally recognised) let alone that they too sell those artistic prints and make money. I like making money Steve. I think all the others who do sell their artistic prints also like to make money. Heck, I've just paid for a k-1 and two Zeiss lenses with money. It's kinda useful don't you think?

All I'm suggesting is the implementation of a very useful feature that makes the whole user experience for they of us who like to shoot ME far more creative, far more productive and far more enjoyable.

[stevebrot]

You might not take multiple exposures, fair enough, each to their own.

I do. I just don't expect automation from the camera to accomplish tasks that are typically done in PP.


Steve

[stevebrot]

One last question: does bling sell cameras?

It improves point rank at Consumer Reports.


Steve

I do. I just don't expect automation from the camera to accomplish tasks that are typically done in PP.


Steve

Typically? And film shooting which started it all? In camera no? Its not so automated doing it in camera. Sure it overlays, but it requires a good choice of exposures for each frame to get it right and I'm yet to get results from PP that equal what I can achieve with the appropriate combined exposures in camera. It is actually quite a technical process and its not so novice. I could create many more images using the ricoh GR implementation that what I could with images in PP in the same amount of time and they'd be better also (and i'm thinking both $ and personal exposure). I've far more creative control on location. I can get my first angle/frame right, then try this scene, or that scene, over and over for the second frame till i find one that i felt was fantastic. I could try 20-30 image options, all on location in a very short amount of time and choose from the best from a plethora of scenes or subjects. I can end up with better shots that what I could with only the limitations of the shots i might bring home for PP. Id rather be out exploring the environment with endless choice from amongst my environment to make my images, rather than being limited to use the frames I have brought home with me to try and make something work after the fact. PP in my mind, is far more of a simulation of the real deal. Each to their own. Perhaps give it a try and don't close yourself off to it, you might just surprise your self and enjoy the benefits of what shooting them in camera can offer.

Im yet to achieve the results using pp like what I can in camera. Can't even come close. If you've some pointers and some examples of your work, I'd love both hear your pointers and to see some of your ME's. Show us how its done, I mean, you can ask a kind person anything and it will be done if they are able, right?

Kindly

Rob.

[stevebrot]

On another note, ME has been a feature in cameras even back to film days. Heck. I've even heard stories of they who hacked some of their film cameras that didn't offer this feature on their film cameras so they could. Professionals, in fact I'd even go as far to call them innovators to a certain extent.

Ummmm...yes and sandwiched negatives or multiple exposures in the darkroom also continue to be valid film technique today.

I like making money Steve. I think all the others who do sell their artistic prints also like to make money.

There is a huge disconnect here. Are you saying that nobody will buy your composites done with the K-3? Regarding your K-3, multiple exposure support is hardly rudimentary and fairly flexible. You are asking for a specific form of multiple exposure support that works well for your process and which is found on a high-end P&S aimed at a very different market segment than most professional dSLRs. I have to admit that I am not fully clear what you want the camera to do that would not be better addressed with more creative control by a merge in PP. I suppose I could spend some time with the GR manual, but at face value, it sounds like you want the ability to review all elements of a composite before the camera does the merge. How this capability (pre-merge review for in-camera multiple exposure) results in a more saleable or more valuable image escapes me, but if it works for you, that is cool. For me, a camera is primarily a capture tool and I don't expect it to be particularly flexible for post-exposure processing.


Steve

(...I shoot a fair amount of film and have since the late 1960s, but very seldom have used the ME features of the cameras I own. Even back in the day it was considered a "gee whiz" feature and reviews generally mentioned it in passing.)

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 03-30-2016 at 08:44 PM.

Ummmm...yes and sandwiched negatives or multiple exposures in the darkroom also continue to be valid film technique today.



There is a huge disconnect here. Are you saying that nobody will buy your composites done with the K-3? Regarding your K-3, multiple exposure support is hardly rudimentary and fairly flexible. You are asking for a specific form of multiple exposure support that works well for your process and which is found on a high-end P&S aimed at a very different market segment than most professional dSLRs. I have to admit that I am not fully clear what you want the camera to do that would not be better addressed with more creative control by a merge in PP. I suppose I could spend some time with the GR manual, but at face value, it sounds like you want the ability to review all elements of a composite before the camera does the merge. How this capability (pre-merge review for in-camera multiple exposure) results in a more saleable or more valuable image escapes me, but if it works for you, that is cool. For me, a camera is primarily a capture tool and I don't expect it to be particularly flexible for post-exposure processing.


Steve

(...I shoot a fair amount of film and have since the late 1960s, but very seldom have used the ME features of the cameras I own. Even back in the day it was considered a "gee whiz" feature and reviews generally mentioned it in passing.)

thanks for the reply,

No, i'm not saying nobody will by prints i use with the k-3. i'm merely saying that the ricoh implementation trumps that of the k-3's. Id rather use the sensor and lenses of the k-3, but the whole process is made all the more difficult without being able to review before the merge. and I keep finding myself going back to the ricoh.

Take this image for an example:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/141209833@N06/25887922571/in/dateposted-public/

I took the shot of me in my studio, then walked to the park and was able to look for a perfect second frame from nature, rather than being limited to shots i may have had on my sd card or computer. A customised, personalised second shot. I managed to find a tree, that had all the bark stripped off from it above about 1m. The tree was smooth and bare above the bark. I was able to use the pic of my face to find a line at the edge of the bark that perfectly lined up with my chin. I didn't get the exposure of the second take right the first time, but as there was a review feature, I was able to get the shot on the second or third shot (having already tried lots of other scenes I didn't like) and then I got the shot I wanted. From far more choice comes far more possibility. Its about being able to take away more shots from way more options to find a gem that works out on location and not having to go back and retake the first shot before trying again. If I had tried to do this with the k-3, I would have had to go back and retake my first shot numerous times to get the shot in camera, and I may not have got the shot at all, because after numerous times of not getting it right, I'd have been more likely to call it a day and give up. That simply is not efficient, nor would it help to get a shot giving up. Had I relied on PP, I wouldn't have been out exploring for a comparable second scene in the first place and I would have not got one that was just right. If I did go looking, I'd not have been using the shape and composition of the first shot to find the second shot. I'd be guessing with a second grab and hoping for the best at home on the computer. I would have been limited to pre taken shots, trying to find something that worked. Way way more options out and about, like in nature. Exploring for a second shot live on site with the first frame on the LCD overlay means that I can find a prefect match, on site, there and then. Better shots end up rising to the surface in less time (this is where things come in from a saleable point of view), far more efficiently on the GR than on the K-3. I get better results in camera than in PP as well, as mentioned. (sorry i may be repeating myself a bit...)

---------- Post added 03-31-16 at 12:25 PM ----------

thanks for the reply,

No, i'm not saying nobody will by prints i use with the k-3. i'm merely saying that the ricoh implementation trumps that of the k-3's. Id rather use the sensor and lenses of the k-3, but the whole process is made all the more difficult without being able to review before the merge. and I keep finding myself going back to the ricoh.

Take this image for an example:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/141209833@N06/25887922571/in/dateposted-public/

I took the shot of me in my studio, then walked to the park and was able to look for a perfect second frame from nature, rather than being limited to shots i may have had on my sd card or computer. A customised, personalised second shot. I managed to find a tree, that had all the bark stripped off from it above about 1m. The tree was smooth and bare above the bark. I was able to use the pic of my face to find a line at the edge of the bark that perfectly lined up with my chin. I didn't get the exposure of the second take right the first time, but as there was a review feature, I was able to get the shot on the second or third shot (having already tried lots of other scenes I didn't like) and then I got the shot I wanted. From far more choice comes far more possibility. Its about being able to take away more shots from way more options to find a gem that works out on location and not having to go back and retake the first shot before trying again. If I had tried to do this with the k-3, I would have had to go back and retake my first shot numerous times to get the shot in camera, and I may not have got the shot at all, because after numerous times of not getting it right, I'd have been more likely to call it a day and give up. That simply is not efficient, nor would it help to get a shot giving up. Had I relied on PP, I wouldn't have been out exploring for a comparable second scene in the first place and I would have not got one that was just right. I would have been limited to pre taken shots, trying to find something that worked. Way way more options out and about, like in nature. Exploring for a second shot live on site with the first frame on the LCD overlay means that I can find a prefect match, on site, there and then. Better shots end up rising to the surface in less time (this is where things come in from a saleable point of view), far more efficiently on the GR than on the K-3. I get better results in camera than in PP as well, as mentioned. (sorry i may be repeating myself a bit...)

I too see the camera as a capture tool. Its a very capable tool and a creative tool also. Creative prints sell. Just one of the things I like to do. A review feature would make the process oh so much more efficient and enjoyable. I'm 100% confident I'd end up with way more shots, thus way more opportunity to sell prints for an income. If i get the shots in camera, then Im not using my time later to do it in PP with results less than what I can achieve in camera. Though, maybe there is room for me to improve in PP. Maybe I should keep my options and mind open to it.

[banep]

I do. I just don't expect automation from the camera to accomplish tasks that are typically done in PP.


Steve

Not all people are able to previsualise those things. Even those who can are usually focused on one or two things during shooting session but when camera gives you possibility to visualise that between multiple shots you become much more creative. That opinion is based on my personal expirience with Lumix cameras and I'm also missing that kind of multiexposure implementation on Pentax DSLRs.

[stevebrot]

I was able to use the pic of my face to find a line at the edge of the bark that perfectly lined up with my chin.

I spent some time with the GR manual and the multiple exposure implementation is definitely interesting. The K-3's multiple exposure implementation is much more sophisticated and I can see that adding a GR-style review/reject feature would make the process much handier and even more powerful. What intrigued me more was the option to save the originals along with the merged image. The in-camera version could then be viewed as a conceptual proof with a final version done in Photoshop (or similar) from the individual exposures using the full power of that application.

Good luck on getting Ricoh's attention on this.


Steve

I spent some time with the GR manual and the multiple exposure implementation is definitely interesting. The K-3's multiple exposure implementation is much more sophisticated and I can see that adding a GR-style review/reject feature would make the process much handier and even more powerful. What intrigued me more was the option to save the originals along with the merged image. The in-camera version could then be viewed as a conceptual proof with a final version done in Photoshop (or similar) from the individual exposures using the full power of that application.

Good luck on getting Ricoh's attention on this.


Steve

Yes that is another thing I failed to mention regarding the ricoh. The saving of both original files. More so, as the k-3 saves in raw, a ME from it is also more advantageous on a k-3 in terms of PP, with merely JPEGS on the ricoh. It really is a great feature that opens up a world of possibilities. To get it on the k-3, let alone the k-1 would both fantastic and a very welcomed adjustment.

If you get to actually try in on the ricoh, rather than just the manual, I think you'll be even more convinced ; )

kindly,

rob.

[stevebrot]

If you get to actually try in on the ricoh, rather than just the manual, I think you'll be even more convinced ; )

The GR is on my short list of cameras to consider for travel and street. Impressive, it is.


Steve

the gr is on my short list of cameras to consider for travel and street. Impressive, it is.


Steve

its fantastic!!!

[indy]

its fantastic!!!

It is at that. The new has never worn off for me, and I don't think there is any camera I have enjoyed using as much.

[HopelessTogger]

In camera focus stacking. PLEASE!