[jbinpg]

Using the Auto EV option and the maximum 9 multiple exposures at ISO80 will reduce the noise to a level as if you had used ISO9. To me, this is an under-appreciated ability of the K-5.

Jack

[mysticcowboy]

Here's a multiple (double) exposure. It's a useful technique but you can't absolutely predict the results.

Part of that is that there was a lot of smoke at the Civil War reenactment I was shooting. Part of it is from the double exposure.

[mysticcowboy]

Using multiple exposures for water isn't a great idea. Using it to shoot star trails is. For the flowing water effect the best choice is to use a slow shutter speed. Unless you're in full sun that can be handled in camera. If it's bright a neutral density or polarizing filter can usually get you the shot.



Exposure: 1/2
Aperture: f /10
ISO: 80

[voyager13]

Using the Auto EV option and the maximum 9 multiple exposures at ISO80 will reduce the noise to a level as if you had used ISO9. To me, this is an under-appreciated ability of the K-5.

Jack

I am excited! Those specifics you mentioned can be very handy when wanting to shoot in low light situations. I suppose that would mean my K-x can be at ISO100(that's the minimum on the K-x!) and combined with the 9 exposures on Auto EV, it would result with the final image looking to have an ISO of about 10!! That's something

[voyager13]

Nice shot Michael

[zekewhipper]

Mystic: "Using multiple exposures for water isn't a great idea." Why not? I'm intrigued by the idea. I agree with the rest of what you said, but you don't give a reason why multiple exposures won't work. Is it because there may not be some impression of flow to the water?

I recall once seeing something about using multiple exposures and filters of different colors to get water ripples that were different colors in one shot.

Here is a long exposure example of mine taken with a Jupiter "9" 85mm f2.

[Anvh]

Multi exposure is not good with startrails for the reason that they will look jagged because of the break between shots.

[Anvh]

Mystic: "Using multiple exposures for water isn't a great idea." Why not? I'm intrigued by the idea. I agree with the rest of what you said, but you don't give a reason why multiple exposures won't work. Is it because there may not be some impression of flow to the water?

I recall once seeing something about using multiple exposures and filters of different colors to get water ripples that were different colors in one shot.

Here is a long exposure example of mine taken with a Jupiter "9" 85mm f2.

I don't know it works fine here.
Multiple exposure landscapes

[Moo]

It's a useful technique but you can't absolutely predict the results.

You can combine multiple exposures on the computer "in post", removing the uncertainty. But "bracketing" in software can only go so far...

[gifthorse]

Thanks Aleonx3.
Is there any other use for the multiple exposures function other than the running-waterall-looking-like-cotton effect? That effect can be easily achieved using a slow shutter speed in just one go, rather than taking multiple exposures.

A very nice use of the multiple exposure is to use a relatively wide lens, set the camera on a tripod and photograph the moon over several hours. I don't have any images of my own to show, but do a web search for "moon multiple exposure".

[mysticcowboy]

You can combine multiple exposures on the computer "in post", removing the uncertainty. But "bracketing" in software can only go so far...

Yes, combining two or more exposures in post production gives you more control, but that's a different technique. Double or triple exposures in camera will give less predictable results, which are sometimes magical and something you wouldn't have thought of.

[mysticcowboy]

I don't know it works fine here.
Multiple exposure landscapes

Okay, so I was a bit hasty in my response. Yes, it's quite possible to combine multiple exposures to smooth water. In bright light, without a dark ND filter, it may be the only way. It is more complicated to set up, and can introduce ghosting with any wind, but might be a try. I was going to say it would be less predictable, but that may be because I've done a lot of longer exposure water shots and not many multiple exposures.

The end results of image stacking will look different than on longer exposure. Different techniques - different results.

[Canada_Rockies]

Okay, so I was a bit hasty in my response. Yes, it's quite possible to combine multiple exposures to smooth water. In bright light, without a dark ND filter, it may be the only way. It is more complicated to set up, and can introduce ghosting with any wind, but might be a try. I was going to say it would be less predictable, but that may be because I've done a lot of longer exposure water shots and not many multiple exposures.

The end results of image stacking will look different than on longer exposure. Different techniques - different results.

The long exposure shots, whether by multiple exposure or by long exposure, can still result in blurry leaves if there is wind.

[mysticcowboy]

Multi exposure is not good with startrails for the reason that they will look jagged because of the break between shots.

Most people who do a lot of star trail multi-exposures don't take a lot of short shots but multiple longer ones, up to 10 minutes.

[Anvh]

The long exposure shots, whether by multiple exposure or by long exposure, can still result in blurry leaves if there is wind.

Actually you could lay one of those multiple photos on top of the combined blurred version and simply delete everything you want to blur or vice versa.

Other benefit is when you take long exposure next to the road at night, it doesnt kill your 10 minute exposure because a car drives past with the headlights on since you simply take 1 extra photo to replace the one with the car.