Multi exposure 4x5.

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

Hi Forum,

I'm reading this book: "architectural photography" by Norma McGrath. Good text, I'm enjoying it, and imaginary is good too.
At some point the author  have a dim light from a window to balance with internal fixture light, while shooting a kitchen. He said, quote: "In retrospect  I could have switched out all the interior illumination and made a time exposure for the window only. This, of course would be only been possible with the Arca body ( his 4x5 ) since the Canon does not have double exposure capability." End quote.

I then google around and find on this photographer website http://jimoliverarchtectualimages.blogspot.tw that this technique is used quite often.

Anyone can explain me how it work and if is just for film only?

I kind of feeling might be a good tool in my bag.

Thanks for all the time in reading this.

Lorenzo

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I suspect that McGrath's Canon was a film camera that didn't have a way of cocking the shutter without advancing the film. Some roll film cameras could cock the shutter without advancing the film and some could not. Cocking without film advance permitted multiple exposures in the camera.

These days, with digital cameras, it is much easier to take multiple separate images and then combine them using software, like Photoshop. Even if you are using film, whether roll film or sheet film, if you scan a series of separate negatives, combining them in the computer is much easier and allows more flexibility than trying to get the same effect using multiple exposures on a single piece of film.

I suspect strongly that Jim Oliver's multiple exposures are assembled in a computer.

I hope this helps.

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

Thanks so much for the kind reply

I though was some kind of multi exposure on the same film…

[DanielStone]

Yes, architectural shooters(and others in more "industrial" type of shooting) can/did use multiple exposures on the same roll/frame/sheet of film.

The problem however, with doing this is REGISTRATION. Even if a view camera(say a 4x5) set up on a sandbagged tripod, on solid ground, can still be vexed by the film flexing between the first shot frame and subsequent exposures being applied to that same sheet of film.

Take this for example:
Subject: backlit(setting sun, twilight, etc.) office building/skyscraper. Full length exterior shot
Shot needed: Sky w/ great detail, but lights inside of building/on building in full splendor(as in every exterior office/room/hallway lit nicely.
Technique I'd use:
1. shoot 1st exposure for sky, so sky's density is properly shown on the film
2. Wait until sky is completely black(see moon charts for such a night). Assuming you're working with building staff to turn on/off lights inside the building, I'd then make exposures carefully metered to expose for the windows/offices, and if there are roof details such as stone outcroppings, carvings/scultpures/etc. I'd put those onto a different exposure(again, building staff to actually time the exposure).

It's a long process, but being able to "paint" the light onto the film would really allow you, the photographer, to be in control. This can also allow you to gel for different color balances if including different types of lighting sources(fluorescent, tungsten, halogen, etc...) This is, of course, if you want a NEUTRAL color balance, so no shift in color is evident.

Now, with digital, the technique is relatively the same. With film, the film can shift in the holder(even due to humidity fluctuations during the dew point of the evening if working during that time. Even re-cocking a shutter can jar the camera enough to cause the film to shift out of place, so you can run into "double image" issues. It can be maddening. Digital on the other hand, is like blending multiple exposures, so you're "masking in" the different elements of what you want/need to construct that final shot.

Back to film: there were a number of companies that made VACUUM backs to suck the film completely flat during exposure. Schneider was probably the best(and also the most expensive) of the lot, but it was a bulky system that was finicky to use outside of the studio.

Light painting can work well, but is very time consuming. Some like its effect, frankly it does nothing for ME, but I don't cast doubt on anyone else's techniques, as long as it works for them

-Dan

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

Yes, architectural shooters(and others in more "industrial" type of shooting) can/did use multiple exposures on the same roll/frame/sheet of film.

The problem however, with doing this is REGISTRATION. Even if a view camera(say a 4x5) set up on a sandbagged tripod, on solid ground, can still be vexed by the film flexing between the first shot frame and subsequent exposures being applied to that same sheet of film.

Take this for example:
Subject: backlit(setting sun, twilight, etc.) office building/skyscraper. Full length exterior shot
Shot needed: Sky w/ great detail, but lights inside of building/on building in full splendor(as in every exterior office/room/hallway lit nicely.
Technique I'd use:
1. shoot 1st exposure for sky, so sky's density is properly shown on the film
2. Wait until sky is completely black(see moon charts for such a night). Assuming you're working with building staff to turn on/off lights inside the building, I'd then make exposures carefully metered to expose for the windows/offices, and if there are roof details such as stone outcroppings, carvings/scultpures/etc. I'd put those onto a different exposure(again, building staff to actually time the exposure).

It's a long process, but being able to "paint" the light onto the film would really allow you, the photographer, to be in control. This can also allow you to gel for different color balances if including different types of lighting sources(fluorescent, tungsten, halogen, etc...) This is, of course, if you want a NEUTRAL color balance, so no shift in color is evident.

Now, with digital, the technique is relatively the same. With film, the film can shift in the holder(even due to humidity fluctuations during the dew point of the evening if working during that time. Even re-cocking a shutter can jar the camera enough to cause the film to shift out of place, so you can run into "double image" issues. It can be maddening. Digital on the other hand, is like blending multiple exposures, so you're "masking in" the different elements of what you want/need to construct that final shot.

Back to film: there were a number of companies that made VACUUM backs to suck the film completely flat during exposure. Schneider was probably the best(and also the most expensive) of the lot, but it was a bulky system that was finicky to use outside of the studio.

Light painting can work well, but is very time consuming. Some like its effect, frankly it does nothing for ME, but I don't cast doubt on anyone else's techniques, as long as it works for them

-Dan

This was just fantastic, thanks to share such knowledge