In-camera multiple exposure

[Michael Bailey]

Hi,

I was shooting a room interior with strobe today, and wanted to get a little more depth of field. In the film days I would have shot four overlapping "pops" with the flash to allow me to close the lens two stops. (It was also a handy shortcut for bracketing if I didn't want to handle the camera when it was mounted awkwardly on the tripod.)

My Fuji S-5 allows for multiple exposures, and it seemed to work without a hitch. The "four-pop/two stops down" combination seemed a little lighter than the one-pop, but not by much.

I haven't had a chance to make a close comparison of the files yet, but while I'm here I figured I'd ask if anyone out there knows of any pitfalls to this technique. Could there be a loss of shadow detail? Increased noise? Maybe these things actually improve?

Thanks,

MB

[Jonathan Wienke]

Your flash gear isn't powerful enough to light the scene with one firing?

[Kirk Gittings]

When we were shooting 4x5 primarily for architecture, multiple pops, were our standard fair to get enough DoF. We carried 4 2000 watt and 3 800 watt powerpacks with 10 heads. Sometimes that was not enough light for one exposure or the situation demanded a MP setup. Anyway we normally set up to do 4 MPs and bracketed by varying the pops. It worked well.

Now that I shoot all the magazine work on Canons, I have reworked my approach for single exposures. We carry allot less strobe. This is partly due to increased DoF at various apertures and the fact that with custom and AWB, digital deals with mixed light situations much easier than film, where we had to light spaces just to "clean up the color" to get it to match daylight film (or halogen for tungsten film).

[John Sheehy]

I haven't had a chance to make a close comparison of the files yet, but while I'm here I figured I'd ask if anyone out there knows of any pitfalls to this technique. Could there be a loss of shadow detail? Increased noise? Maybe these things actually improve?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Unless the images are not the same (something moved), adding exposures always improves image quality, at all ranges.

Does the S5 output RAW with multiple exposures, or only JPEG?

RAW would be nice, because then you wouldn't have many restrictions on how to process it, compared to adding RAWs yourself.  The programs that allow you to add RAWs generally don't have the most state-of-the art conversions; they are usually astrophotography-related.

[Michael Bailey]

Thanks to all of you for your replies.

John, you make an interesting point I hadn't thought of. As I read you, more exposures, even at darker exposure settings, will improve the image, particularly with regard to noise. And, yes, I shoot raw almost all the time.

To answer the general note, yes, I realize I could pile on more light, and I generally have enough to do these shots in one pop. But once in a while I need to shoot at a very small aperture. Being able to shoot four pops reliably allows me to reduce my lighting load by 75% worth of watt-seconds. I see that as a good thing.

MB

[Guillermo Luijk]

John, you make an interesting point I hadn't thought of. As I read you, more exposures, even at darker exposure settings, will improve the image, particularly with regard to noise. And, yes, I shoot raw almost all the time.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

do you always shoot with external lighting support? why not simply set longer exposure times?
I am sorry if the question is too obvious, maybe I didn't get your message properly.