Talk:Multiple exposure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merge with Multiple Exposure[edit]

I suggest that this article be merged with multiple exposure because a double exposure is a particular instance of a multiple exposure, and because the multiple exposure article is far more 'complete' than this one. Calrion 14:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the two artices should be merged with double exposure (as a search term) linking automatically to multiple exposure. - Matt0401 15:53, 24 February 2006 (EST)

I as well agree. Having a page dedicated to double exposures is unnecesary, because mutiple exposures by nature includes all double exposures.

Agreed. It would be good to leave the entry in the category:photographic terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographic_terms) for those who mistakenly search on that term. It would also be good to add multiple exposure to the category - I do not appear to have the rights / knowledge required to do this. (sam2095 17 March 2006)

I agree that "double expose" should be merged with "multiple expose"

Agree - Jack (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.[edit]

This article is very interesting, but it should not be taken as a neutral overview of ‘Multiple exposure’. Readers who want to learn about multiple exposure will not be helped by being referred to CEMENT, lightvectoring and dusting. It is inaccurate to say, as the author does, that “dusting” is the colloquial term for “lightvectoring”. The apparently external links go to other sites and texts by the same author. My suggestion is that this otherwise excellent article should have a preface that says it is a playful myth or a piece of art.

Against Merging[edit]

I don't agree that this article should be merged with "Double Exposure." The true definition of multiple exposure was not expressed by the content of this article. For one unfamiliar with this technique, a better undertanding of the process would be gained by reading the entry for "Double Exposure." That article successfuly describes the basic principles behind double & multiple exposures. A Double or Multiple exposure is, in the simplest of terms, multiple exposures made on a single frame. Correct exposure can be obtained through dividing a meter reading by the number of exposures, or through the use of neutral density filters.

The subject matter of this article seems to describe a different technique.

Factual accuracy[edit]

This article is very interesting, but it should not be taken as a neutral overview of ‘Multiple exposure’. Readers who want to learn about multiple exposure will not be helped by being referred to CEMENT, lightvectoring and dusting. It is inaccurate to say, as the author does, that “dusting” is the colloquial term for “lightvectoring”. The apparently external links go to other sites and texts by the same author. My suggestion is that this otherwise excellent article should have a preface that says it is a playful myth or a piece of art.

Clean up and C.E.M.E.N.T discussion[edit]

  • I have cleaned up the section on C.E.M.E.N.T. It would be more appropiate to start a new page which describe the software in detail.
  • I have removed the comment as that belong in the discussion page, above,and it is not a NPOV
  • Links have been cleaned up as no longer valid
  • Did a simple spell check statsone 02:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone justify why the CEMENT section should even be here? It does a very poor job of explaining what CEMENT is or why it's notable, and after a (albeit brief) search I can't find anything that would serve as a suitable citation. The article in its current state does not do a very good job explaining to a lay person (such as myself) what CEMENT is, and whether it plays more than a niche role in multiple exposure photography. Ovis23 (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Apollo 8 photo[edit]

Does this really qualify as a multiple exposure, rather than an altered or composite image? FiggyBee 05:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

'Lightvectoring' and 'Dusting'[edit]

I've removed references to these jargon terms as they seem to be created by and exclusively used by the author of the CEMENT system. I don't object to the inclusion of CEMENT provided that a citation is given to an appropriate academic paper or explicatory document. The claims about 'use of lightvectoring dating back to the 70's' need to be substantiated. -- DaveWF (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Using flash[edit]

Under the section "Overview", the last sentence seem to have a few problems: "The simplest example of a multiple exposure is a double exposure without flash, i.e. the camera image is responsive to light twice during the complete exposure." As a novice on the subject, I can't decide what it's trying to say. Is it supposed to read "with flash" instead of "without flash", or is this an example of 2 exposures -- one with flash and one without? Or maybe even one long exposure, but with a flash (would this still be considered a "multiple exposure?). What does "responsive to light twice during the complete exposure" mean? Leon7 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Multiexposer of 7 person using adobe photoshop.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Multiexposer of 7 person using adobe photoshop.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing important techniques[edit]

Since the 1940s, almost all multiple exposures of cine film have been handled by either A/B roll printing or by an optical printer. Neither approach is mentioned here. BTW: in the U.S. at least, the verb for moving film through a camera is not "to wind" but "to crank."Jim Stinson (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)