what would cause this ??
Mar 6, 2015 08:11:22 #
Assuming the child in the photo didn't move (and she didn't) what would cause this double exposure look to the head of the upper child. ?? Canon 6d with 24-105.
Mar 6, 2015 08:18:31 #
Canoe50d wrote:
Assuming the child in the photo didn't move (and she didn't) what would cause this double exposure look to the head of the upper child. ?? Canon 6d with 24-105.
Depends on what f/stop you shot at.. It is possibly shooting at ISO 100 and an f/stop of f/16 or so and a slow shutter speed say 1/60 or 1/30 of a second and is vibration or your body movement. Could even be her movement if the camera was on a tripod. I get similar shots because I forget to increase the ISO when shooting my 70-300mm lens, which has a max f/stop of 5.6 @ 300 mm. Even in bright light my shutter speed is too slow for hand holding at ISO 100
Mar 6, 2015 08:26:39 #
thanks for the reply, but if it were camera shake wouldn't the entire photo be blurred. It threw me that only the head and shoulders of one child is not just blurred but it seems to be doubled. ??
Mar 6, 2015 08:46:15 #
Since the rest of the photo didn't double expose, there is only one conclusion that you can reach, the child moved.
Mar 6, 2015 08:51:21 #
The child moved and you must have had a slow shutter speed and/or your hand moved while taking the picture.
Mar 6, 2015 08:58:52 #
Mar 6, 2015 11:05:16 #
Canoe50d wrote:
thanks for the reply, but if it were camera shake wouldn't the entire photo be blurred. It threw me that only the head and shoulders of one child is not just blurred but it seems to be doubled. ??
Actually, if you look close the blurring goes down to the child's right leg as well.....
Mar 7, 2015 00:17:23 #
Canoe50d wrote:
I didn't take it, I was asking for my friend. thanks for the input.
So you said she didn't move but you didn't take it ...... hummmm .......OK
Who ever took the picture didn't move, but the top kid did.
When you post pictures and have questions it's always better to upload the data with the picture, it gives us so much more to clues ;)
Mar 7, 2015 07:04:24 #
Canoe50d wrote:
Assuming the child in the photo didn't move (and she didn't) what would cause this double exposure look to the head of the upper child. ?? Canon 6d with 24-105.
I think her perch was a bit precarious and she pushed herself up a little with her right leg just as the shutter was released.
Mar 7, 2015 07:06:06 #
Little blur at bottom of photo and increasing toward the top indicates that there is rotation ... the bottom being the axis... as in axle ... movement at the center of a wheel is magnified as the same degree of rotation goes out the radius.
Try inverting the camera and pressing the shutter button with the left thumb. The right hand holds the camera and when you press with the index finger the camera moves, same is not true holding with the right and pressing with the left thumb... has in part to do the the design of the hand. OK, not the sheeple norm(sheep-people follow the norm mindlessly ) but give it a try.
Other solution, increase (shorten) the shutter speed to 1/125 or faster.
Try inverting the camera and pressing the shutter button with the left thumb. The right hand holds the camera and when you press with the index finger the camera moves, same is not true holding with the right and pressing with the left thumb... has in part to do the the design of the hand. OK, not the sheeple norm(sheep-people follow the norm mindlessly ) but give it a try.
Other solution, increase (shorten) the shutter speed to 1/125 or faster.
Mar 7, 2015 07:06:17 #
Mar 7, 2015 07:33:01 #
My guess is that the camera tilted as the shutter button was pressed with a jerk rather than a squeeze. In fact I'd lay odds on it.
Mar 7, 2015 07:45:13 #
Since the movement is only apparent on the top, is it possible that the camera was only cold and the shutter hung up a little toward the last part of its cycle. Or maybe its time for a camera cleaning. Just a guess.
Mar 7, 2015 08:06:24 #
Canoe50d wrote:
Assuming the child in the photo didn't move (and she didn't) what would cause this double exposure look to the head of the upper child. ?? Canon 6d with 24-105.
Most digital cameras have a rolling shutter, as the shutter rolls down the senser the movement of camera and subject can be picked up.
Mar 7, 2015 09:20:45 #
Canoe50d wrote:
Assuming the child in the photo didn't move (and she didn't) what would cause this double exposure look to the head of the upper child. ?? Canon 6d with 24-105.
Slow shutter speed and subject movement is very probable.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.