There's multiple ways to do this. In camera or in post production using PhotoShop. If in camera -
1. Subject with Black background behind them.
2. Camera on a tripod.
3. Studio lights set for proper F-stop exposure
4. Turn off modeling light on strobes (important for clean blacks)
5. Camera set on bulb.
6. Once you trigger the camera, manually fire the strobe.
7. Have the subject turn and when ready, manually fire the strobe again.
8. Release bulb and see what you got!
You'll have to play with the direction of your lights and the ratios, etc. but you'll get the idea. You can do this with flash lights or light bulbs too. Just as long as you know the proper amount of exposure time needed by he light source and can turn it on and off in between the head turns. Being in black & white you don't have to worry about color shift that comes from the temperature of the light source.
Hope that helps. Actually one of the easier techniques to do. It's just a matter of a few tries to get the right look and feel from the subject.
dirtpusher wrote:
just was adjusting for fluorescent lights, hate those high over head fluorescent light.
Is that an uncovered aileron on the right?
Two shots taken with the model sitting very still. Overlay the two images and and alter the opacity of the foreground image. That is how I would do it as a videographer turned photographer.
amehta wrote:
If the flash is triggered manually, you can fire it multiple times.
You can use strob flash and it will fire multiple times a second (you set the number of flashes-your choice).
BigBear wrote:
Yes
you can, but then each time it fires it will over expose near all of the image.
In this case the beginning part of the exposure is blurred and the ending is sharp and properly exposed telling me that the flash fired at the end of the exposure.
Not necessarily. If you reduce the power of the flash and set it to fire "stroboscopically", you can get a single exposure with multiple flashes without over-exposure.
canadiaman wrote:
http://graememitchell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/inez_and-_vinhood_hoffman.jpg
Simple, it's a long (time) exposure like the one I did of myself some time ago. It's not as crisp coming off Flickr as the original is but you get the idea.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimsphotostuff/4620079723/
There is often more than one way to skin a cat! I do not know if my camera has a delay flash or not. Is that how you did it, with a camera setting? Did you use the in camera pop up or an external flash attached to the hot shoe (TTL or manual)? Lets see, you take a time exposure for the front view, and then have the subject turn his head and the delayed flash makes the second image? Is this correct? I am having trouble understanding how a moving human figure in a time exposure can leave no "mark" on the image(when he turns his head), I would expect to see a blur. I just saw a an online lesson where the photographer set his camera on a tripod and released the shutter for a time exposure, (it was night) and he went and walked around the subject (some rock columns) with a hand held light source/flash. The photo showed the light illuminating the rocks from the flash but the photographer was not visible, not even as blur; he says you have to make sure you keep moving.
BigBear wrote:
I did it with one exposure and delayed flash.
I made a photo like that at night. I forget the shutter speed (it was in the multi-seconds). I walked around with manual flash, set at 1/8 power and did multiple exposures of my face when I moved from place to place. I could see this photo taking place in a very dark environment with the flash, off camera and the flash trigger in hand, and you trigger the flash two, three, maybe four times, during the exposure.
David E. Parvin wrote:
I experimented with a similar effect last year. The attached photo was taken with a long exposure in low light. I opened the shutter and after a slight pause, panned the camera to the right as the model turned to face the camera. At which time I fired a strobe manually. Would have looked more like the photo in question if I had not panned the camera.
I love the photo you did Mr. Parvin! Very cool.
LFingar wrote:
Is that an uncovered aileron on the right?
yes sir it is a stabilator.
canadiaman wrote:
http://graememitchell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/inez_and-_vinhood_hoffman.jpg
put subject in a dark room. With lights out open the shutter of the camera using B setting and keep the shutter open. Have subject look in one direction and then flash the subject with an off camera flash. Do not close the shutter of the camera use B to keep the shutter open. Then have the subject turn head and then flash the subject again. Then close the shutter of the camera. You will end up with the double image on one frame.
silver wrote:
put subject in a dark room. With lights out open the shutter of the camera using B setting and keep the shutter open. Have subject look in one direction and then flash the subject with an off camera flash. Do not close the shutter of the camera use B to keep the shutter open. Then have the subject turn head and then flash the subject again. Then close the shutter of the camera. You will end up with the double image on one frame.
I've seen several (film) done with a golf swing and strobe with about 30 pulses.
canadiaman wrote:
http://graememitchell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/inez_and-_vinhood_hoffman.jpg
Easy to do in Adobe Photosohp if you have the two original pictures.
lighthouse wrote:
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/10/22/a-different-type-of-light-painting-tutorial-use-handheld-flash-during-long-exposures/
Nice link on light painting. :thumbup:
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.