I discovered on a recent trip to Shanendoah NP that with the 17mm, even at ISO 100 (160 for slightly better DR) I needed a filter to get below 1/20th or so @ F11,16...

But using the Multiple exposure mode allows you to Average the frames and combine the images into 1 CR2 with perfectly added movement.

I captured this with 4 frames at 1/10th exposures in camera! shows up as a 1/4 SS.

I've also experimented with up to 8 frames and dont really notice anything all that problematic.

Excellence image.
Are you referring with TS-E 17mm lens ?

Yea, its quickly become my favorite lens

Looks very good, Kodak. I guess I need to dig into the manual on multiple exposure...

This also my Favorite lens and more I'm now able to put lee filter in font of this glass.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1081875/0

What camera body were you using?

Good way of thinking, kodakeos. A new technique for me to try. Thank you for posting!

This should work well in post-processing too, so no need to have in-camera multiple exposure for this, though it would save space on a low capacity memory card.

It occurs to me that going the post-processing route would also allow blurring the water while stilling leaf motion, for example.

kodakeos wrote:
I discovered on a recent trip to Shanendoah NP that with the 17mm, even at ISO 100 (160 for slightly better DR) I needed a filter to get below 1/20th or so @ F11,16...

But using the Multiple exposure mode allows you to Average the frames and combine the images into 1 CR2 with perfectly added movement.

I captured this with 4 frames at 1/10th exposures in camera! shows up as a 1/4 SS.

I've also experimented with up to 8 frames and dont really notice anything all that problematic.

Hang on... You said you needed a filter to get below 1/20s and then you said you captured the 4 frames at 1/10s... Doesn't that mean you still need to use an ND filter?

Its a useful technique in some situations. Its how some iPhone apps are shooting long exposure. Its not perfect and not applicable for every situation, just like filters dont always work.

This is basically a technique to take a bunch of underexposed pictures and then use software to “multiply” them back to give you your proper exposure. I would think that any image movement (e.g., wind moving a leaf) would be an issue. My gut reaction would be to think that using an ND filter would produce a better image.

Wes N.

Very interesting.

As long as the time between exposures does not interact with the subject motion in a visible way, there are several positives compared to using an ND filer:

- It often gets too dark to focus with ND110 filter on for really long exposures

- The filter introduces a slight softening to the images

- ND 110 filters of even high quality give a color cast

- Last but not least: This gives effectively lower ISO than 100 (50) with the benefit of higher Signal to Noise ratio. Not that it is a problem at ISO 100, but when we get 100- 200 MP cameras, the per pixel noise at ISO100 will be like what we have at ISO 400-800 today.

WesN wrote:
This is basically a technique to take a bunch of underexposed pictures and then use software to “multiply” them back to give you your proper exposure. I would think that any image movement (e.g., wind moving a leaf) would be an issue. My gut reaction would be to think that using an ND filter would produce a better image.

Wes N.


In this situation we should be shooting a short shutter shot for foliage whatever the technique,

Had this feature on my Pentax K20D and it was really quite useful. I wonder what would have happened if Canon had some input from the Pentax engineers at times... they really were ahead of most with some great concepts.

pingflood wrote:
Had this feature on my Pentax K20D and it was really quite useful. I wonder what would have happened if Canon had some input from the Pentax engineers at times... they really were ahead of most with some great concepts.

Agreed. OTOH, if Pentax offered a full frame DSLR in 2005, I'd still be shooting Pentax.

jcolwell wrote:
pingflood wrote:
Had this feature on my Pentax K20D and it was really quite useful. I wonder what would have happened if Canon had some input from the Pentax engineers at times... they really were ahead of most with some great concepts.

Agreed. OTOH, if Pentax offered a full frame DSLR in 2005, I'd still be shooting Pentax.

Yeah. Had Pentax offered a body that could autofocus on anything moving in 2009, I would have stuck with 'em too. Great ergonomics and usability.

Yes in practice it shoots the same exposure time as a standard photo would need at the given ISP, but multiples of that, giving a longer exposure without added ...exposure. I guess.
Ie: I did a bunch of shots around 1/8th and those came out ok, but turning on the me, I took 6 of them and it gave me a photo like a 1s exposure would. So I don't think it divides up the full exposure 1/8 in this case into 6 1/50th exposures.

@WesN
Even with the "other" old technique -> long exposure you have moving foilage.

Nice technique... it's like stacking to reduce noise and get crisp shots.

Very interesting, I was thinking about this functionality some time ago, but never got to try it. Now I'll have a good reason. Thanks for sharing!