digital Orton
Acinom7206
Can you share it?
Larry
Kevin McMurtrie
<9EVK8.202359$t8_.1...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
"Acinom7206" <lwbia...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
So try it! That big digital camera investment means all the photos
following are free. Take pictures of everything and figure out what
techniques work.
Roger Broadbent
True, Kevin, but a few pointers from more experienced people always
help, and is part of the reason for this group after all!
To answer your question Larry, you should be able to achieve the Orton
technique pretty much exactly. As I understand it, this is a double
exposure technique, taking two frames of the same subject, one in focus
and one out-of-focus to give a soft-focus effect. With a film camera, you
do this in-camera.
With a digital camera, combining frames on your computer can be achieved
simply. All you need to do is take the two frames separately with your
camera (one in focus, one out). You'll need a tripod to ensure the
frames are 100% aligned of course.
You can then combine these two frames easily in your image processing
software. Try combining them additively, as this is what happens
in-camera (more or less).
If you only have one frame and you want to mimic it after the fact,
there are filters to give an out-of-focus effect (you don't want
Gaussian blur). Use these to make your "out-of-focus" shot then combine
with the original as above.
I think there are "soft focus" filters that are effectively a plain
glass sheet with lots of microlenses to produce an out-of-focus effect
on part of the image. These might produce a similar effect in one shot.
Have a go!
Roger
Bill Hilton
>digitally. Can you share it?
Try this ... one frame in focus 2 stops over-exposed, one frame well out of
focus (set aperture to wide open so you don't get any unexpected depth of
field) 1 stop over-exposed.
Open up the in-focus shot in Photoshop and use as the base layer. Open up the
out-of-focus shot and move it to the other file (holding down shift while you
move will center it above the other one so if you shot on a tripod you're in
good shape).
Now you need to change the blend mode of the top layer. Try Multiply or Hard
Light or Overlay modes. I usually use Hard Light but it varies by image and
taste. You may need to use a Curves or Levels adjustment layer on the second
layer (link the adjustment layer to the top layer so it doesn't affect the base
layer), and also lower the opacity (especially in Multiply mode) to get it
looking right (a lot seems to depend on the specific image), but this should
give you a good starting point.
Roger Broadbent
> >Does anyone have any experience in mimicking the Orton technique
> >digitally. Can you share it?
>
> Try this ... one frame in focus 2 stops over-exposed, one frame well out of
> focus (set aperture to wide open so you don't get any unexpected depth of
> field) 1 stop over-exposed.
[...]
Overexposure would be necessary for a traditional slide "sandwich". If
you're doing it with a double exposure, underexposure would be
necessary with film.
In the digital realm, wouldn't you be better off exposing normally then
adjusting and combining in your photo editing software - you'll get more
gradations of shade in your originals then, and have more opportunities
to vary the effect at the combining stage.
Roger
Bill Hilton
>Overexposure would be necessary for a traditional slide "sandwich".
Right, and this is the technique Orton uses (and Andre Gallant ... his book
with Freeman Patterson on "Photo Impressionism" is excellent and describes the
technique well, though Orton recommends zooming to keep the out of focus blurs
similar in size to the in focus frame and Andre doesn't do this).
>If you're doing it with a double exposure, underexposure would
>be necessary with film.
With a double exposure you don't get as intensified an effect. Much more
dramatic using two slides sandwiched.
The guy asked for the "Orton" effect ... that's two shots exposed as I
described, as described in Orton's book "Creative Landscapes" and elsewhere.
You can mimic it digitally with the Photoshop technique I described in the
earlier post.
Bill
Roger Broadbent
Your source is clearly more authoratitive than mine, which described it
as a double exposure. Thanks for putting me straight. Thinking about it,
I agree a double exposure of a single slide isn't the same and ought not
to be given the same name; with a slide sandwich, you add shadow values;
with a double exposure, you add highlight values. Quite different.
But my main question was, why should you do the overexposure at the
taking stage when doing it digitally? Wouldn't it be better to take the
frames with normal exposure and adjust the apparent exposure in software
later? Otherwise, I would think you'd have some _really_ blown
highlights!
Thanks,
Roger
Tony Spadaro
apply a blur, resize to fit the most important area, combine and crop.
It prolly wouldn't look exactly the same as doing it as a slide sandwich,
but the possibilities are about endless if one can use singles.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
Photography ... the hard way
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Roger Broadbent" <roger_b...@yahoo.elide-this.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87u1oh1...@yahoo.elide-this.co.uk...
Roger Broadbent
> Fact of the matter is - digitally you can do it with only one shot. Copy,
> apply a blur, resize to fit the most important area, combine and crop.
> It prolly wouldn't look exactly the same as doing it as a slide sandwich,
> but the possibilities are about endless if one can use singles.
>
[...]
Agreed. I did mention this earlier in the thread. However, Gaussian blur
doesn't give a proper out-of-focus effect - you need blur based on a
flat disk (annular if you want mirror-lens bokeh; near-flat for other bokehs).
Roger