Thanks for this video, as just started to use the Affinity Suite of products. Michael can I ask can this same affect be created in Affinity Designer? Cheers, Rahul.
No problem! As far as I know, you could do this in Designer. I think it has everything you need to follow along, but I can't really say for certain because I don't use designer very often.
Again, this is NOT double exposure. There is no exposure involved in this photography. This is nothing more than photo manipulation where you are taking 2 separate photographs and blending them together. True double exposure is no such thing. True "double exposure" is exactly what its name implies. It is a random occurrence when two photographs were exposed onto a single frame of film. The resulting image is 2 images that are overlapping and can be a confusing array of imagery. True double exposure is random and is unplanned. It is something that regularly occurred in the earliest days of film photography. The early style film cameras were mechanically very basic and simple. Photographers were required to count the frames and advance the film from one frame to an unexposed frame for the next picture. Sometimes when in a rush, photographers forgot to advance the film and resulted in having 2 photographs exposed onto the same frame, thereby creating a double exposure. this technique that you are demonstrating is a digital manipulation where 2 or more images are superimposed onto a main key image. But just because it has 2 separate images, does not qualify it as a double exposure image. It is nothing more than photo manipulation that is achieved through color, image and layer manipulation. That does NOT qualify as double exposure.
Melding and mixing 2 different photos is NOT double exposure. It's a photo modification using 2 different pictures. This generation doesn't know shit and obviously does NOT study history. True Double Exposure was once a random event that occurred naturally and accidentally. It happened before the advent and the introduction of the camera safe mode that prevented double exposures. The cog gear and cog teeth to advance the film once exposed was created so that a segment of photo film could only be exposed once. Previous cameras had no such thing. Because of how the old cameras worked, sometimes photographers forgot to advance their film to the next frame. As a result they took 2 different photos on the same photo frame of film. This resulted in double exposure where 2 photos occupied the same photo frame of film. this shit of combining 2 different images in post editing does NOT qualify as double exposure. It's a blending and modification of 2 single images merged into one photo. I grew up using old school cameras and studied old school film photography. I studied and learned how to do double exposure because when it first happened some photographers realized the value and creativity that could happen with a double exposed photograph. I wish the idiots of this generation took the time to study history and study about things that they have absolutely zero understanding or knowledge of. I hate this shit of pretending and making something and then calling it something that it's not. I don't give a shit what anybody says... this does NOT qualify as double exposure!!!
Thank you for sharing your insights on traditional film photography and the original process of double exposure. You're absolutely right about its historical significance and the unique way it was achieved in film cameras. The traditional method of double exposure holds a special place in the history of photography. In the digital realm, 'double exposure' has evolved to describe techniques that emulate this effect, though the process differs from the traditional film method. This modern adaptation aims to pay homage to the original technique while exploring new creative possibilities in digital photography. I appreciate your perspective and agree that understanding and respecting the roots of these artistic practices is important, but it's also important to see how the art changes through time.
Wow this was inspiring 🫶
Your tutorials are so well done! You aren’t going too quickly, and explain each step
Thank you! I'm glad you like them!
Best video on YT on double exposure! Thank You
Amazing tutorial! Thank you so much! Keep up the great tutorials
Thanks, will do!
Excellent video. Thanks 🙏🏽
Thank you!
keep the videos coming
Will do! Thanks
Thanks for this video, as just started to use the Affinity Suite of products. Michael can I ask can this same affect be created in Affinity Designer?
Cheers,
Rahul.
No problem! As far as I know, you could do this in Designer. I think it has everything you need to follow along, but I can't really say for certain because I don't use designer very often.
beginners check black and white formula for better preset . takes 10 sec
Good point. Thank you!
Again, this is NOT double exposure. There is no exposure involved in this photography. This is nothing more than photo manipulation where you are taking 2 separate photographs and blending them together.
True double exposure is no such thing. True "double exposure" is exactly what its name implies. It is a random occurrence when two photographs were exposed onto a single frame of film. The resulting image is 2 images that are overlapping and can be a confusing array of imagery. True double exposure is random and is unplanned. It is something that regularly occurred in the earliest days of film photography. The early style film cameras were mechanically very basic and simple. Photographers were required to count the frames and advance the film from one frame to an unexposed frame for the next picture. Sometimes when in a rush, photographers forgot to advance the film and resulted in having 2 photographs exposed onto the same frame, thereby creating a double exposure.
this technique that you are demonstrating is a digital manipulation where 2 or more images are superimposed onto a main key image. But just because it has 2 separate images, does not qualify it as a double exposure image. It is nothing more than photo manipulation that is achieved through color, image and layer manipulation. That does NOT qualify as double exposure.
Melding and mixing 2 different photos is NOT double exposure. It's a photo modification using 2 different pictures. This generation doesn't know shit and obviously does NOT study history.
True Double Exposure was once a random event that occurred naturally and accidentally. It happened before the advent and the introduction of the camera safe mode that prevented double exposures. The cog gear and cog teeth to advance the film once exposed was created so that a segment of photo film could only be exposed once. Previous cameras had no such thing.
Because of how the old cameras worked, sometimes photographers forgot to advance their film to the next frame. As a result they took 2 different photos on the same photo frame of film. This resulted in double exposure where 2 photos occupied the same photo frame of film.
this shit of combining 2 different images in post editing does NOT qualify as double exposure. It's a blending and modification of 2 single images merged into one photo.
I grew up using old school cameras and studied old school film photography. I studied and learned how to do double exposure because when it first happened some photographers realized the value and creativity that could happen with a double exposed photograph.
I wish the idiots of this generation took the time to study history and study about things that they have absolutely zero understanding or knowledge of. I hate this shit of pretending and making something and then calling it something that it's not. I don't give a shit what anybody says... this does NOT qualify as double exposure!!!
Thank you for sharing your insights on traditional film photography and the original process of double exposure. You're absolutely right about its historical significance and the unique way it was achieved in film cameras. The traditional method of double exposure holds a special place in the history of photography.
In the digital realm, 'double exposure' has evolved to describe techniques that emulate this effect, though the process differs from the traditional film method. This modern adaptation aims to pay homage to the original technique while exploring new creative possibilities in digital photography. I appreciate your perspective and agree that understanding and respecting the roots of these artistic practices is important, but it's also important to see how the art changes through time.