A DAY AT THE RACES WITH THE 20D !

.....and the Totally Digital Infrared D60.

Today was the Atlanta Steeplechase and a few thousand folks braved the
threatening weather to dress up, drink beer and watch the ponies run.

It was a tough day for jockeys as almost every one I bet on fell off
his horse.
Here's the first race:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/77167511/original

Here's the 4th race and my digital double-exposure shot:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/77169196

And of course, the ladies were out as well.
Once they see me and my 20D they're all smiles.
I think this is perhaps my favorite shot from the "Honey Cam":
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/77167514

The girl on the right in this pic kept telling me that she loved me:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/77167520

Like, who doesn't, bitch?

 

Annika1980 wrote:

From the photos it looked like the weather was threatening to be a bright
sunny day...

 

Pardon?
Double exposure is not possible with 20D camera. This to me looks like a
blended image using Photosho or a similar application.

 

That would make it a digital double-exposure, wouldn't it?

 

Even if it were double exposed (which it obviously isn't), in broad
daylight there would be a lot of "transparency" in the horses.

 

Mine too, but I think you should have cropped a bit tighter...like this:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/77220834/original

 

Sorry... That's only a play with words.
It would make it a picture blended from two photographs.

I suspect your are manouvering yourself towards meeting the mandate for your
one fan's crummy little game by making out this play is a digital version of
a double exposure... It's not. Do right or don't it at all. Most of all,
it's not possible for you to change the definition of a process to suit
yourself.

 

what the hell do you mean by: " I suspect your are manouvering
yourself towards meeting the mandate for your
one fan's crummy little game" ?
Helen

 

A double-exposure blended digitally. Gee, one could call that a
"digital double-exposure." Just like I said.

 

What? No threat of lawsuit because I re-posted one (actually half) of your
Phillie images??
Disappointing...

 

On Apr 15, 7:29 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
here)@cox..net> wrote:
..

Don't you worry. The FBI has dropped several ongoing terrorist
investigations so that they can put all their resources on this
heinous crime you have committed.

I kinda liked the blonde, myself.

 

Yeah, what kind of crack was that???
FYI, I have at least two or three fans here. So there!

 

Ya, but her smile looked canned.

 

Yeah, you're right. The blonde is definitely better!
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h15/nickybrea/Paul-Walker-Hunk.jpg

 

--
"A picture might speak a thousand words
but what good is this to a person who will not listen"?

Yeah, you're right. The blonde is definitely better!
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h15/nickybrea/Paul-Walker-Hunk.jpg

Colour blind, huh?

 

Not at all. Nick is definitely blonde. He just doesn't get his color
from a bottle. When his hair is cut short like that it looks dark.
Helen

 

Aw man?? That's a man. No fair...

 

I'd be inclined to consider "digital double exposure" to include
merging complete frames but not combining two images using complex
selections, masks or cloning. In other words, achieving the same
effect through multiple exposures on different frames as would be
achievable through multiple exposures on a single frame.

 

----
Most of the of Photographic competition judges I've come across work in the
vein of "masking before pasting" creates a blended picture whereas
superimposing one image over another and equalising the transparency of the
top one is no different than a double exposure with film cameras.

When you do as Annika did, you are taking photography into the area of
graphic art. Such a picture (and you really need to differentiate between
pictures and photo) would not be accepted as a Photograph in most "Royal
Agricultural Society" shows for inclusion in their Photography competitions.
Art perhaps. Photography, no.