its not cloning.. its a double exposure with film.. King is old-skool :P

oh, semantics

Pete, you are correct.
In fact, this was an accidental double exposure. I didn't realize it until the film came out of the hypo bath.

Mooch...be nice or I will take back all the nice things I said about two of your images in the last theme.

@nattfodd, Tracy, Pete and Ana...Thanks!

I wanted to post this a second time because it fits the theme and my hunch is that there has been a lot of turnover at W.S. since this was first posted 10 months ago.

Once again, I won't have time to shoot anything original for this theme, but I hope to find some very recent, unpublished work that may fit.

G.M.huh!? ;-)

@mysight..please define "G.M.huh!?".

yep.

@Cushmok, marOOned, uvikidd...thank you!

@flipthom...that's a good guess. You don't remember seeing this before? I would hope not, but as you know by now this is a resubmission from an earlier theme.

I stand corrected!! Nice accident.

Rex-King.
G.M.-Great Manipulator,
of scenes and settings,never meant people.

@mysight...and what, exactly, is wrong with manipulating people?

@mysight : GM (Great Manipulator) .. ha ha .. Funny
@King : I think that you used a multiply exposure of this image right ? or manipulated ?
Could you explain how it works ?
Thank's and congrats for the star :)

@uvikidd...I explained above. You understand? or do you want more?

...and thank you!

oh yeah .. sorry .. missed
What da great accidental double exposure mister old skool :) (j/k)

I hope some day I will have the knowledge and equipment to do such lighting. Really nice, except the grey to black transition which looks quite grainy.

@CSD...well, in the old days, some photographers actually liked grain. I was (am) one of them.

One popular W.S. contributor, Vernon Trent, even gives himself the nickname, "Grain Junkie." I'm older than he is, but I think he has been shooting even longer than I have...started as a kid.

Thanks for the high compliments. All it takes is time and money, neither of which I have anymore.

I have no problem with grain if you mean noise, especially the analogue one. The body is smooth, but the background is strange, I'm sure it looks much better on paper than on screen. (I'm not sure I can express myself correctly, hungarian is easier for me :)

Without remorse? My middle name's "remorseful"
But without the "!". I'm not that forceful.

@CSD...I think what you are seeing is an artifact due to copying this image from the previous submission--not uploaded from the original. Some loss of quality is to be expected.

Thanks for pointing it out. I won't do that again!

@CSD and King: I just think this is jpg artifacts. This file format is known not to like smooth gradients, you should save it with the higher possible quality in cases like this one. But anyway, this is a photo you want to see in print (hung on a wall), not on a computer screen.

@nattfodd...thanks very much. I'm still low on the digital imaging learning curve--but paying attention and working hard at it.

The artifact if commonly referred to as "dithering" or "banding" and if you loaded a jpeg and then re-compressed as a jpeg, you could double up on the dithering.

Perfection King!

A digital camera does not have a double exposure option. Layering two images equates to this method.

@Beamer...thanks for the help!

I can see what you are talking about here and I've seen it before. Since I have a lot of images (in my archives) with smooth, graduated backgrounds, and my primary display method is the web, what do you suggest that I do?

This is problematic if one wants web pages to load quickly. For instance, I have a section on my site that I designed for folks using dialup connections. The photos on those pages are mainly small, low res images.

This photograph is beautiful as a high-res print, by the way with no dithering, banding or artifacts that I can find.

@Dave_Mac...thanks!

Great double exposure. This is so graceful and powerful. I love this!

For the record some digital cameras can produce "double exposures" in the camera without post processing. My D200 can do that. You have to shoot in RAW. I haven't really played with it but I've been meaning to.

There are 2 options, Image Overlay or Multiple Exposure in the menus. I think with image overlay you work it out by selecting the images after you shoot however many with that setting and combining them in the camera although I'm not sure. I haven't tried it.

In multiple exposure you set it to how many you want to combine from 2 to 10 then shoot. It combines them into one image. I did a quick test with 2 exposures and it works much like a film double exposure from what I can see in my quick test sitting here at my desk, except you end up with 2 images the first one, a single exposure, and then the combined. There is something you can change that has to do with gain but I didn't try anything with that yet. Not sure how that affects the image. Looks like I have something to play around with tomorrow.

Funny I've had this camera for 1 1/2 years almost and I still haven't used all it's features.

I used to have problems with that dithering or gradient banding, whatever it's called. It doesn't seem to happen anymore since I started shooting RAW about a year ago. It doesn't happen with my older JPGs if I process them as DNGs or PSDs and then save them as JPGs.

@CaptureThis...thanks for the tutorial on digital double-exposures. I might want to play with that, but it seems that Photoshop makes it redundant, doesn't it?

As I mentioned above, I'm embarrassed by my digital ignorance...I should have known that simply copying an early entry and reposting it would degrade the image to a noticeable extent. I'm usually very careful about squeezing the maximum quality out of the images I post. I was lazy in this instance.

Thanks very much for the compliments and your comments.

Well I did some playing with the double exposures and I have to say I am a bit disappointed in the "in camera" results. I think better results can probably be achieved in photoshop. The images were a little too ghostly and transparent but maybe some more experimenting is required to get better results. I tried both the image overlay which limits you to 2 exposures and the multiple exposure which allows from 2-10. I used 3 for my multiple exposure tests.

King I'm still learning to be sure. I hadn't done any digital before 2005 so I'm not an expert. Heck the camera I had before I went digital was a 1981ish Minolta XD5 that didn't even have auto focus. I had shot with a 1939ish Rolleiflex, and a Voigtlander Besa L (if memory serves) folding camera from about the same era before that. They were fun though.

CaptureThis...a 1939ish Rolleiflex and a Voigtlander Bessa L?--the one with the strange viewfinder?...you're my kind of girl!

I had a very nice TL Rollei and it was one of my favorite cameras. Do you have any images posted anywhere that you took with either of those cameras?

They had been my Grandpa's, then my dad gave them to me to use. I used them when I was a little girl and in High School.

We used to develop the film, and make the prints in our basement darkroom. I have no shots posted from them for two reasons. One, no scanner here. I just never bothered to get one. Two, My mom had them somewhere in her house and they are now missing or destroyed. She is not well and well she just got rid of everything that had memories even if they belonged to other people. Very sad really and it hurts to think about it.

I'm not sure what happened to the cameras. The Rollei still worked but the Voigtlander was not last I saw it in the early 1980's. I think one of my brothers may have rescued them.

My first SLR was a Pentacon (sp), Praktica LTL...ever heard of it? I had that when I was about 10 and got the Minolta for Christmas 1981 after I had graduated High School. That camera still works but I am a digital convert. I'm too impatient for film.

@CaptureThis...what a shame about your negatives.

One of the things I enjoy these days, when I can find the time, is scanning old family negatives and doing my best to get the most out of them in Photoshop--then share them with whoever is still alive...I have a very old family. My father was born in 1895...really.

One of my auxilliary hard drive died some months ago. It was a storage drive with nothing on it that couldn't be replaced. I discovered that many of my early efforts at scanning were lost. But, in this case, that's a good thing because I'm learning a lot about scanning. I'm able to do a much better job now, so I'm writing those images off to practice.

I don't like scanning images..it's a chore for me...but it is an important task so I'm working hard at mastering it. I don't have a really good scanner and am in the market for one. However, my lab makes *excellent* scans and I'd like to pass everything to them. It's a tradeoff between the expense of the lab scans, the expense of buying one or two high-quality film scanners and the pain (and time expense) of doing my own scans.

However, photography is a hobby now and that's a great thing. No pressure. I always look forward to it and have more things to do than I have time for.

Thanks for writing!