How To Take Double-Exposures Using Images from Your Computer

24 10

For all of you double-exposure lovers, here is a brand new way to shoot! To create funky photos anytime and anyplace, just grab your computer and a camera.

This is an extremely easy way to take your favorite images and add them to your favorite photos. What you’re going to need: Microsoft Word or PowerPoint (I recommend PowerPoint), Keynote or Pages (or any type of program similar), and completely white images.

1. Open PowerPoint (or your program) and automatically turn all of the slides background color to BLACK. This way when you’re shooting your first layer of the double-exposure, the only thing that will show up on your ending result is your white image.

2. Find a 100% WHITE IMAGE on the internet. Drag it onto your first slide and position it anywhere you’d like. The image cannot have a solid colored background – instead, it needs to be “clear.” I have not yet tried using colored images because I’m not sure how well they will turn out in the ending photos. But you never know… you learn new things every day!

3. After you’ve created all your slides with the images that you’d like placed on them, view the PowerPoint as a fullscreen slideshow. Scroll through the slideshow once to double-check and make sure your images are placed properly.

4. Take a photo of each slide while on your camera’s double-exposure setting (and viewing the slides in the fullscreen slideshow). Make sure that the only thing that you’re taking a photo of is the computer screen, because you don’t want anything behind your computer to be in the photo. Depending on your camera type, the order in which you’ll have to take the photos in will vary – you may have to take the photo of your computer screen first and then go outside and take your second layer photo, or you may have to just take all of the computer photos first and just rewind your film before shooting your second layer. Make sure that your flash is off so the glare from the screen won’t show.

5. If you haven’t done yet so, rewind your film and get shooting your second layer! It doesn’t matter if you don’t remember which photo had which image on it – film photography is all about surprises! I recommend using black and white film just because it will make your white images pop more.

6. Get your photos developed or scan them. Tada! Your masterpieces are finished. Smile, laugh, and enjoy your adorably funky, original, and cute new double-exposure photos!

written by amandaglass on 2012-04-02 #gear #tutorials #film #camera #computer #text #tipster #double-exposure #images

10 Likes

harveyh, iamalec, sorianoalberto, chrisjeboemaars, jochan, lamaloes, kaimcn, phoenix1206, lostlittlekid & adi_totp.

23 Comments

natalieerachel · 2012-04-02 22:43
Those photos come from this camera though:
www.urbanoutfitters.com/urban/catalog/productdetail.jsp?nav…

My friend had it and the imprints are exactly the same as these.
amandaglass · 2012-04-02 22:50
@natalieerachel these are just some examples, you can do any image that you'd like! : )
jeffr · 2012-04-03 01:38
there's a lot of step ones!
amandaglass · 2012-04-03 02:17
@jeffr haha I know! when I submitted it, all of the steps were numbered correctly... but for some odd reason they were all changed to 1's when it was published!
ohpleasedontgo · 2012-04-03 09:27
Honestly, I think it's not really fair to write a tipster with pictures that are not even shot with the technique you are describing. You did ask me how I did my computerscreen doubles a while ago.... After that you didn't try yourself, but wrote a tipster based on that information and with ''false' 'pictures. (I know they are analogue and they look great, but they are not shot with the technique you described) . I am glad to help others who want to try the same and ofcourse I didn't invent this technique and many others (like @natalieerachel) have tried the same of similar techniques before, but I think it's not really fair...
amandaglass · 2012-04-03 10:59
@ohpleasedontgo many people have helped me try this out, and I've shot plenty of rolls and the only one that worked out is the one that I used these steps with. again, these are just examples of things you can do.
ohpleasedontgo · 2012-04-03 11:10
@amandaglass Ok, then why don't you use those photos instaed of using pictures that are clearly from the camera natalie posted (and not shot with the described technieque)? As I said I am glad to help people and to give tips if someone asks me, but for me it seemed like you have only asked people about tips and then wrote a tipster about it without even trying yousrself... If not, then it's my fault and I am sorry. But still I don't think you should use those pictures...
amandaglass · 2012-04-03 12:49
@ohpleasedontgo I wasn't able to access the pictures and add them to my article. as soon as I can get them onto my computer, I will upload them to my Home. this is just an article to help others... not to create arguments! : )
natalieerachel · 2012-04-03 19:47
@amandaglass I agree with @ohpleasedontgo, it's not exactly fair to take the information he gave you and use it yourself when you haven't tried it. It's also not cool that you say you used a Diana F+ camera to take the photos in your lomohome which clearly are not taken by that camera. And writing this article about it too....
www.lomography.com/magazine/lifestyle/2012/03/05/love-at-fi…
ohpleasedontgo · 2012-04-03 20:01
:s! @natalieerachel I'm a ''she'' though ;)
natalieerachel · 2012-04-03 20:08
@ohpleasedontgo Oh my bad, sorry about that!
ohpleasedontgo · 2012-04-03 20:11
@natalieerachel no problem! :) maybe I should use a picture of myself as profile picture! you are not the first who thinks that I am male..hehe :D
amandaglass · 2012-04-03 21:37
@natalieerachel @ohpleasedontgo I'm sorry if you don't like the photos that are in my articles, but there's nothing left to do. I've decided to upload these, and I think they're great! thanks for the comments though.
natalieerachel · 2012-04-03 22:57
It's not that we don't like the articles, its just that its dishonest to say that you used a camera or film tgat you didn't actually use for your photos. They would be fine if yiy just tagged them with the actual camera and film you used and not to edit them on picnik. I recognize the effects and editing photos isn't the point of lomography.
lazybuddha · 2012-04-04 21:24
Now now girls :-). I have to say I think the whole thing is against the spirit of lomography. Both @natalieerachel and @ohpleasedontgo have taken some great shots using their computers, especially Nat's galaxy album, and I have 'liked' many of them but it seems to me that not only is it taking an analogue photo of a digital image (kind of defeating the object) but it lacks skill, effort, opportunism, luck etc. It seems to contravene several of the 10 golden rules, not least, 'leave the digital grind behind' with all this powerpoint business. Still, it's just my opinion and as long as you are honest in your descriptions (as both were) it's up to you. Also Amanda, I think using an online editing tool to add light leaks to your pictures is also cheating just a little bit.
www.lomography.com/homes/amandaglass/photos/15462409
ohpleasedontgo · 2012-04-05 11:57
@lazybuddha I agree with you on most points. My doubles (of Where the wild things are, and the Colibri doubles) are analogue pictures of digital pictures, (at least that’s the case for the first layer). So that’s, as you pointed out, of course not truly lomographic …. However I don’t think that using a picture of a digital picture as first layer (quote) ‘lacks skill, effort, opportunism, luck etc.’ As with completely analogue doubles you choose and know what you shot as your first layer and then you still need either luck and/or skills to make a good match with the second layer. Would it be different if I would have used the ‘analogue’ pictures of my book of where the wild things are as first layer? ( It would have been cool if I could shoot the real Wild things though :D) I guess it’s a question about how strict you are in following the lomographic rules. But as you said, you can disagree on that point and as long as you are honest about it it’s fine :) Regarding Amanda’s tipster, I think I have made my point clear. I have no problem with the content of her tipster, only with the pictures she uses in her tipster (and also with other pictures of her). It is dishonest and it makes me doubt if she really tried herself. It also makes me doubt about her other pictures as well (and the link you posted, and the link Natalie posted both seem to confirm that doubt)… But I guess this are two different discussions.
natalieerachel · 2012-04-05 20:03
@ohpleasedontgo @lazybuddha I agree also that it's not truly lomographic, but for me it would be the same as drawing or printing out silhouettes and taking pictures of those instead. It's easier to just use the computer screen because it helps with the contrast of making the second layer clearly. But aside from that, it's just the fact of dishonesty with the fake Diana F+ photos and the editing that bothers me. Their not truly lomography because they've been altered or mistagged.
www.lomography.com/homes/amandaglass/popular/photos/15462409
amandaglass · 2012-04-05 20:18
@lazybuddha @ohpleasedontgo @natalieerachel I'm sorry, but none of you have the right to comment negative things about me or about my photos when this is my article. Lomography is about expressing yourself through your photos, and that's exactly what I've done. If you don't like it, feel free to leave. What's unfair is that you're all doing this and saying these pointless things. Please stop commenting.
natalieerachel · 2012-04-06 04:13
@amandaglass You're right, Lomography is about expressing yourself, there's nothing wrong with that.The only point we're trying to make is that Lomography is also about truely analogue film photos, which means no online editing, and being honest about the cameras and film that you use. That's all.
lazybuddha · 2012-04-06 05:52
@amandaglass, I'm afraid your comment doesn't make much sense to me. Why do I not have the right to make a negative comment? Where does it say all comments must be positive? And the fact that this is your article doesn't make any difference. If Lomography were about "expressing yourself through your photos" then it wouldn't be any different from flicka or any other of the countless photography sites, Lomography is a community for sharing purely analogue photos with little or no post production. The amount of post production and what constitutes post production are on going debates but I would say that using an online editing tool to add light leaks counts. When I commented on this photo - www.lomography.com/homes/amandaglass/photos/15634372
you told me the light leak was from leaving the camera in the sun for too long, I'm sorry but that is rubbish. What are you 'expressing about yourself' through these photos? That you are dishonest? You say that if we don't like you 'expressing yourself' in this way we should all leave the community, you then tell us to stop commenting. Well if you don't like our comments why don't you leave? Why is it unfair that we are "all doing this and saying these pointless things"? Instead of whining about us picking on you why don't you actually respond to and answer the criticisms we made?
gabysalas · 2012-04-06 10:22
@amandaglass ,@lazybuddha, @ohpleasedontgo @natalieerachel, at this point, I think this conversation is getting a little bit out of control. As both sides of the argument have stated, Lomography is a community that fosters creativity and good communication. So, instead of asking people to leave or stay, let's agree to disagree, and let each side of the party handle their LomoHomes as they wish.
kneehigh85 · 2012-04-08 19:40
Sorry just to clarify - these are shot with a LOL cam from Urban Outfitters right? I have the same ones in my Lomohome!!!
bkbrown · 2012-04-24 00:36
this is an amazing idea