Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Odd photo anyone know why?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

deavilin
deavilin  10322 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
17 Oct 2011 - 9:03 PM

http://www.ephotozine.com/user/deavilin-21453/gallery/photo/one-for-the-technos-...

Hi I have posted this photo I took whilst away this week and wondered if anyone can explain what happened, it looks like a double exposure or as if I moved the cam, I am sure I did not. The speed was 1/1600 so movement would I would have thought not been an issue. ISO 640 & f11. Any ideas guys?

Charlotte

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
17 Oct 2011 - 9:03 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

discreetphoton
discreetphoton Site Moderator 93443 forum postsdiscreetphoton vcard United Kingdom20 Constructive Critique Points
17 Oct 2011 - 9:18 PM

If it wasn't for the speed, I'd think that the VR had reset it's position mid-fire, but it seems unlikely. Looks like a possible write error. Format the card ASAP.

stomp
stomp  12203 forum posts England
17 Oct 2011 - 9:28 PM

What are the image file numbers on the files before and after this image?

Steve

User_Removed
17 Oct 2011 - 9:30 PM

From the clarity of the mid to foreground shingle I would say that this is not a 'movement' issue.

Additionally, the visible problem is 'localised' within the image area.

I am inclined to agree with David and say that this is an electronic issue and that the card needs to be reformatted - in camera - as a first step and from there, attempt to replicate the shoot and see if the problem repeats itself.

If it does, then replace the card (with a previously camera-formatted card Wink), shoot the same scene again and recheck.

oldblokeh
oldblokeh  3770 forum posts United Kingdom
17 Oct 2011 - 9:32 PM

I'd say that it's definitely not a write error. If it were, you would get a corrupted file, not two superimposed images where you have got tonal values added together. Nor would it be a VR issue, as it would need a pretty much instantaneous shift between, effectively, two 300 microsecond exposures which I don't think is feasible. If you look closely, you can see that the arm of the chap holding the fork is closer to the shaft of the fork in one image than in the other, superimposed image. This suggests a gap between captures of a reasonable fraction of a second at least. Ithink that this is an inadvertent double exposure, though whether due to a camera software error or a user mishap I can't say.

MrGoatsmilk
17 Oct 2011 - 10:16 PM

Is it a Nikon? I'm sure on the D90 (perhaps other models and makes too) it allows you to take a shot then take another over the same frame. Just like exposing a film shot then winding it back and shooting again. Was this on in the settings?

Stu

User_Removed
17 Oct 2011 - 10:37 PM

You have got two diagonally shifted images. There is no blur between the two positions - which you would have got had it been camera movement.

My money is on a lens problem. I just can't see that effect being achieved by any malfunction of the sensor or card.

But I am guessing without any real ideas.

oldblokeh
oldblokeh  3770 forum posts United Kingdom
18 Oct 2011 - 8:25 AM


Quote: You have got two diagonally shifted images. .

There are two non-identical diagonally shifted images. Let's do some measurement and maths here. I'll make one or two assumptions. First, assume that the fork handle is 5cm diameter. My measurements show that in the upper right instance the hand is approximately 6 times further from the fork handle than in the lower left instance, the distance being about 5/7 of a fork handle width. This would be a distance of of about 36mm. The quoted shutterspeed is 1/1600. In order for this movement to have been captured during a single exposure the hand would have to be moving at a speed of at least 57 metres per second, which is approximately 130 mph - unfeasibly fast. However, there is no sign of blur in the image, so to account for the appearance there would have to be half the exposure with the hand close to the fork and the other half with the hand further from the fork, with the hand moving at a colossal speed between the two.

If one were to put an upper limit of 1 metre per second on the hand movement (which I think is rather high, given the circumstances), this would put a lower limit of about 1/30 second between exposures. There are other clues. If you look carefully you can see the in the upper right image the fork is further into the sand than in the lower left one. Futhermore, looking at the groynes there appears to be some rotation between the two images which could not be accounted for by malfunction within the lens.

It's quite clearly a double exposure.

Sooty_1
Sooty_1 Critique Team 41177 forum posts United Kingdom196 Constructive Critique Points
18 Oct 2011 - 8:25 AM

Definitely a double exposure - the shutter has been actuated twice, a fraction of a second apart. The only person moving noticeably in the shot is the one on the right, but this shows the images were captured at separate times.

Nick

deavilin
deavilin  10322 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
18 Oct 2011 - 8:50 AM

Hi Guys

Thanks for your thoughts on this one it was an odd one to me. When I saw this on the camera I thought there was something wrong with the cam so shot off 22 in rapid fire and all were okay plus I have not had anymore since.

Regards Charlotte

deavilin
deavilin  10322 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
18 Oct 2011 - 2:56 PM

As someone said that the exif file would be useful it is now uploaded with the photo, there is no where there that is says it is a double exposure, really odd one me thinks Smile

Charlotte

digicammad
digicammad  1121988 forum posts United Kingdom37 Constructive Critique Points
18 Oct 2011 - 3:22 PM

Definitely looks like a multiple exposure image to me. Is it possible you have that function assigned to one of the buttons and accidentally caught it when taking the shot?

Has it only happened once? If so it is worth reading up on multi-exposure in your manual (if the camera has it), finding out how it is controlled and checking those settings.

If your camera does not have that mode it looks like it could be an electronic fault. Have you been aware of your camera firing twice when you only expected one?

keithh
keithh  1022788 forum posts Wallis and Futuna29 Constructive Critique Points
18 Oct 2011 - 3:22 PM

Could you have captured their souls?

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139392 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
18 Oct 2011 - 3:43 PM

No it's their auras that have been captured. Smile

deavilin
deavilin  10322 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
18 Oct 2011 - 3:58 PM

Hi Ian I had not changed anything withing the camera, and it has not repeated it again since. I think it was a glitch you know just one of those things Smile

I have the multiple exposure in the shooting menu and that is set to off, I don't think it means the same thing as I have just tried it and it only does the amount of shots you set it to not one on top of another as in this file Smile

Charlotte

Last Modified By deavilin at 18 Oct 2011 - 4:00 PM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.