• LeberechtReinhold@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Its double exposure.

      Since the sky is so bright, if you take a photo capturing the city buildings color, the sky ends up almost white due to it being so white. If you expose for the sky colors instead, you can see the full gamut of colors in this sunset, but the buildings would end up very dark (this is how we end with those iconic western film scenes or dark ground with red sky).

      You can take a double exposure to combine both so you have a higher range of light. There are many techniques for it and phones do it automatically but can be done in any camera, even film cameras. However if you fuck up or theres movement (slighty different angle) between the two takes, you can end up with things ghosting out.

      It can be used to create lots of tricks: https://www.ericjamesphoto.com/blog/2016/2/double-exposures-on-film

      In the 19th century they used it to “photograph ghosts” (spiritualism was in vogue at the time): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_photography

      • Arrakis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Until this comment I thought the Christmas tree was the problem and now I feel like an idiot.

      • Deme@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        When shooting double exposure, one isn’t supposed to move the camera. The church tower should appear darker than the other buildings and definitely not translucent. My guess would be that this picture was taken through a window with the bright sunset behind the camera and reflected on the glass. Or then it really is just two completely different pictures stitched together. Wouldn’t call that a double exposure though…

        • superkret@feddit.deOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Or then it really is just two completely different pictures stitched together.

          Not stitched together, it’s 2 different pictures taken on the same film slide. You can see the same church a second time from a different point of view, on the right side of the city.

          • Shurimal@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Bingo. It looks like the landscape and the buildings are from completely different locations, overlayed on the same photo either by double exposure of film or digitally. Pretty cool photograph of a "ghost town"🙃

            • SwampYankee@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Looks like it was probably done digitally. Two photos in separate layers, set blend mode to “lighten”, and then selectively mask areas you don’t want the effect applied to.

              • superkret@feddit.deOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It was done digitally, but not selectively.
                I literally just added the brightness values of both pictures, which gives the same effect as a classic analog double exposure (taking 2 pictures without forwarding the film in between).

                • SwampYankee@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh, nice. I didn’t see the effect at the bottom of the picture so I thought it might have been masked. Good stuff.

        • LeberechtReinhold@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          one isn’t supposed to move the camera

          Depends on the effect you want. You can do lots of cool/cheesy tricks by moving the camera, like putting the sky from a different place into a different photo, or seeing stars inside a person silhouette. That’s all double exposure, regardless if you like or consider it “proper technique”.

          • Deme@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I was thinking about HDR photography where you take multiple pictures of the same scene with different expoures and combine the best parts of each for a picture with a high dynamic range. This evidently wasn’t the case here.

        • SwampYankee@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          A double exposure is literally one picture exposed on top of another, usually a completely different subject and composition. The “ghost” effect in this case is intentional.

          What you and the guy above you are talking about is a high dynamic range (HDR) photo, where you take two or more exposures of the same scene with bright and dark areas that couldn’t both be properly exposed in the same exposure, and combine them to achieve the desired exposure throughout.

          OP’s photo looks like a more traditional double exposure of two different cityscapes at night, but it’s also only double exposed in certain areas. Probably post-processing, rather than done in-camera.

    • superkret@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago
      Spoiler

      It’s 2 pictures from different viewpoints overlaid in a double exposure.
      You’ll find the same church again on the right side.
      Also look at the houses on the hill on the right.