Talk:Multiple exposure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Multiple exposure article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Contents 1 Merge with Multiple Exposure 2 The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. 3 Against Merging 4 Factual accuracy 5 Clean up and C.E.M.E.N.T discussion

[edit] Merge with Multiple Exposure

I suggest that this article be merged with multiple exposure because a double exposure is a particular instance of a multiple exposure, and because the multiple exposure article is far more 'complete' than this one. Calrion 14:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the two artices should be merged with double exposure (as a search term) linking automatically to multiple exposure. - Matt0401 15:53, 24 February 2006 (EST)

I as well agree. Having a page dedicated to double exposures is unnecesary, because mutiple exposures by nature includes all double exposures.

Agreed. It would be good to leave the entry in the category:photographic terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographic_terms) for those who mistakenly search on that term. It would also be good to add multiple exposure to the category - I do not appear to have the rights / knowledge required to do this. (sam2095 17 March 2006)

I agree that "double expose" should be merged with "multiple expose"

Agree - Jack (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.

This article is very interesting, but it should not be taken as a neutral overview of ‘Multiple exposure’. Readers who want to learn about multiple exposure will not be helped by being referred to CEMENT, lightvectoring and dusting. It is inaccurate to say, as the author does, that “dusting” is the colloquial term for “lightvectoring”. The apparently external links go to other sites and texts by the same author. My suggestion is that this otherwise excellent article should have a preface that says it is a playful myth or a piece of art.

[edit] Against Merging

I don't agree that this article should be merged with "Double Exposure." The true definition of multiple exposure was not expressed by the content of this article. For one unfamiliar with this technique, a better undertanding of the process would be gained by reading the entry for "Double Exposure." That article successfuly describes the basic principles behind double & multiple exposures. A Double or Multiple exposure is, in the simplest of terms, multiple exposures made on a single frame. Correct exposure can be obtained through dividing a meter reading by the number of exposures, or through the use of neutral density filters.

The subject matter of this article seems to describe a different technique.

[edit] Factual accuracy

This article is very interesting, but it should not be taken as a neutral overview of ‘Multiple exposure’. Readers who want to learn about multiple exposure will not be helped by being referred to CEMENT, lightvectoring and dusting. It is inaccurate to say, as the author does, that “dusting” is the colloquial term for “lightvectoring”. The apparently external links go to other sites and texts by the same author. My suggestion is that this otherwise excellent article should have a preface that says it is a playful myth or a piece of art.

[edit] Clean up and C.E.M.E.N.T discussion

• I have cleaned up the section on C.E.M.E.N.T. It would be more appropiate to start a new page which describe the software in detail.
• I have removed the comment as that belong in the discussion page, above,and it is not a NPOV
• Links have been cleaned up as no longer valid
• Did a simple spell check statsone 02:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)