Okay, so both images are “traditional” double exposures, meaning they were done “in camera” rather than superimposed in Photoshop.
The first image has two very different approaches. The first shot was a long exposure of trees while moving the camera up and down. The exposure time for the little orange flowers was typical for the time of day. The second image was simply two exposures of different flowers in my garden.
The question I would like to pose is: Does it matter if an effect is done in camera or in Photoshop?Think about it. In this digital age, using this new technology, does it really matter anymore if the process is created one way or another? Does creating a specific effect using one machine or another, or both, make any difference, and if it does, is that difference really relevant anymore?
I don’t believe I could have achieved identical images if I had used Photoshop instead of doing the double exposures in camera. I’m also not convinced what I did in camera would be any better than if I had tried the same thing in Photoshop.
More and more, process means very little to me in the sense that it is the final image that has to be visually interesting. The image has to be more interesting than the process. I don’t care if an image was created on a cell phone or by a lens you invented with paperclips and your grannie’s reading glasses. If it sucks, it doesn’t matter how it was made. And if it’s great, it doesn’t matter either. It’s very much like when someone asks what lens or camera you use. The lens and camera don’t matter as much as the vision of the person using this equipment or technology.
However, I cannot ignore the fact that a process can become problematic. Some processes themselves are cliched. Instagram is a lot of fun for people, but it can be a problem when I look at an image and I can tell what filter was used. Same goes for software like Nik, Alien Skin, Topaz, etc. Filter effects become cliches. Just like a scene can be cliched, a process can also be cliched. That is the trouble with relying too much on filters.
There is very much a “period style” in photography at this time and it looks like a retro filter. One thing I often think about is how to get around this period style, how to work against it, even how to use it in a new way. These questions are where my portrait series, “Versions” come from. I am creating my own set of “filters” from various images, superimpositions, masks and painting, and several different sources.
Anyway, I don’t often write my thoughts on contemporary photography, but I am always grappling with it in my work. I realize I have not answered any questions here, but hopefully, I have created a few.