Have you joined a Moustache Team? You probably should...

« »

Waveform.
(30 second exposure, no photoshop except to convert black and white)

miss_tache says:: holy awesome photo, Batman!
Posted: May 17th, 2011 - 7:44pm - ∞

Hodges says:: This is fantabulous, insta fav'd
Posted: May 17th, 2011 - 7:44pm - ∞

PAT says:: You're right this is my favorite.
Posted: May 17th, 2011 - 7:45pm - ∞

The Straub says:: Niiiiiice. I lovey the long exposures. We had the right idea today. Go us!
Posted: May 17th, 2011 - 7:52pm - ∞

Dschonn says:: You must be really good at holding still. Also ridiculously clever.
Posted: May 17th, 2011 - 7:58pm - ∞

wondermade says:: I can't imagine being that still for that long. Full marks and likes.
Posted: May 17th, 2011 - 8:02pm - ∞

B. Michael Underhill says:: you are, electric?
Posted: May 17th, 2011 - 8:45pm - ∞

yourfavorite says:: @mackle - 10 seconds in a dark room pointed at a laptop screen with waveform on screen. Then I picked up camera positioned myself and then hand held a flash to get a double exposure effect. The waveform image I grabbed off of google images was blue so I had to convert to black and white as well as crop in photoshop.
Posted: May 17th, 2011 - 9:00pm - ∞

ThatGuy says:: You are insanely talented. Seriously.
Posted: May 17th, 2011 - 9:07pm - ∞

yourfavorite says:: @dschonn wondermade - I actually cannot hold still for very long. In my long exposure with the rubiks cube I was using my iphone so I held still for that one. However this time I used a flash to freeze my self into the shot. No holding still necessary. I think I'd need a few years with mister miyagi to hold still long enough for this shot without a flash.
Posted: May 17th, 2011 - 9:09pm - ∞

Another Rachel says:: oh, this is VERY great.
Posted: May 17th, 2011 - 9:34pm - ∞

Another Rachel says:: ...And even better now that I just read the explanation. brilliant!
Posted: May 17th, 2011 - 9:36pm - ∞

Vanbert says:: You are a master a using cameras. Love this.
Posted: May 17th, 2011 - 10:00pm - ∞

Hungarian Moustache says:: score... no photoshop I totally thought it was.. but since it is not.. 5'd and like'd.
Posted: May 17th, 2011 - 10:12pm - ∞

justjamey says:: Your explanation makes you awesome.
Posted: May 17th, 2011 - 10:24pm - ∞

Mackle says:: this rules x100 now that i fully comprehend it
Posted: May 17th, 2011 - 10:44pm - ∞

brandon says:: It's the jonschaaf technique! But completely made your own. So great.
Posted: May 18th, 2011 - 12:36am - ∞

jnonfiction says:: That's freakin' smart
Posted: May 18th, 2011 - 5:29am - ∞

yourfavorite says:: @brandon - oh yeah I completely forgot about him. This technique is actually something I read an article about a couple years ago. Just tried to dig it up with no luck, but some guy won a photo contest by photographing bananas silhouetted on a white backdrop. He then took another shot of well lit strawberries. The result was white everywhere the white background had been on the bananas, but then where the bananas had been silhouetted all you saw was red strawberries. Since the bananas left a black spot on the film it was as if that spot had not been exposed at all. Leaving the strawberries full capture in that area. That is to say that you could do this technique with anything really, the idea is that you need a black and white exposure area to "mask" your second shot. If I remember correctly John was just doing full shot double exposures using a computer screen so I don't really see it as the same thing. His = double exposure, This = masking without photoshop? Anyway, I wouldn't really call this mine technique either haha. Sadly I just read about it on a blog years ago. I wish I had come up with it on my own :D
Posted: May 18th, 2011 - 6:40am - ∞