I shoot a lot of double-exposures (a type of photography where you lay two or more images on top of each other). I got into them back in 2013 where I shot some on accident because I re-shot photos on top of roll I had already shot, (An old manual Russian film camera I used wasn't winding properly) and I loved the results. I realized that Nikon DSLRs had the "multiple exposure" feature in-camera, so I started using that.
Later on, my senior art project in college was a series of in-camera, digital double-exposures (I kinda hate these now, but here ya go) (tap or click the right of the photo to check out the gallery):
I've always enjoyed the reward of doing double-exposures in-camera as opposed to Photoshop; nothing against the post-process way, it just doesn't feel as satisfying and looks a little on the cheapy side for me.
As you can tell from the photos above, I started with a rudimentary style of shooting two images on top of each other, heavily inspired by what I would find on Flickr. Since then, I played with different methods: One photo in focus and the second out of focus, zoom in then zoom out, landscape on landscape, two different people, etc. It's not a new type of photography by any means, its origins lie in the days of film, but I still feel like it's still a pretty untread (is that a word?) medium, which is why I'm so into it.
I've seen a ton of double-exposures on Instagram and photo sites because every photographer goes through a phase of having to try it out, but it's rare to see people who stick with it to such an extent that the bounds of what double-exposure can do are really pushed. I've only ever found a few other photographers that really take it places: Adam Goldberg (you've almost definitely seen his stuff if you're a big Instagram fan, not to mention being in Saving Private Ryan and Friends @theadamgoldberg ) and Ben Parks (@benprks ) and Sam Hurd (he's managed to make his somewhat commercial @iamthesam )
Go follow them and delve into their stuff. It is art.
I've generally been dissatisfied with the world around double-exposures because everyone knows what they are and has most likely tried them, but I've never really found a community around it. I'm probably always going to shoot them, because there's a depth of story-telling and context that I feel I can get out of them. There's still so much experimentation to be had, and I've barely scratched the surface. I'm also still largely dissatisfied with my body of double-exposure work; I have a long way to go before I feel happy with it all. With double-exposures for me, it's all about the climb and finding new techniques. Really, that's where the joy of photography comes from for me: I want to just keep finding newness and push it to new places.
Speaking of which, what leads me to believe that this well-known technique is still somewhat fringe is how hard it is to get a camera that does them in-camera properly. Even most film cameras won't let you shoot over the same frame twice. You either need to go fully manual or hope the digital photography company includes it in the firmware. Just because it was created by film photography doesn't mean it's easy to accomplish with film photography, which is why I stay pretty steadfastly in the Nikon world.
Nikon has pretty much included the feature in every camera they have made for decades now, digital and film. My first film camera I bought on Ebay for $25 for my first film photography class was a Nikon N65, and it works with all my digital lenses and is still one of my favorite film cameras I have.
My main rig for work and double-exposure stuff (which are starting to meld; people are starting to request me to shoot double-exposures of them for paid work which is mind blowing) is my Nikon D800. I covet the D850, but I'm not upgrading until I absolutely have to (profit margins are nice!).
*Gear Head Will suddenly walks in and bludgeons Business Will in the head with a fire extinguisher* It shocks me that anyone gets hyped about Canon cameras as a photographer, because they are just now, in 2018, doing things that my Nikon D800 from 2013 does. I get that Sony is looking pretty sweet too, but you're mostly paying for the brand and an unproven eco-system. Not only does Nikon use Sony sensors, but there's decades of lenses that you can use on any of their cameras. No one has any idea that my camera is 5 years old because it squares up with any brand new camera on the market today. When you buy a beefed up Nikon, you're future proofing.
In a way, it gives me insight to PC nerds who crap on Apple people. PC nerds don't understand why people spend thousands more on an underpowered machine when you can spend half as much on a PC set up for mining bitcoin or VR. That's how I feel about Nikon vs. Canon. Every Canon I've ever used (and I've used the new ones) just feels so behind and honestly, just weak. Granted, it's really about the photographer, but I often lean on the power of the D800 to pull me out of some jams that no Canon could ever pull off.
*Business Will regains consciousness and knocks out Gear Head Will for the count.*
At the end of the day, all cameras are basically capable of the same stuff and if you're a pro, you're used to what you're used to and it doesn't matter. I know Canon photographers that can shoot circles around me even though their camera is trash compared to mine ;)
(the winking emoticon is kinda creepy and weird and would never work in normal conversation)
This is one of those examples of "just start writing and a post will happen" because I'm lost as to where this is going. Basically I like double-exposures and Nikon....so...yeah.