Comments on: 19 Fantastic Double Exposure Shots

By: yamaha83

yamaha83 — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:45:00 +0000

terrible post… some of these are clearly composites. You also don’t need film for double exposures. XPro1 has this feature as do some DSLRs.

By: Auckland Event Photographer

Auckland Event Photographer — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:23:00 +0000

I always thought was a cheap and cheesy gimmick… until I saw this post. you have opened my eyes…

By: Rodrigo Villicaña

Rodrigo Villicaña — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:07:00 +0000

yeah I know that, I just love being sarcastic and it is kinda hard to make a sarcastic point without actually pointing it out.

By: julesvl

julesvl — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:12:00 +0000

DΛN MOUNTFORD work are the only ledgit double exposure of the post!

By: JPGodwin

JPGodwin — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:18:00 +0000

This is the worst part about the new content writers. None of them give a shit. Last week Chris managed to steal content FROM FSTOPPERS and then repost it. It got deleted soon after obviously, given that the original post was still on the front page.

Alvaris Falcon from Hongkait would’ve worked hard to craft this post. He wrote his own copy to accompany the images I assume he spent time looking for, and then he presented it to the internet whereby Chris Lambeth comes along to steal it because he’s presumably too lazy to create his own unique work. He couldn’t even be bothered to rebuild the links so that the authors of the pictures would get a link.

On top of that, he didn’t even spend enough time to actually study what he was stealing, because half the fucking images aren’t even double exposures.

By: underbird

underbird — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:56:00 +0000

No need for *sarcasm mode*, the tiny paragraph on the top clearly states that what we’re looking at are double exposures, even though a good percentage of these aren’t. This should be made known to the reader, I believe.

By: Jon-Mark Wiltshire

Jon-Mark Wiltshire — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:25:00 +0000

Fail Post. Stolen from another site, and many of these aren’t even actual double exposures. Lame.

By: Rodrigo Villicaña

Rodrigo Villicaña — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 05:09:00 +0000

*sarcasm mode on* Really? I really thought the one with the statue of liberty was a real double exposure!

By: David Parrott

David Parrott — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 03:06:00 +0000

Some of these are clearly composites not double exposures.

By: JPGodwin

JPGodwin — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:15:00 +0000

Wow, you’ve literally just ripped an entire update from someone else’s website. All you’ve done is remove their copy and kill the links in the image credit.

It’s one thing helpfully linking to a great BTS video, but just blatantly stealing other people’s content to host on here is an absolute liberty. Especially when the people whose images have been used don’t even benefit from a backlink.

This is just shady.