5 Frames… Of double exposures on Kodak Portra 160 (35mm Format / EI 160 / Minolta SRT 101 + MC W.Rokkor 35mm f/2.8) – by Nick Rees

Written by and published on .

When it comes to double exposure photography, I’ve never really seemed to get it quite right. Whether that is by not underexposing enough or just a lack of composition, the exposures never quite came out right.

I’ve been shooting with my inherited camera (like many who got started in 35mm film photography), a Minolta SRT101, for about a year and a half, and for that period of time, it has always been impressively sound mechanically. I’ve also found time after time that this camera is very forgiving in its operation, with a great built-in TTL meter that gives an accurate exposure every time.


Minolta SRT + 35mm f2.8 - Nick Rees

My favourite film stock since I started shooting on 35mm film has always been the Kodak Portra range, for it’s excellent skin tones and natural rendition of daylight. There’s a reason it is so popular with photographers, amateur or professional. I particularly enjoy the way it captures the warm tones of golden hour, as you’ll see in my 5 images for this article.

Anyway, after some time at the beach this summer, I decided to send a roll of Portra 160 to be developed, and to my surprise, I suddenly found myself the creator of a happy accident. A mechanical error in camera, in the shape of the film not being fully advanced, inadvertently created these accidental double exposures.

What I really like about these 5 images is the combination of colours and tones, captured beautifully by Portra 160 in golden hour. The quirky juxtaposition of my portrait framing of one image with the landscape framing of another creates an unusual but visually intriguing composition. It turns out I could create double exposures after all!

The thing I’ve learned from this unexpected development (Get it? Developed? Never mind…) is that for the countless times my sturdy SRT 101 has forgiven my shoddy photography, once in a while, I am the one that needs to forgive this excellent camera. I’ve learned that though accidental this time around, double exposure photography can be very rewarding, and if anything, this experience has made me want to explore the format in the future.

~ Nick

Want to submit your own 5 Frames...?

Go right ahead, submissions are open! Get your 5 frames featured on by submitting your 350+ word article by either using this Google form or by sending an email via the contact link at the top of the page.

This series is produced in conjunction with Hamish Gill's excellent 35mmc.com. Head on over to read the other half of these stories there.


Share your knowledge, story or project

At the heart of EMULSIVE is the concept of helping promote the transfer of knowledge across the film photography community. You can support this goal by contributing your thoughts, work, experiences and ideas to inspire the hundreds of thousands of people who read these pages each month. Check out the submission guide here.

If you like what you're reading you can also help this personal passion project by heading on over to the EMULSIVE Patreon page and giving as little as a dollar a month. There's also print and apparel over at Society 6, currently showcasing over two dozen t-shirt designs and over a dozen unique photographs available for purchase.


More related reading

Previous

5 Frames… Of textures at the boatyard on Fuji Pro 400H (120 Format / EI 400 / Mamiya C330 Professional F + Mamiya Sekor 80mm f/2.8) – by Rupert Brun

5 Frames… Of 20-year expired Paterson Acupan 800 (35mm Format / EI 100 / Pentax P30n + Pentax-a 50mm f/1.7) – by Michael Boffey

Next

2 thoughts on “5 Frames… Of double exposures on Kodak Portra 160 (35mm Format / EI 160 / Minolta SRT 101 + MC W.Rokkor 35mm f/2.8) – by Nick Rees”

  1. Happy accidents with wonderful and interesting results! I particularly enjoyed the bedroom images and the last side-by-side. Nice work.

    Reply
  2. What a happy accident. You got beautiful images. Tell me, did you learn any lessons that can be applied to intentional double exposures?

    Reply

Join the discussion