The Brenizer Method

Reply to A FAQ for the Brenizer Method

nobody@flickr.com (~wishiwasanotter~) — Sat, 18 May 2013 19:58:31 -0700

: thanks for the explanation.

Reply to A FAQ for the Brenizer Method

nobody@flickr.com (avaviel) — Sat, 18 May 2013 10:42:09 -0700

avaviel posted a reply:

The difference between using a wide lens and post processing, is that this method simulates a lens.

There is the math stuff, where a 135mm lens @ f2.8 becomes a 30mm @ f0.8 or so, depending on the amount of shots. Now, tell me, when was the last time you saw a wide angle lens with an f-stop of 0.8?

Also, the camera effectivly changes. With the above example, I'm in large format digital, with a Canon 60D. For example, I have a portrait of my friend (first in the stream) that is around 7,000 pixels by 7,000 pixels. Normally they're much larger, but with this one I just wanted a simple portrait.

Lastly: you can choose whatever crop you want, because you have the extra pixel space. Before photographers were told to crop before you take the photo, so that you could print it at full size. Well, if your final image is in the 10,000 pixel range, you can feel free to crop off a few thousand pixels if you want. You'll still be printing in the 600dpi range anyway! (typically, I'm printing my images around 1200dpi for 24 inches long and however tall.)

of course, the disadvantages are that you have to stitch your images and have a still model. Advice: practice with still objects, to make sure you can still get good compositions and then move on to people.

Reply to A FAQ for the Brenizer Method

nobody@flickr.com (~wishiwasanotter~) — Fri, 17 May 2013 21:06:19 -0700

~wishiwasanotter~ posted a reply:

I'm new to this method and I'd like to give it a try. How does it differ from taking a wide angle shot and processing it in PS with selective blurr and barrel correction? Some of the photos I see using B-method do look alot like they were simply post processed. I think I will try this technique anyway! :)

Reply to Can't seem to get that WOW factor

nobody@flickr.com (avaviel) — Fri, 17 May 2013 00:55:57 -0700

avaviel posted a reply:

I know that this is an issue that tends to plague this method. Maybe what needs to be looked at is the capabilities of this method, and advantages, and the downfalls.

In short: large printing, hard to edit, sometimes you have to 'make sections up' from whole cloth, thin DoF, and the question of, 'but couldn't you have just zoomed out?!??'

You don't always need this method, but I believe understanding it (not learning it, mind you, but understanding it. I think the best way to do this is to first shoot still objects that you don't feel threatened with time constraints. Get good compositions, choose subjects you find interesting. Keep in mind: the further away, and the 'thicker' the DoF is. Closer, and the effect of thin DoF is more apparent. If you want a panorama of a close thing, but want it to be big, use a zoomed in lens.

Once you're sure of yourself, then shoot people. (um, if you can't tell, I haven't read any of the advice here, I'm just writing what I'd give as general advice to newcomers. Heh.) The panorama does not need to be gigantic, it can be smaller. The newest photo in my stream, of Kattee (the one where she is looking away is eight or so photos. Others are sixty. It just depends of what the composition needs and what the model can handle.

The key with this method is the DoF. You might look for elements that point this out even more. I love trees for this method, with people. Take a look at the first one of mine where I did this... Finally!

The biggest advice I'm sure you've already gotten is to shoot more! Keep it up ^^

Reply to Can't seem to get that WOW factor

nobody@flickr.com (Heather K | Infiniti Photography) — Thu, 16 May 2013 19:19:48 -0700

Heather K | Infiniti Photography posted a reply:

Gotcha! Thank you very much for the thoughts, everyone! :D I'll give them a go on my next session. :)

Reply to Minimum Number of Photos

nobody@flickr.com (Anthony_Mann) — Wed, 08 May 2013 18:58:16 -0700

Anthony_Mann posted a reply:

Jeff_McLean:

Great examples, and I totally agree. It does not have to be a overdone photo mosaic to get the effect this technique is known for, it merely has to give more field of view at a narrower depth of field than a lens can get within a single image.

Reply to Minimum Number of Photos

nobody@flickr.com (Jeff_McLean) — Wed, 08 May 2013 13:14:51 -0700

Jeff_McLean posted a reply:

This guy has some amazing 3 shot composites. He is really good, really interesting. I cant do this well with 10 shots. I would think you would absolutely have to accept that this guy can produce the look with 3. So I don't think you could possibly say that you have to have more than that.

www.flickr.com/photos/newspress/6958256088/in/set-7215762...

Reply to Can't seem to get that WOW factor

nobody@flickr.com (Wil C. Fry) — Wed, 08 May 2013 10:28:17 -0700

Wil C. Fry posted a reply:

Heather K | Infiniti Photography

"so, just to be clear, using this method in situations that are not backlit will contribute to the overall effect looking stronger?"

Absolutely. The whole point is to render an out-of-focus background with a wider angle than you normally could. If you're blowing out the background, then it's not so much out-of-focus; it's just gone. And, on a backlit computer screen, the background is now distracting, instead of enhancing.

See this example:

(not mine!)

The background is *most* of what makes the image.

Here's another one by Ryan, one where there IS a lot of white in the background, but enough color and compositional elements that the subjects are still enhanced:

Reply to Can't seem to get that WOW factor

nobody@flickr.com (Heather K | Infiniti Photography) — Wed, 08 May 2013 08:35:27 -0700

Heather K | Infiniti Photography posted a reply:

Okay- so, just to be clear, using this method in situations that are not backlit will contribute to the overall effect looking stronger? Or the comments on blowing out the background are simply an aesthetic concern? Just want to make sure. :)

Anthony_Mann:

minimize the extra parts of the photo that are at the same focal length as the subjects in order to get better seperation from them

So, putting more distance between subject and background, then?

Thank you for the help and the kind words, everyone, I greatly appreciate it. :)

Reply to Can't seem to get that WOW factor

nobody@flickr.com (Anthony_Mann) — Wed, 08 May 2013 00:06:29 -0700

Anthony_Mann posted a reply:

Your composition is good, but +1 on the exposure comment. One thing you may try is to minimize the extra parts of the photo that are at the same focal length as the subjects in order to get better seperation from them (your 2nd photo does this). Also, what about vertical composition? All your examples are from the same height, maybe try a short ladder or getting lower, too? Just a thought....nice photostream, too.