First try with the 'Brenizer method'

rampanthamster

rampanthamster

Messages
1,250
Edit My Images
Yes
I'd heard about this method of stitching pictures taken with a fast prime together before, and always thought it looked cool but never gotten around to trying it. Any way, was spending a week at my folk's place with the kids, so finally had the opportunity. I think i'll be trying this out again with other scenes to explore the possibilities. Anyone else tried it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brenizer_Method




Reading in the garden by Rowan Hunn, on Flickr
 
Not sure what the Brenizer method is all about. But is the girl meant to look that small in comparison to the garden foliage? It just doesn't seem right :thinking:
 
Brilliant image , a friend asked me to do this a while back but not got round to it .

your photo has inspired me to give it a try =)
 
Very nice, this has worked extremely well, I've just had a search on the method and the results can be stunning, another project to add to the list for 2014.
 
-Paul- said:
Not sure what the Brenizer method is all about. But is the girl meant to look that small in comparison to the garden foliage? It just doesn't seem right :thinking:
Click to expand...
read the link ;) the point is to have a more wide angle perspective but with a shallow depth of field. So it's the equivalent of say a 24mm at f 0.8 or something, if you see what i mean (there's actually an online calculator where you can figure out the exact numbers). It's just a test one really, and i didn't have time to try much more as sara was losing patience. Fun to experiment with, anyhoo :)
 
It's a nice effect to try, I have seen a few of these before. Personally I think that when these are cropped square it has more impact.
 
Really like that. Quite other-wordly, possibly lost in the world of her book!
Looks really quite tricky to pull off, how many shots did you use for this do you think?
 
-Paul- said:
Not sure what the Brenizer method is all about. But is the girl meant to look that small in comparison to the garden foliage? It just doesn't seem right :thinking:
Click to expand...
It's designed to give you the look and feel of a large format image with a smaller camera. Ryan Breziner is a wedding photographer based in New York that made it famous and now has the method named after him.

The idea isn't to make the girl look small but to give shallower DOF and more detail than you can get on a single shot. Google it - there are some very cool examples of it out there :)
 
Very nicely done, i like the composition and placement but i can't help feeling if she'd glanced up from her book towards the camera it would of been a more compelling shot. It would just connect her a little more to the viewer. I do like the effect though and for a first effort it's a great result. How many images is it made up of?
 
thanks guys - good point about the glance, that could have made it rather lovely. And yes, i considered a square crop in fact..

landwomble - honestly, it's not tricky at all! It's about 50 shots i think, but that's over the top and i overshot to make sure i didn't mess up. Could have been done with 20-30 which i believe is 'the norm' as it were.
 
Really nice that one. This was my very quick test a few years ago - I know I've dropped the ball on the back of his head and the tree. This was literally to see what the technique and effect was like.

I'd like to try again with some closer up portraits. I'm not sure how that would work.

7962337594_d2f65eebd8_o.jpg
 
OK, another to add to the project list to try! I've not used PS's stitch, so was assuming this would be a nightmare of PP. Doesn't sound quite as hard as I'd thought, at least to start playing around with :)
 
First time I've heard of this method, and it certainly looks effective, I like it and well done.
 
Intriguing.

I've done plenty of panoramas before, but I may have to give this a go.
 
rampanthamster said:
I'd heard about this method of stitching pictures taken with a fast prime together before, and always thought it looked cool but never gotten around to trying it. Any way, was spending a week at my folk's place with the kids, so finally had the opportunity. I think i'll be trying this out again with other scenes to explore the possibilities. Anyone else tried it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brenizer_Method




Reading in the garden by Rowan Hunn, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Ooer, I like that. I'll have to have a bash at it!
 
Never done/tried this but have seen a few posted before and to be honest I have not see the point in them, but I must say your image here works a treat.

Gaz
 
jamestux said:
It's designed to give you the look and feel of a large format image with a smaller camera. Ryan Breziner is a wedding photographer based in New York that made it famous and now has the method named after him.

The idea isn't to make the girl look small but to give shallower DOF and more detail than you can get on a single shot. Google it - there are some very cool examples of it out there :)
Click to expand...

Yup! It's a great technique to have knowledge of. I'll add too that it doesn't have to be loads of shots stitched together either. Just 3 or 4 can give you that incredible depth of field usually only found in large format photography. I shot this last summer, and after the first shot, I knew it would look better with a shallower depth of field so this was the result using only three images @ 85mm 1.4.
untitled-shoot20130517-182212198-Edit.jpg
 
This thread popping has reminded me I had a crack at it, too, with my A7 and an FD 85L; though I think I prefer the Rowan's in the OP


Waterfall [Brenizer Method] by cybertect, on Flickr

I also realised that I've been following Ryan Brenizer on Flickr for the last eight years (just about when he went full time professional) and never put 2 and 2 together. I wondered why the name seemed familiar :LOL:
 
rampanthamster said:
I'd heard about this method of stitching pictures taken with a fast prime together before, and always thought it looked cool but never gotten around to trying it. Any way, was spending a week at my folk's place with the kids, so finally had the opportunity. I think i'll be trying this out again with other scenes to explore the possibilities. Anyone else tried it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brenizer_Method




Reading in the garden by Rowan Hunn, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Very nice but it looks a tad like tilt shift rather Brenizer
 
Christo said:
Yup! It's a great technique to have knowledge of. I'll add too that it doesn't have to be loads of shots stitched together either. Just 3 or 4 can give you that incredible depth of field usually only found in large format photography. I shot this last summer, and after the first shot, I knew it would look better with a shallower depth of field so this was the result using only three images @ 85mm 1.4.
untitled-shoot20130517-182212198-Edit.jpg
Click to expand...

Really like this, great contrast and that shallow DoF gives it a great feel, nice use of the effect. Looks rather a lot like Marco Pierre White?
 
Read about this in NPhoto magazine quite recently, not sure I'd have the technical know-how of photoshop to pull it off! :p
 
I'm not a fan of this technique I'm afraid. In the OP's picture it doesn't look a natural photograph. It looks very much like something has been done to it in PP. In Charlotte's example I'm left thinking I could have shot that with a 50mm lens wide open. Likewise Christo and Rob's shots. For all the effort I'm not convinced it's worth it (especially if the PP is quite tricky like Charlotte's tree).
 
ryanyboy said:
...I'm left thinking I could have shot that with a 50mm lens wide open. Likewise Christo and Rob's shots. For all the effort I'm not convinced it's worth it (especially if the PP is quite tricky like Charlotte's tree).
Click to expand...

You can't get that dof or large format look with a 50mm, even a 1.2. And for 2 seconds set-up and shooting, and another few in pp, I'd have to disagree with the effort/time thing. Used like any other technique (sparingly) it's a brilliant tool to have. My opinion though of course :)
 
Christo said:
Yup! It's a great technique to have knowledge of. I'll add too that it doesn't have to be loads of shots stitched together either. Just 3 or 4 can give you that incredible depth of field usually only found in large format photography. I shot this last summer, and after the first shot, I knew it would look better with a shallower depth of field so this was the result using only three images @ 85mm 1.4.
untitled-shoot20130517-182212198-Edit.jpg
Click to expand...

Great job. Did you shoot three horizontal or vertical ones here?
 
Now that is a great photo christo. My only criticism is that the because 1.4 is so tight it has made the tip of the nose slightly blurred. I think if the nose were to be sharper it would have made the photo just that little bit better. But hey, who am I to criticize! ;)
 
jeff127 said:
Really like this, great contrast and that shallow DoF gives it a great feel, nice use of the effect. Looks rather a lot like Marco Pierre White?
Click to expand...
It is Marco Pierre White :) I don't know if Christo still has a post about it on his site but he did a shoot the opening of a new pub with him
 
But the whole point of this method is to shoot many more frames than just three. And in the case of the picture in the OP if really does look fake.
 
ryanyboy said:
But the whole point of this method is to shoot many more frames than just three. And in the case of the picture in the OP if really does look fake.
Click to expand...

See my post above Ryan - the whole point of this method is to increase that depth of field look, not to just try and stitch as many images as possible together. As for fake, not sure...it definitely looks different to the norm, but I like that. Each to their own though ey? :)

brummierob said:
Now that is a great photo christo. My only criticism is that the because 1.4 is so tight it has made the tip of the nose slightly blurred. I think if the nose were to be sharper it would have made the photo just that little bit better. But hey, who am I to criticize! ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks Rob! For me though, if I could have increased the shallow dof even more I would so that the focal plane just rested ran with the eyes. Would have loved that 50mm .95. :) we can dream though right?
 
Last edited:
Christo said:
Would have loved that 50mm .95. :) we can dream though right?
Click to expand...

:LOL:

It was just my opinion. Doesn't change the fact though - it still is an excellent photo!
 
Rowan - I think that is one of the best examples of this technique I have seen outside of Mr Brenizer's work. Lovely.

I really like Christo's portrait too, but would never have guessed it was a Brenizer

It is hard to see on a small vesrion, but Charlotte's shot does look a little tilt-shift to me too because of the unnatural focus on the stones in the foreground in front of the subject. This presumably comes from pivoting the camera to take the various shots giving an odd field of focus. It is less obvious with subjects further away from the camera like Rowan's.

As for being "fake", well I suspect that is the point. If it looked like a standard shot it wouldn't be a technique worth doing.
 
Last edited:
Christo said:
See my post above Ryan - the whole point of this method is to increase that depth of field look, not to just try and stitch as many images as possible together. As for fake, not sure...it definitely looks different to the norm, but I like that. Each to their own though ey? :)



Thanks Rob! For me though, if I could have increased the shallow dof even more I would so that the focal plane just rested ran with the eyes. Would have loved that 50mm .95. :) we can dream though right?
Click to expand...
To me it looks more like it was shot on MF, which is the point of the method. :)

As for a 50 f.95, I didn't own but I've used the Noctilux and the DOF was large enough to still manual focus for 3/4 portraits without looking odd (huge lens compared to the rest of the m series too)
 
jamestux said:
To me it looks more like it was shot on MF, which is the point of the method. :)
Click to expand...

It looks very much like medium format. In fact, I don't really understand why folks go through the trouble of trying to replicate this look digitally with hundreds of pounds worth of equipment and software when you can just pick up a cheap medium format film camera and do it economically without any photoshop trickery.

And before anyone thinks I'm being snobbish about photoshop or anything, I'm not saying photoshop isn't a valid tool, I'm just saying there is an easier way to get this look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
skysh4rk said:
It looks very much like medium format. In fact, I don't really understand why folks go through the trouble of trying to replicate this look digitally with hundreds of pounds worth of equipment and software when you can just pick up a cheap medium format film camera and do it economically without any photoshop trickery.

And before anyone thinks I'm being snobbish about photoshop or anything, I'm not saying photoshop isn't a valid tool, I'm just saying there is an easier way to get this look.
Click to expand...
I agree - I only recently sold my RB67 - however - if you're on assignment and need to get results film isn't really an option for most people.

I'd rather find a way to get a full sensor size phase back and camera - but that's not on my financial horizon just yet! For personal shots I still agree medium and large formats still have some trump cards.
 
jamestux said:
I agree - I only recently sold my RB67 - however - if you're on assignment and need to get results film isn't really an option for most people.

I'd rather find a way to get a full sensor size phase back and camera - but that's not on my financial horizon just yet! For personal shots I still agree medium and large formats still have some trump cards.
Click to expand...

Well, admittedly an RB67 is quite some load to carry (but an amazing camera), but a decent TLR is relatively compact and light enough for most folks to carry pretty easily. Moreover, they're affordable and capable of great results, especially if you're just after that medium format look.

I'd have some interest myself in a digital sensor if they ever get to 6x6 or 6x7 sizes at relatively affordable prices, but it would be hard for me to give up the look of MF film.
 
jamestux said:
It is Marco Pierre White :) I don't know if Christo still has a post about it on his site but he did a shoot the opening of a new pub with him
Click to expand...

Ah ha! Thanks James, I will look for the post. Great photo once again Christo.

Jeff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top