Brenizer before and after - no real difference?!

ajax_andy

ajax_andy

Messages
3,650
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
Tried the Brenizer method for the 1st time but can't really see any difference between the original frame and all 9 merged together other than slightly larger space around the subjects... anyone have more experience with this and can offer some advice?

Before (i.e. original frame):
16456364854_954665a045_c.jpg


After (i.e 9 frames merged):
16458651513_0d7ce94669_c.jpg
 
hello mate

I have had some success with this and from my experience

Long lens is needed, I used 85mm
I think I shoot them at roughly f2 to f3.5 depending on distance.

I shoot the main subject in 3 frames and then go quite wide and high but still overlapping by 1/2.

Its a bit trial and error, but the keything is that that shallow DOF is maintained for the width and height.

what were your settings
 
What focal length and aperture were you using ?
 
Mmm... I am wanting to try this soon as well. I thought the idea was to use a telephoto prime at large appeture to capture all the images and then merge to get a wider OOF background. I guess if you have a wide prime then the effect would be similar apart from perspective and the distortion that a wide angle can cause to objects close to I.e. the subjects.
However, I will wait to see what the experts say.

J
 
gpc1 said:
hello mate

I have had some success with this and from my experience

Long lens is needed, I used 85mm
I think I shoot them at roughly f2 to f3.5 depending on distance.

I shoot the main subject in 3 frames and then go quite wide and high but still overlapping by 1/2.

Its a bit trial and error, but the keything is that that shallow DOF is maintained for the width and height.

what were your settings
Click to expand...

Ahh right there you go... I shot it on a 35mm at f/2 haha... I guess that explains it then :D
 
Longer focal lengths and shallower DOF definitely help, but I've seen Brenizer shots taken with a Samyang 35mm 1.4 that worked well... of course, I can't for the life of me find them on Google now!

The odd thing for me is that the depth of field and bokeh rendering seem identical in both your images. In the Brenizer shot, you should've had to move much closer to the couple and thus the bokeh should have rendered quite differently, given the lens would be focusing closer... I'm a little confused as to how there is so little difference between them!
 
The thing that stuck out for me Andy, was the landscape mode that you've shot this in - it works much better with the camera on its side and for me, it works better with something on each side of the couple, i.e. hedging
i.e.
panostitch by Carl@CDHPIX, on Flickr

Think theres about 20 images making up this one image, F2.8 at nearly 200mm shot in portrait position - the line of dof on the lens if shot in landscape mode, doesn't exaggerate the DOF like it does in portrait (y)
 
I did a few with the 85 f1.4. Minimum focussing distance and stitched together.

Examples on my Flickr.

Sam Hurd's portraits are great!
 
Carlh said:
The thing that stuck out for me Andy, was the landscape mode that you've shot this in - it works much better with the camera on its side and for me, it works better with something on each side of the couple, i.e. hedging
i.e.
panostitch by Carl@CDHPIX, on Flickr

Think theres about 20 images making up this one image, F2.8 at nearly 200mm shot in portrait position - the line of dof on the lens if shot in landscape mode, doesn't exaggerate the DOF like it does in portrait (y)
Click to expand...

Yours is much better than my attempt Carl! I might give it a go portrait with a longer lens... cheers for the tip :)
 
Sir SR said:
I did a few with the 85 f1.4. Minimum focussing distance and stitched together.

Examples on my Flickr.

Sam Hurd's portraits are great!
Click to expand...

His "epic portrait" series is actually very simple. One light, three shots stitched.

Whilst the shots are good, the range of people he's shot is... :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top