The Brenizer Method - Thoughts?

GR3Z

GR3Z

Messages
706
Name
Graeme
Edit My Images
Yes
Ive had ago at the Brenizer method - I'm quite pleased with the outcome its about 20 images in landscape
The rest of the Engagement shoot can be seen here if your interested :)

lucy%20-%20ian%20es037_2x.jpg
 
Dodgy to be honest..
he has a tree sticking out of his arse.
processing is ok though.
 
Hadn't heard of this method so I did a bit of a Google search on it. I can see what you are trying to do but I think you have chosen the wrong backdrop for the shot.
 
I don't think you've chosen the wrong backdrop but I do think you've got them stood too close to it, if they stand halfway between the background and you it will enhance the method when the dof is more obvious.

What lens have you used? I'm guessing it wasn't long enough.
 
To be honest it looks like it's a single exposure taken with a 24mm lens with the subject(s) to far away and then cropped in PP. An engagement session isn't really the place to experiment !
 
I had a go with it a while back, I quite like the effect when it's done well, but it's very dependant on finding the right backdrop. I never really did! This was one of the test shots in an old graveyard (full size on Flickr is best to really see the effect).

St Swithens Church by David Thompson, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
What lens did you use? You need to be using something like an 85mm f1.4 to get a really good effect from it. And you need to be closer imo. Kudos for trying though. It's more than i have done.
 
Hi Graeme
As David says, it's best to use something like the 85mm and get the aperture down very low. I personally think you've done fairly well for a first attempt - certainly better than my first try! The only things I can see which could be improved on your image have pretty much already been mentioned - shorter distance to the couple, them a little further forward from the background and the removing / moving the tree behind them. Otherwise, good try - keep at it, and try again.
Jim
 
I had a go a couple years ago whilst on a weekend away in Dunster. I used a 120-300 set at 300 2.8. Worked out quite well and I was really pleased.

https://flic.kr/p/k9Je3d

I posted it on TP at time and the resulting comments were actually why I looked into (and later bought) a medium format film camera. Bring able to get these kind of images in one frame.

I can see the effect on your image but I don't think it's as strong as it could be. I think you need to bring your subjects closer to you for it to work well, as at the moment they're not too far in front of the trees so the trees aren't blurred as much.

Stitching looks seamless, and the photo looks great overall as a portrait though :)
 
Last edited:
well having tried/done this a few times i think its fine. yes there are a few issues but nothing major.
Unless you have done it, you won't realise how hard it is to get the desired effect and to make the people larger in the frame, this has always been one of my struggles..the people being so small in the frame even when using an 85mm lens.
 
Just out of interest, how long did it take you to get the end result to your liking Graeme ?
 
GR3Z said:
IMO I'm still working on it, when you google it there great examples of this technique I need to practice it a bit more and try various compositions
Click to expand...
IMO the location is key, something in front of your plane of focus, and then a background with more varied distances.

If it's worth anything, I didn't get my couple all in a single frame on my attempt. That got them larger in the frame.
 
Interesting technique which I'd never heard of before - so what's the difference in actual result between doing this and using a tilt-shift?
 
fred_bt said:
Interesting technique which I'd never heard of before - so what's the difference in actual result between doing this and using a tilt-shift?
Click to expand...

That there is no tilt or shift involved, it's replicating having a wideangle lens but with impossibly shallow DOF. I like the OPs shot, I think it works well apart from the obvious tree like tail the gent seems to have sprouted.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
it's replicating having a wideangle lens but with impossibly shallow DOF
Click to expand...

How does it different from using a wideangle lens and blurring in PP?

From the examples I've seen the same it'd give the same effect but I might be missing something.
 
Broric said:
How does it different from using a wideangle lens and blurring in PP?

From the examples I've seen the same it'd give the same effect but I might be missing something.
Click to expand...

You can't blur in PP with a result anything like real bokeh. Real bokeh has more blur the further away it is, there is no way you can even begin to replicate that with PP. The tilt shift effect is easier to fake since the plane of focus is almost flat, so the lack of depth isn't as noticeable to the fake blur.
 
I don't like it. I think the brenizer technique is naff. In the three examples posted by James above I think they look ridiculous.

Personally I believe if you need gimmicks like that to make your images stand out you'd be better off getting your head in some books or practice more.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Real bokeh has more blur the further away it is, there is no way you can even begin to replicate that with PP.
Click to expand...

You could use a gradient on a layer mask to replicate the effect. However it wouldn't be easy and would take lots of time. Why you'd chose to is simply beyond me
 
ryanyboy said:
I don't like it. I think the brenizer technique is naff. In the three examples posted by James above I think they look ridiculous.

Personally I believe if you need gimmicks like that to make your images stand out you'd be better off getting your head in some books or practice more.
Click to expand...

I appreciate you may not like them, but in what way are they ridiculous?
I do not use gimmicks. This is merely an experiment into alternative methods of photography, no different to using a 10 stopper or a lensbaby
 
If you don't see them as looking ridiculous there's nothing I can say that will change your mind.

I would say though that a 10 stop filter still produces an image that is believable. Likewise a lensbaby. The images you've posted (especially the first) makes the couple look like something out of toy town. I presume they were real people and not plastic models...?
 
It is in every way too geeky, the gains are so slight as to not compensate for the normally rather poor results.

It is a stitching technique that can introduce cylindrical and other distortion if the technique is not up to scratch, or the wrong projection is chosen. The examples above show this distortion very clearly.
It should only be attempted if first you have a wide understanding of stitching, a photoshop plugin is not the answer.
In many respects it is the reverse of focus stacking.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
It is in every way too geeky, the gains are so slight as to not compensate for the normally rather poor results.

It is a stitching technique that can introduce cylindrical and other distortion if the technique is not up to scratch, or the wrong projection is chosen. The examples above show this distortion very clearly.
It should only be attempted if first you have a wide understanding of stitching, a photoshop plugin is not the answer.
In many respects it is the reverse of focus stacking.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the third one James posted above is hilarious. It looks like a building designed by a very p***ed up architect :D :D
 
To be honest the buildings look distorted. The first building looks like it's falling backwards so it's not pleasing, I'm not a fan of this method, lensbaby or even a tilt-shift lens for wedding photography. I do cringe when people describe 'playing' or 'experimenting' at someone's wedding but that's just me !
 
I think it can work, and bring something good, but you need to be very careful of your choice of locations...buildings don't work well for me. I don't have a problem experimenting per se at someones wedding. After you've got the shots you are paid to deliver. Adding a little more is good
 
I think it's a great location, a wide angle lens 24mm 35mm would of done it better justice and be a lot quicker. One of the tricks of the trade is to work quickly to keep the B & G ( and other guests) engaged. Nothing worse than false smiles from bored people. One other point if you ask for thoughts and advice be prepared for honest answers and don't winge or drip when it's not the answer you want to hear.
 
boyfalldown said:
I don't really see any need for the personal comments against anyone
Click to expand...
Don't worry Hugh. Once upon a time I would have been deeply upset by such comments. But I've reached a stage in my career where I know I'm good at what I do, and thousands of people think so too. Hats off to Tommy Star though for posting possibly the most childish post I've ever read here on TP. In fact I'm still laughing several hours later!!
 
Weetobix said:
I've been playing with the Brenizer method for a couple of weddings. Lightroom is exceptionally good at stitching the images together (when it doesn't get confused) and the results are WAY better than photoshop.
My attempts could use a bit more foreground to better display the DoF, but I'm happy with the results so far


Jess & Dave - Brenizer Method by James Bailey, on Flickr


Laura & Phil by James Bailey, on Flickr


laura_phil (2 of 3) by James Bailey, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I really like these. I think they are a great example of how to achieve the technique
 
I like it.

ryanyboy said:
I don't like it. I think the brenizer technique is naff. In the three examples posted by James above I think they look ridiculous.

Personally I believe if you need gimmicks like that to make your images stand out you'd be better off getting your head in some books or practice more.
Click to expand...

What a stupid thing to say. If a client likes the type of image the brenizer method produces then it isn't a gimmick. I guess you don't know how silly you sound from all the way up there on that horse.
 
You learn something new every day... well I do anyway. I'd never heard of this and found the thread and the images very interesting. I've also been to Wiki and Flickr to research further! Looks like an awful lot of hard work....

I like mickledore's back garden image above - lovely, and the second of the wedding images. The first and third images don't work for me because of the significant distortion to the buildings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top