The Brenizer Method - Thoughts?

[kman]

I like the Brenizer method but I think its one of those things that, like all kinds of photographic techniques, needs careful thought and planning - basics of lighting and composition still need to be taken into account rather than arbitrary decision to mimic a wide angle, low dof landscape/portrait combo.

Whilst I don't think any of the test images posted above have worked in that respect there's a fair few images out there I think really work using this technique, generally where the technique is used subtly. Some are posted below (none of these are my own, all from google)

http://cdn-7.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/I...umbrella-rain-night-Comfort-Zone-weddings.jpg

and the ones in this article (except for the baby one which I think the composition doesn't work that well).

https://fstoppers.com/post-production/brenizer-effect-fantastic-examples-5696

 

[ryanyboy]

I like it.



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.

As I said previously, I believe I'm as entitled to an opinion as anyone else on this forum.

And yes I do think it's a gimmick. In the same way as colour popping and any other photoshop "trick".

You want to sling any more insults my way?

 

[boyfalldown]

If a client likes the type of image the brenizer method produces then it isn't a gimmick.

A client may like selective colour or fake tilt-shift or any one of a hundred dubious photoshop techniques. How does a client liking something stop is being a gimmick?

 

[ryanyboy]

A client may like selective colour or fake tilt-shift or any one of a hundred dubious photoshop techniques. How does a client liking something stop is being a gimmick?

I almost typed the exact same thing Hugh but I figured I'd be accused of being on an even higher horse than I'm on already

 

[AJQS]

http://cdn-7.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/I...umbrella-rain-night-Comfort-Zone-weddings.jpg

That is most deifnitely not the same method applied here, It appears to be a merge of in focus and out of focus shots so that the focus plane is both normal and tilt/shifted in the same image - basically look at the in focus cobbles. In the method we are looking at in this thread the cobbles both left and right should be in focus in a straight line left to right, but they are not, implying tilt shift - but if it was tilt shift then the background behind the couple should still be in focus....

 

[boyfalldown]

Like so many techniques its overused and used as a crutch to hide weak photography. Used well I think it can be brilliant. The example @kman gave in his first link I rather like. But its used well, and adds something to an already strong photo. Equally when pushed I can find an example or two of most other gimmicks that work well.However they are often overused too.

Before anyone jumps down my throat I'm talking about the technique in general without referring to images i this thread

 

[kman]

That is most deifnitely not the same method applied here, It appears to be a merge of in focus and out of focus shots so that the focus plane is both normal and tilt/shifted in the same image - basically look at the in focus cobbles. In the method we are looking at in this thread the cobbles both left and right should be in focus in a straight line left to right, but they are not, implying tilt shift - but if it was tilt shift then the background behind the couple should still be in focus....

you are right its not the Brenizer method (albeit a shot by Ryan Brenizer). He used a 45mm PC-E lens, tilted.

 

[The23rdman]

Okay, I'm in. I don't think that it's a gimmick at all - it's a method for making your images appear to be shot on a larger format camera than you currently own. The trick, however, is choosing the correct image and using a panoramic tripod head, because if you don't you end up with issues.

If you don't like it that's absolutely fine; if you do that's also fine. Why does everything have to be an argument?

 

[TimmyG]

Ha ha! Cool thread. Personally I always encourage a bit of experimentation regardless of the results. Guess I better share my attempt from a couple of years ago:

021/365/2013 - Marooned by Tim Garlick, on Flickr

I had major alignment issues (look at the sink and the hanging lights) but if you squint a bit, I think it looks alright. Certainly gives an image a certain look and I understand it may not be to everyone's taste. I quite like it though and you'll only get better with practice. In fact you've reminded me to give it another go, so thanks OP

 

[ryanyboy]

Okay, I'm in. I don't think that it's a gimmick at all - it's a method for making your images appear to be shot on a larger format camera than you currently own. The trick, however, is choosing the correct image and using a panoramic tripod head, because if you don't you end up with issues.

If you don't like it that's absolutely fine; if you do that's also fine. Why does everything have to be an argument?

Exactly, the bit I've highlighted is exactly why it is a gimmick.

And FOR ME I think it looks very obvious and therefore I THINK it looks naff.

 

[The23rdman]

Exactly, the bit I've highlighted is exactly why it is a gimmick.

And FOR ME I think it looks very obvious and therefore I THINK it looks naff.

Ryan, I like you a lot, I respect you, and I respect that you have an opinion. Thought I'd say that first. It's a technique. Is mono a gimmick? Is narrow dof a gimmick? Is off camera flash a gimmick? Is a panoramic landscape a gimmick? you don't like it, you think it looks naff. Fair enough. But calling it a gimmick does not make it so, and if done correctly it can look fantastic. (For what it's worth, none of the images in this thread have done it correctly, and they all appear a bit naff because of it, but that's not the technique at fault, it's the execution and failing to recognise that the shot still has to have effective engagement to be a worthwhile shot).

 

[ryanyboy]

Dean, my issue is that it takes photoshop to pull off this "technique" None of the other things you mention require photoshop, they just require camera craft.

 

[The23rdman]

Dean, my issue is that it takes photoshop to pull off this "technique" None of the other things you mention require photoshop, they just require camera craft.

Why does that make it a gimmick though, Ryan? There are many great photographers who rely on Photoshop to produce their particular art. I agree that using this method instead of camera craft in a "look what I can do" kinda deal is gimmicky. When I look at Ryan Brenizer's work I see a fantastic photographer pushing the boundaries. He has obvious camera craft and a great eye.

 

[Hunders]

As I said previously, I believe I'm as entitled to an opinion as anyone else on this forum.

And yes I do think it's a gimmick. In the same way as colour popping and any other photoshop "trick".

You want to sling any more insults my way?

I do hope you never use any kind of computer program to edit your RAW files and instead only use jpegs from camera. I don't want you to be all gimmicky now do I.