# First attempt with the Brenizer Method



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 8, 2013)

I just recently learned about the Brenizer technique or method and wanted to give it a shot. I realize that a few of them I appear to be too far away. I still have plenty of messing around until I nail it.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 8, 2013)

Any help from people who use the technique is greatly appreciated.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 9, 2013)

Hmmm...  not sure you're quite there yet.  The basic goal of the Brenizer method as I understand it is to emulate the feel of LF with a 35mm camera, reproducing the shallow DoF, but keeping the subjects prominent in the image.  1, 3, & 4 seem to have the subject much more isolated in the image than is intended, and #2, while closest, still doesn't really have the appropriate DoF.  How many images did you stitch for each of these?


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 9, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Hmmm...  not sure you're quite there yet.  The basic goal of the Brenizer method as I understand it is to emulate the feel of LF with a 35mm camera, reproducing the shallow DoF, but keeping the subjects prominent in the image.  1, 3, & 4 seem to have the subject much more isolated in the image than is intended, and #2, while closest, still doesn't really have the appropriate DoF.  How many images did you stitch for each of these?



About 35. I've also noticed that certain backgrounds help with the look. The best ones I've seen always include trees or some sort of shrubbery.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 9, 2013)

You should have been closer to her IMO.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 9, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> You should have been closer to her IMO.



I was about 3 feet away. It just appears like I'm far away cause I took photos pretty much up till my feet.


----------



## Mach0 (Jun 9, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> I was about 3 feet away. It just appears like I'm far away cause I took photos pretty much up till my feet.



How wide of a lens were you using ???


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 9, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> How wide of a lens were you using ???



I was using a 50mm 1.8g lens.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 10, 2013)

You need to be pretty wide open, and you need to not refocus, of course. These are pretty evenly soft across the frame, but it's hard to tell with these small images. The idea is, roughly, to take a lot of extra pictures of out of focus background to stitch on to the central in focus picture.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 10, 2013)

amolitor said:


> You need to be pretty wide open, and you need to not refocus, of course. These are pretty evenly soft across the frame, but it's hard to tell with these small images. The idea is, roughly, to take a lot of extra pictures of out of focus background to stitch on to the central in focus picture.



That's exactly how I did it. I watched a video where Brenizer himself showed the technique and he says use the lens as open as you can which I did.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Jun 10, 2013)

I can totally see it, but I think there is something you didnt do. You either didnt shoot it wide open enough, or not close enough.  We all have seen the blur you will get when you shoot a 50mm pretty wide open on a half body close up shot.  The blur should be like that.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 10, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> I can totally see it, but I think there is something you didnt do. You either didnt shoot it wide open enough, or not close enough.  We all have seen the blur you will get when you shoot a 50mm pretty wide open on a half body close up shot.  The blur should be like that.



I probably wasn't close enough. It was wide open and I was about 3-5 feet away


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 10, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > You should have been closer to her IMO.
> ...



Devin.. something wrong here! NO WAY a 50mm could get those shots from 3 feet away from the girl. Especially on a crop body... (d5100 like your profile shows) whre it would have a FOV of around 75mm. You were either using your 18-55 (but not enough distortion present for that lens used in UWA mode).. or you were much farther away than three feet!  

Here is a shot http://chasingdelicious.com/2013/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/same-distance-620x461.jpg   showing a 50mm and  85mm both shot from 3' away on a full frame camera (which would have a much wider FOV than your crop body)... the 85mm example would be close to what your crop body sees with a 50mm on it.... and as you can see, at three feet.. a hamburger fills the frame. No way you could get a full length human body in there!  

Please post one of the shots with full exif data left intact, so we can see what you did....


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 10, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > You should have been closer to her IMO.
> ...



"*pretty much up till my feet." ??????

*Please elucidate!


----------



## Derrel (Jun 10, 2013)

cgipson1, did you miss the part about these being multi-shot stitches, each photo composed of around 35 individual frames?


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Devin.. something wrong here! NO WAY a 50mm could get those shots from 3 feet away from the girl. Especially on a crop body... (d5100 like your profile shows) whre it would have a FOV of around 75mm. You were either using your 18-55 (but not enough distortion present for that lens used in UWA mode).. or you were much farther away than three feet!
> 
> Here is a shot http://chasingdelicious.com/2013/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/same-distance-620x461.jpg   showing a 50mm and  85mm both shot from 3' away on a full frame camera (which would have a much wider FOV than your crop body)... the 85mm example would be close to what your crop body sees with a 50mm on it.... and as you can see, at three feet.. a hamburger fills the frame. No way you could get a full length human body in there!
> 
> Please post one of the shots with full exif data left intact, so we can see what you did....



Yes 3 feet. I took roughly 30 photos while keeping exposure and focus locked on my wife and stitched them together like a panorama. That's why it looks like I was 20 feet away.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 10, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Devin.. something wrong here! NO WAY a 50mm could get those shots from 3 feet away from the girl. Especially on a crop body... (d5100 like your profile shows) whre it would have a FOV of around 75mm. You were either using your 18-55 (but not enough distortion present for that lens used in UWA mode).. or you were much farther away than three feet!
> ...



I understand about the stitching... it is just that shot wide open from three feet, there should have been much more background blur. All of your images look like they were shot at F22 or so... Just trying to figure out what happened!


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 10, 2013)

I know when I was out trying these kind of shots every so often my camera would refocus as I was clicking away. I'm not sure why it didn't turn out they way I would like buy I assure you that I was 3-5 feet away. I think the bench one I was about 5 but the other ones I was fairly close. From where I was I couldn't get much of her in the shot.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 10, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> I know when I was out trying these kind of shots every so often my camera would refocus as I was clicking away. I'm not sure why it didn't turn out they way I would like buy I assure you that I was 3-5 feet away. I think the bench one I was about 5 but the other ones I was fairly close. From where I was I couldn't get much of her in the shot.



You didn't have the focus locked? Or turn AF off entirely and use manual focus? If the cameras was refocusing... that would explain the lack of shallow DOF! Still odd though... because wide open I would expect a relatively thin band of DOF in the closer shots.

Check this out...   http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html


----------



## amolitor (Jun 10, 2013)

I think you were too close, in fact. The foreground looks rather odd (just as it should, I guess, with a 50mm on a "virtual" medium format camera) but I don't think you really want that much wide-angle effect.

30 frames seems on the low side, for this method. With a crop sensor you need something like twice as many frames as with a full frame sensor to get the same effect. You really should be using a longer lens, as well. Skimming over the tutorials and checking out how much overlap they're using, it looks like the basic Brenizer technique is generally used to create a "virtual" sensor about 3 inches on a side, and uses an 85mm lens. Obviously you can do whatever you want, but this seems to be "about" what happens in a couple of the tutorials I glanced at, so let's take it as the standard. So you've got, more or less, a standard-to-large "medium format" frame with an 85mm lens, a slightly wide lens for this format.

If you scale down to the crop sensor and use the same number of frames and take the pictures in the same way, using an "equivalent" focal length lens, you're getting the equivalent of about a 2x2 inch sensor, with the 50mm lens. This virtual camera simply has more depth of field than a 3x3 sensor with an 85mm (all other factors kept the same) which is probably what you're seeing here.

If you used an 85 and twice as many frames, you could recreate that 3x3 virtual sensor with the 85mm lens, and get the same DoF as you see in all the Brenizer Method samples.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 10, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I think you were too close, in fact. The foreground looks rather odd (just as it should, I guess, with a 50mm on a "virtual" medium format camera) but I don't think you really want that much wide-angle effect.
> 
> 30 frames seems on the low side, for this method. With a crop sensor you need something like twice as many frames as with a full frame sensor to get the same effect. You really should be using a longer lens, as well. Skimming over the tutorials and checking out how much overlap they're using, it looks like the basic Brenizer technique is generally used to create a "virtual" sensor about 3 inches on a side, and uses an 85mm lens. Obviously you can do whatever you want, but this seems to be "about" what happens in a couple of the tutorials I glanced at, so let's take it as the standard. So you've got, more or less, a standard-to-large "medium format" frame with an 85mm lens, a slightly wide lens for this format.
> 
> ...



I noticed in his tutorial he was using a longer lens whereas my longer lenses don't get as wide open therefore why I used the 50mm. 

I didn't think about the fact that I have a crop factor camera.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> You didn't have the focus locked? Or turn AF off entirely and use manual focus? If the cameras was refocusing... that would explain the lack of shallow DOF! Still odd though... because wide open I would expect a relatively thin band of DOF in the closer shots.
> 
> Check this out...   http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html



I was just using the AEL/AFL Button. I could once I find the focus I want switch it to manual to guarantee it stays.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 10, 2013)

Let me ask you guys this:


If I go and attempt this again what do you suggest I change? How far away from my object should I be? Maybe a slightly smaller aperture like 3.5?


----------



## amolitor (Jun 10, 2013)

Manual focus, I agree that your camera was probably refocusing. It's hard to be certain, since when you stitch up, you do reduce the apparent blur in the background. Still, might as well make double sure by switching to MF

Shoot more frames. Say, 50 frames, with a bunch of overlap. Try to cover a square area that is three times as wide as the field of view through the lens in landscape (horizontal) orientation.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 10, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Manual focus, I agree that your camera was probably refocusing. It's hard to be certain, since when you stitch up, you do reduce the apparent blur in the background. Still, might as well make double sure by switching to MF
> 
> Shoot more frames. Say, 50 frames, with a bunch of overlap. Try to cover a square area that is three times as wide as the field of view through the lens in landscape (horizontal) orientation.



Thanks! I'm trying to get the technique down by September so I can use it in a wedding I'm shooting with my wife.


----------



## CouncilmanDoug (Jun 10, 2013)

50mm may be a bit too short for this too, I had a much easier time shooting the one I tried at 135mm at 2.8, vs 50mm at 1.8


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 10, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> Let me ask you guys this:
> 
> 
> If I go and attempt this again what do you suggest I change? How far away from my object should I be? Maybe a slightly smaller aperture like 3.5?



Smaller aperture? That won't help at all. What did you shoot on for these photos?


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Jun 10, 2013)

This one was using 135mm






This one was only 8 frames in horizontal orientation going up using 135 I think.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jun 10, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> This one was only 8 frames in horizontal orientation going up using 135 I think.



$$$$!!!!!


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 10, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> This one was using 135mm
> 
> This one was only 8 frames in horizontal orientation going up using 135 I think.



Those are just what I want. Awesome. I'll try some with my 135mm lens and see how that goes.

How far we're you from them in the first shot?


----------



## slow231 (Jun 10, 2013)

refocusing completely negates the entire point of the technique.  that's was 100% your problem, not the lens length, or the aperture.


----------



## rknrl (Jun 11, 2013)

Devin, i think the brenzier method is just a technique; but it seems that you gave all your attention to the technique in all these photos and totally forgot about much more important things such as composition and appropriate post-processing.

Also if you want to get the best of this technique you need to
1. really open that aperture as wide as your  lenses allow for this technique to get more depth of field
2. keep the focus constant in all frames for composite photo


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 11, 2013)

rknrl said:


> Devin, i think the brenzier method is just a technique; but it seems that you gave all your attention to the technique in all these photos and totally forgot about much more important things such as composition and appropriate post-processing.
> 
> Also if you want to get the best of this technique you need to
> 1. really open that aperture as wide as your  lenses allow for this technique to get more depth of field
> 2. keep the focus constant in all frames for composite photo



You don't get more depth of field by using a wider aperture.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Jun 11, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> Mach0 said:
> 
> 
> > How wide of a lens were you using ???
> ...



yeah, this was the problem. You have to use a longer focal length and a very shallow DOF. Like a 135 or a 200mm at f2 or larger. The stitching looks okay. Try it with a different lens.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 11, 2013)

Derrel said:


> cgipson1, did you miss the part about these being multi-shot stitches, each photo composed of around 35 individual frames?



No.. I didn't miss that! But I doubt that he stitched the subject... and you can't get a full grown women full length in a 50mm from 3 feet away, unless she is a smurf!


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 11, 2013)

DiskoJoe said:


> yeah, this was the problem. You have to use a longer focal length and a very shallow DOF. Like a 135 or a 200mm at f2 or larger. The stitching looks okay. Try it with a different lens.



That's my next attempt. I'll give it a go with my 135mm lens.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 11, 2013)

rknrl said:


> Devin, i think the brenzier method is just a technique; but it seems that you gave all your attention to the technique in all these photos and totally forgot about much more important things such as composition and appropriate post-processing.
> 
> Also if you want to get the best of this technique you need to
> 1. really open that aperture as wide as your  lenses allow for this technique to get more depth of field
> 2. keep the focus constant in all frames for composite photo



I know the subject and composition is weak, but I was mainly just trying to learn the act of taking the photos. 

Also post processing is something I'm fairly new in. I've always liked my photos to look close to how it was shot. I don't usually like overly edited photos or editing that drastically changes the look on the photo. My uncle always told me "Get it in the field." So I always Tried to get it as close as I can to my vision before I edit it. Sorry for the short story. Ha


----------



## rknrl (Jun 12, 2013)

Devinhullphoto said:


> Also post processing is something I'm fairly new in. I've always liked my photos to look close to how it was shot. I don't usually like overly edited photos or editing that drastically changes the look on the photo. My uncle always told me "Get it in the field." So I always Tried to get it as close as I can to my vision before I edit it. Sorry for the short story. Ha



I know what you are saying and that's exactly what I thought before. IMHO, get-it-in-the-field approach is necessary to get awesome photos (which I am yet to produce lol). But camera just can't capture what the eye sees; the technology is not at that level. So you can't get every component in the field. Hence, the need for post-processing, which doesn't mean that you have to make photos look processed. There is a lot that goes into processing to enhance the photo but have it look natural. Besides, I personally have never seen a professional film photographer take his negatives to walmart/costco type places to develop and edit rolls. And so I wouldn't leave digital processing to simply converting RAW into JPEG and then calling it a finished photo.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Jun 12, 2013)

rknrl said:


> I know what you are saying and that's exactly what I thought before. IMHO, get-it-in-the-field approach is necessary to get awesome photos (which I am yet to produce lol). But camera just can't capture what the eye sees; the technology is not at that level. So you can't get every component in the field. Hence, the need for post-processing, which doesn't mean that you have to make photos look processed. There is a lot that goes into processing to enhance the photo but have it look natural. Besides, I personally have never seen a professional film photographer take his negatives to walmart/costco type places to develop and edit rolls. And so I wouldn't leave digital processing to simply converting RAW into JPEG and then calling it a finished photo.



Good point. When I do edit photos it's always subtle changes. I never make them look all artsy and all that. I usually just change exposure settings so the photo is close to how the scene was in person.


----------

