# Am I the only one currently on a stitch kick?!?!



## Dominantly (May 8, 2012)

Just curious if anyone out there is also into panoramic stitches, but not necessarily just the traditional horizontal ones, I'm talking big wide angle, impossible to create with a single lens, faux medium format shots.

If anyone isn't familiar, hopefully this thread can peak a curiosity.


----------



## 480sparky (May 8, 2012)

If I was lacking a super-wide and a fish-eye, I'd be doing them more often.

Not sure what 'medium format' has to do with it.


----------



## Dominantly (May 9, 2012)

The resolution you get from a single frame with a wide angle lens, is no where near the resolution you get from a stitch, which is where the medium format comment comes in.


----------



## GnipGnop (May 10, 2012)

Medium format has more to do with simple resolution. It has to do with the medium format "look" that is a result of the focal lengths in combination with the larger sensor size that gives the pictures such a "look" or "feel" to the viewer. 

Medium format tends to have a higher dynamic range, and are much more suited to capturing the gentle changes and colours within a frame.

Medium format cameras do not have an anti-aliasing filter as well. This means that the details in the picture are finer and have much more sharpness.

I do have a friend who is about to purchase a Nodal Ninja MK4 (helpful to drastically reduce parallax errors). If you're seriously looking into taking quality panos, I suggest you look into purchasing one.


----------



## Dominantly (May 10, 2012)

That's why I said faux.With stitching you not only get amazing resolution, you also get point of views and dof that are not possible (as far as I know) with any other  combination.For example, one of Brenizers shots is an equivalent of 27mm at f/0.44.Its more than simply capturing a wide angle shot, it's about having that thin dof with a story telling wide angle view.In the Fairy Kingdom of Manhattan


----------



## jake337 (May 10, 2012)

I need a pano head!!!  This joystick manfrotto grip just won't cut it.


----------



## 480sparky (May 10, 2012)

Dominantly said:


> That's why I said faux.With stitching you not only get amazing resolution, you also get point of views and dof that are not possible (as far as I know) with any other  combination.For example, one of Brenizers shots is an equivalent of 27mm at f/0.44.Its more than simply capturing a wide angle shot, it's about having that thin dof with a story telling wide angle view.In the Fairy Kingdom of Manhattan



Learn me sumpin... how does stitching increase DOF?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 10, 2012)




----------



## shmne (May 10, 2012)

I asked the same thing at first, and it doesn't. In fact all of this was extremely confusing until I figured out the technique, which personally I feel should not be named after the author as this is one that has been in use for a very long time.

50mm f/1.2 - a lens most photographers know extremely well. Up close, amazingly sharp DOF that looks beautiful. From a distance however, the DOF is much more lack luster ( as that is how lenses work). Now for you to get the shot desired by this lens (up close, yet the entire scene) you just couldn't.

Instead the author takes multiple shots and stitches them together to keep that super sharp up close DOF, and also get the desired distance from the subject. The entire calculator that says the end image is "27mm @f/.44" is bull, it is creating an equivalence from a panorama -_- at the end of the day it is a stitch. That is just to get an idea of what would be needed however, should you want a lens capable of doing what this technique does.

**Edit** 

To add to the conversation however - I feel the author doesn't use this to its full advantage. Working in small environments we used to do this in school to capture large sets where our actors were very close to us and we simply couldn't back up any more. Although we did 2x2 instead of 4x4 patterning (believe he stated he uses 16 shots).

I think this technique really shines when you have an actualy set up shot, instead of just regular people. Then again I also lean towards the more photoshop heavy side of phtoography lol so I can't really comment on that.


----------



## Buckster (May 10, 2012)

shmne said:


> Instead the author takes multiple shots and stitches them together to keep that super sharp up close DOF, and also get the desired distance from the subject. The entire calculator that says the end image is "27mm @f/.44" is bull, it is creating an equivalence from a panorama -_- at the end of the day it is a stitch. That is just to get an idea of what would be needed however, should you want a lens capable of doing what this technique does.


And at the end of it all, looking at the final print, the difference between it being ACTUALLY 27mm @ f/.44 or only PERCEPTUALLY 27mm @ f/.44 is - what?


----------



## jake337 (May 10, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Dominantly said:
> 
> 
> > That's why I said faux.With stitching you not only get amazing resolution, you also get point of views and dof that are not possible (as far as I know) with any other  combination.For example, one of Brenizers shots is an equivalent of 27mm at f/0.44.Its more than simply capturing a wide angle shot, it's about having that thin dof with a story telling wide angle view.In the Fairy Kingdom of Manhattan
> ...



I think he means to retain a shallow DOF while have a Wide FOV.  Or having more magnification at a wider FOV.  

Like trying to recreate a portrait on a 8x10 view camera with a 500mm lens with a small sensor camera.


----------



## shmne (May 10, 2012)

jake337 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Dominantly said:
> ...



Thanks! I was having issues trying to explain it better. This is exactly the case.


----------



## shmne (May 10, 2012)

Buckster said:


> shmne said:
> 
> 
> > Instead the author takes multiple shots and stitches them together to keep that super sharp up close DOF, and also get the desired distance from the subject. The entire calculator that says the end image is "27mm @f/.44" is bull, it is creating an equivalence from a panorama -_- at the end of the day it is a stitch. That is just to get an idea of what would be needed however, should you want a lens capable of doing what this technique does.
> ...



What are you trying to say? I'm sorry there are quite a few ways to read this.


----------



## jake337 (May 10, 2012)

The Brenizer Method Explained With Directions | San Francisco Bay Area Editorial Story-telling Wedding Photography


----------



## Buckster (May 10, 2012)

shmne said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > shmne said:
> ...


You say it's "bull".  I ask, what's the difference?


----------



## shmne (May 10, 2012)

Oh gotcha! There is no difference, it is just irrelevant banter. Knowing what the end result is changes nothing because for all intensive purposes it is never important information (whether planning the shot, or looking back on how to recreate it.) I was trying to say that the calculator is just for giggles as it doesn't really give you information you can use. If for some reason you happen to know that you want a 27mm @f/.44 then I'm sure it could be useful.

So I apologize because "bull" was probably the wrong word for that since generally it is associated with something that is a lie. I was using the definition of "stupid."


----------



## Dominantly (May 10, 2012)

The f/number calculation is really irrelevant with this method, and was probably used just to try and connect the viewer with what they are actually viewing (so someone doesn't assume this can be created with a 12-24 f/4 lens).

I mean you take your 85mm f/1.4 cream machine and throw it on for a couples portrait in a beautiful location, with the intention of having this shot be their wall hanger. You could take a standard shot- waist up, maybe full body if you have enough room, OR you could do something like take 34 shots and end up with an image that is far more powerful.


----------



## MTVision (May 10, 2012)

Dominantly said:
			
		

> The f/number calculation is really irrelevant with this method, and was probably used just to try and connect the viewer with what they are actually viewing (so someone doesn't assume this can be created with a 12-24 f/4 lens).
> 
> I mean you take your 85mm f/1.4 cream machine and throw it on for a couples portrait in a beautiful location, with the intention of having this shot be their wall hanger. You could take a standard shot- waist up, maybe full body if you have enough room, OR you could do something like take 34 shots and end up with an image that is far more powerful.



So you can do this with any type of photography - it doesn't have to be just a landscape?


----------



## Dominantly (May 10, 2012)

It's kind of hard to put this in a way that some random engineer won't dissect, but will rather take for a beginning discussion on a under valued creative technique.

This method will allow your average crop body shooter, to use common (50 f/1._ for example) lenses, and create something that is not replicable by any lens on the market. Meaning a portrait shot with a 50 f/1.4 wide open, but with the fov of a 12-24mm lens. Or even better, a shot of a couple (or group) shot at 200mm f/2.8, with the fov of a wide angle lens.

Why do this?!? Well for the wow factor. Everyone has seen a standard couple shot with a narrow fov, and a background that melts away, but what about that same dof with a story telling fov?

Here is another benefit proclaimed by Ryan Brenizer: _"One of the nice things about the Brenizer method is that the massive  resolution compresses away noise when printing or displaying. This was  ISO 10,000, which normally pushes it a little even for the D3s."_ 

Here are more some amazing examples: brenizer method » Ryan Brenizer &#8212; NYC Wedding Photographer. Problem solver, storyteller.


----------



## Dominantly (May 10, 2012)

MTVision said:


> Dominantly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




YES! I have done it with landscapes, but it is far more powerful for portraits and for times when you have a singular subject that you want to show off and you want a nice thin DOF.

I have noticed with the stitched shots, they display better on facebook. I posted a thread with some photos from a recent shoot of a warship, and one of them was a stitch. When posted to my Facebook account, it stands out when compared to all the other shots. The stitch was taken at 200mm where as all the others were at 12-24.


----------



## MTVision (May 10, 2012)

Dominantly said:
			
		

> YES! I have done it with landscapes, but it is far more powerful for portraits and for times when you have a singular subject that you want to show off and you want a nice thin DOF.
> 
> I have noticed with the stitched shots, they display better on facebook. I posted a thread with some photos from a recent shoot of a warship, and one of them was a stitch. When posted to my Facebook account, it stands out when compared to all the other shots. The stitch was taken at 200mm where as all the others were at 12-24.



Sounds interesting. When I hear "stitch" my mind automatically goes to a panoramic landscape shot. I'll have to do some research on this - though I doubt I would be able to do something like that. 

What made you start doing it? Did you see some examples and it piqued your interest?


----------



## Dominantly (May 10, 2012)

Yeah, that's why I created this thread, to maybe start a discussion that would spark an interest in a few people who haven't tried it.

IF you have PS, then you could do it very easily today! I started off by just combining a couple shots at a time (4 or less), to add more visual interest to photos. I started this before I ever heard of Brenizer, and it kind of just came from Panos that I loved to do, but on a smaller scale.
Here is one of my first uses:





Gettysburg- Cemetery Ridge  D90 50mm f/2.2

Then I was doing some searching on composites and came across an article on Ryan Brenizer. When I looked through his website and saw the images he had captured, I immediately wanted to try and recreate it. Being the wide angle junkie that I am, was just floored with the dof and story telling fov. It isn't for every shot, but if you are shooting something like an engagement or a senior session, then one or two of these at well thought out locations would probably be home runs.


----------



## MTVision (May 10, 2012)

Dominantly said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's why I created this thread, to maybe start a discussion that would spark an interest in a few people who haven't tried it.
> 
> IF you have PS, then you could do it very easily today! I started off by just combining a couple shots at a time (4 or less), to add more visual interest to photos. I started this before I ever heard of Brenizer, and it kind of just came from Panos that I loved to do, but on a smaller scale.
> Here is one of my first uses:
> ...



This is probably a stupid question but...you stitch it like you would a panorama right?

I'm going to try it tomorrow. I gotta wait for daytime to get some shots to use.


----------



## jake337 (May 10, 2012)

MTVision said:


> Dominantly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can do anything, with any type of photography.  Just use your imagination.


When I see these types of photos the first thing that comes to mind is doing something similar using a tilt/shift lens!


----------



## jake337 (May 10, 2012)

MTVision said:


> Dominantly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course you can do it.  You have software right?  And a camera?  

Put your camera on a tripod(preferably with a pano head) and fill the frame with your subject.  Now have your subject leave(leave camera and tripod in the same position) and start your panorama vertically and horizontally.  Stitch in post having your portrait shot positioned where you want it in the frame.
The hard part is envisioning your final composition before starting.


----------



## MTVision (May 10, 2012)

jake337 said:
			
		

> Of course you can do it.  You have software right?  And a camera?
> 
> Put your camera on a tripod(preferably with a pano head) and fill the frame with your subject.  Now have your subject leave(leave camera and tripod in the same position) and start your panorama vertically and horizontally.  Stitch in post having your portrait shot positioned where you want it in the frame.
> The hard part is envisioning your final composition before starting.



Thanks! Thats really helpful.


----------



## Dominantly (May 10, 2012)

What do you plan on shooting?

If you are shooting an object (person, chair, bush, lol whatever) then you want to make sure that the focus stays on them/it, once you have your shots of the subject, then you turn AF off and take your shots of the background. You don't want your focus shifting away from your subjects distance because that will defeat the purpose.

Then you simply open them up in PS and photomerge just like a pano. Just try and make sure that your image overlap when shooting them, so your software can match them. He also recommends shooting these in JPEG, which will speed up the process. I have personally merged 15 raw files and had it work out, but it did bog down my laptop.

I've never done it with a tripod, so I can't speak on that.

Here is a video where he goes over it, a pretty good demo: Woo-hoo! &#8220;Brenizer Method&#8221; (bokehrama, etc.) instructional video, produced by B&H! » Ryan Brenizer &#8212; NYC Wedding Photographer. Problem solver, storyteller.


----------



## fokker (May 10, 2012)

This is quite interesting, I'd like to give it a try soon. How critical is it to use a tripod with one of them fancy parallax-eliminating heads? I'm guessing more and more important as the foreground elements come closer and closer together?


----------



## jake337 (May 10, 2012)

Dominantly said:


> What do you plan on shooting?
> 
> If you are shooting an object (person, chair, bush, lol whatever) then you want to make sure that the focus stays on them/it, once you have your shots of the subject, then you turn AF off and take your shots of the background. You don't want your focus shifting away from your subjects distance because that will defeat the purpose.
> 
> ...



You could change your plane of focus for some interesting effects.


----------



## Dominantly (May 10, 2012)

Well, I have never used one, so I couldn't say. RB also says he prefers to shoot handheld as it offers more flexibility.


I just ensure that I shoot overlapping shots (maybe up to 1/3 of an overlap) and work my way across in layers. My first priority is always the subject, and if it's a portrait, the most likely to have movement. 

For a portrait just have them stand reasonably still and starting off at their head/face and work your way down, then once you have them shot you can continue working on the background in a systematic way (but your model doesn't have to leave the frame, they just have to avoid big movements). As I am looking through and framing the shots I look for reference objects (so will the software).

I'd start off with 4 shots (a big ol wide angle shot), and work your way from there.


----------



## Dominantly (May 10, 2012)

I agree to a point in certain situations. For example, a warship that I shot this with was over 400' long and was backing up at me at an angle. when I started shooting I made sure to refocus on each part of the ship as I moved along it, from stern to bow, ensuring the whole thing was sharp. I just had to avoid having it focus on the water and background.
The conventional way to shoot that would have been to stop down, but I find that basically focus stacking in a pano stitch produced better results.


----------



## jake337 (May 10, 2012)

Dominantly said:


> I agree to a point in certain situations. For example, a warship that I shot this with was over 400' long and was backing up at me at an angle. when I started shooting I made sure to refocus on each part of the ship as I moved along it, from stern to bow, ensuring the whole thing was sharp. I just had to avoid having it focus on the water and background.
> The conventional way to shoot that would have been to stop down, but I find that basically focus stacking in a pano stitch produced better results.



My thoughts were possibly to have multiple human subjects at different distances, each having their own thin DOF.  Second thoughts is it might look weird unless you used a Tilt sift lens to get the thin DOF to converge.  

I'm mostly just trying to pull some imagination out of people!


----------



## rexbobcat (May 10, 2012)

Dominantly said:


> That's why I said faux.With stitching you not only get amazing resolution, you also get point of views and dof that are not possible (as far as I know) with any other  combination.For example, one of Brenizers shots is an equivalent of 27mm at f/0.44.Its more than simply capturing a wide angle shot, it's about having that thin dof with a story telling wide angle view.In the Fairy Kingdom of Manhattan



It sounds like it's soooooo much easier than it actually is. Photoshop makes it vastly easier thant it used to be, but I HATE those books and how to's that say "add the images to PS and press OK." If only PS didn't have a very difficult time determining the placement of OOF areas and bokeh. So then I have to figure out how to manually stitch it while figuring out how to blend the colors and contrast to match the rest of the scene...frustrating...


----------



## Dominantly (May 10, 2012)

It can be more difficult depending on your focal length, and the background. I mean the tighter you are (ie 200mm at f/2.8), the rougher it is.
I have not been too successful at nailing things like shots of just sky with no references or clouds.

But a standard portrait with a 50mm in front of a scene with an detailed background isn't very difficult.


----------



## daarksun (May 25, 2012)

It's the sharpness of the image when it's actually reduced in size. The quality of the image is so intense that you can actually see a persons clothes or handbag even though the person in the actual image may only be 1/8th inch tall. When you pull a stitched image of say 30 photos... it's a monster. But as you bring the image down the quality is remarkable versus a single image the same size (shrunk size)... 

These images have been brought down to a much smaller scale to post and it doesn't help the sharpness being posted from photobucket, but you may get the hint as to what I am talking about. The images look almost as if they are computer drawings as much as photographs. The first one is the best example. The other two shows some of it. But they photobuckets has beat the bottom two images up in softness. The bottom two are about huge images... very long but not to tall. 

This images is about 20 images stitched... 5 across, 4 stacked.







Around 24 images stitched... 






This one is small since it so wide... three high and around ten across.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (May 26, 2012)

How do you stitch 10+ images without things getting janky?  Every time I've tried this, PS has botched the stitch.  What settings / other program do you use for stitching?  I completely understand the method, it just hasn't worked properly for me thus far...


----------



## 480sparky (May 26, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> How do you stitch 10+ images without things getting janky?  Every time I've tried this, PS has botched the stitch.  What settings / other program do you use for stitching?  I completely understand the method, it just hasn't worked properly for me thus far...



Define 'janky' and 'botched'.  Post an example so we know what you're talking about.


----------



## Buckster (May 26, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> How do you stitch 10+ images without things getting janky?  Every time I've tried this, PS has botched the stitch.  What settings / other program do you use for stitching?  I completely understand the method, it just hasn't worked properly for me thus far...


Which version of PS are you working with, how much overlap do you use when shooting the individual images, do you make sure you're using the same exposure settings for each image, what lens length are you working with when you shoot them?


----------



## David0 (May 28, 2012)

I love doing panos I did these three without a tripod


----------



## David0 (May 28, 2012)




----------



## Skaperen (May 30, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> How do you stitch 10+ images without things getting janky?  Every time I've tried this, PS has botched the stitch.  What settings / other program do you use for stitching?  I completely understand the method, it just hasn't worked properly for me thus far...


I use "autopano pro" (a version I bought about 3 years ago).  Now days they have a newer version and "autopano giga".  The web site is Kolor | Image stitching and virtual tour solutions


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi (May 30, 2012)

It's always cool when something you've been doing forever gets named after someone you never heard of.


----------



## Robin Usagani (May 30, 2012)

Here is mine


----------



## jake337 (May 30, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Here is mine




Nice!

For some reason I feel like the building is not level.  What lens did you use for this?  The right side of the building looks straight vertically but the left doesn't.


----------



## roca005 (Jun 11, 2012)

wow- that is all I can say!

May I ask what program you are using?


----------

