The Creative Photography Thread v6 - I represent my manhood by the size of my lens.
999 replies, posted
can someone please explain the brenzier method/what it is? i've read about it but the resources i found where just jargon and i couldn't fully understand it
[QUOTE=Him1411;34477952]can someone please explain the brenzier method/what it is? i've read about it but the resources i found where just jargon and i couldn't fully understand it[/QUOTE]
It's taking a bunch of photos, and stitching them together to give them effect of a shallower depth of field as if the photo was taken without stitching.
Inspiration....fading....
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bohanpang/6796321471/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7146/6796321471_72e17af233.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bohanpang/6796321471/]001-12[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/bohanpang/]Bohan Pang[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bohanpang/6796321605/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7008/6796321605_7b83020a42.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bohanpang/6796321605/]005-10[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/bohanpang/]Bohan Pang[/url], on Flickr
i like the second one, the hues are really great. not a terribly creative photo, but it looks great for what it is
[IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7004/6795321249_a86b69f00c_z.jpg[/IMG]
10.365 by [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/oscarjones/6795321249/"]marley h [/URL]
Tomorrows photo will be taken on an 85mm 1.2 hell yeah
[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;34478008]It's taking a bunch of photos, and stitching them together to give them effect of a shallower depth of field as if the photo was taken without stitching.[/QUOTE]
does it require a specific focal length?
[QUOTE=Him1411;34479797]does it require a specific focal length?[/QUOTE]
No.
It's like doing a panorama, but instead of just taking photos to the side, you do it upwards/downwards as well.
First self-portrait in a while. Nothing special - I just wanted to contribute with something.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/44mUQ.jpg[/IMG]
It warms my heart to see you guys doing what you're best to! It has almost been a year since I followed this thread and contributed weekly, but that was a different time.. Now I'm stressed with school and work, and I don't really have the time anymore. A week ago I forced myself down to a store to buy a roll of Ektar-100 - but I haven't shot anything yet. But soon guys.. I will return and give you feedback and contribute to this awesome place on the internet.
Take care!
[QUOTE=LarparNar;34479859]No.
It's like doing a panorama, but instead of just taking photos to the side, you do it upwards/downwards as well.[/QUOTE]
then why does it create a shallower depth of field? surely its just like taking one photo from further away?
[QUOTE=Him1411;34481406]then why does it create a shallower depth of field? surely its just like taking one photo from further away?[/QUOTE]
Right if you take a photo from further away the depth of field is deeper behind your subject. So if you move closer the depth of field gets shallower, so you take a series of photos and stitch them together, it's as if you took it in the original position with the same depth of field as when you were closer.
Do you understand yet?
Been really Ill lately but I decided to go out today because my friend got a new car
[sp]GTI Mk4 Golf w/ 250bhp[/sp]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/willthomas07/6797364047/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7035/6797364047_f6ba260f11.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/willthomas07/6797364047/]golf_23[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/willthomas07/]will.thomas07[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/willthomas07/6797361127/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7008/6797361127_d3c3b088fb.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/willthomas07/6797361127/]golf_8[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/willthomas07/]will.thomas07[/url], on Flickr
Nothing good really, still learning. But I quite like these two shots.
[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;34481490]Right if you take a photo from further away the depth of field is deeper behind your subject. So if you move closer the depth of field gets shallower, so you take a series of photos and stitch them together, it's as if you took it in the original position with the same depth of field as when you were closer.
Do you understand yet?[/QUOTE]
ahh i understand now! thankyou! might give this a go actually, whats the stitching method? i've seen an automatic one used on photoshop?
[editline]31st January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=D3vils Buddy;34481665]Been really Ill lately but I decided to go out today because my friend got a new car
[sp]GTI Mk4 Golf w/ 250bhp[/sp]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/willthomas07/6797364047/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7035/6797364047_f6ba260f11.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/willthomas07/6797364047/]golf_23[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/willthomas07/]will.thomas07[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/willthomas07/6797361127/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7008/6797361127_d3c3b088fb.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/willthomas07/6797361127/]golf_8[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/willthomas07/]will.thomas07[/url], on Flickr
Nothing good really, still learning. But I quite like these two shots.[/QUOTE]
really like that second one mate :)
[QUOTE=MoarFunz;34469056]Smile man, you're handsome.[/QUOTE]
I don't know whether to be flattered or creeped out..thanks anyway though. I would smile, but im having a tough time of things at the moment, hence the gap in my 365.
Also, I suck at putting on smiles. Godamn I need a haircut :pwn:
Here's todays photo, tis a bit shitty in my opinion, but I have to do something!
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/wickerman123/6797568771/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7016/6797568771_a772ae4474_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/wickerman123/6797568771/]Audio Stuff[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/wickerman123/]Wickerman123[/url], on Flickr
[editline]31st January 2012[/editline]
Please, if you haven't already, pay a visit to my thread on my 365, and join in if you want!
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1153341[/url]
[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/30717203@N07/6794009545/lightbox/"][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7005/6794009545_ea0c3b263f_z.jpg[/img][/url]
I love taking low light photos. :3 Its a bit hard with the kit lens though, considering how shaky my hands seem to be.
[QUOTE=Him1411;34481745]ahh i understand now! thankyou! might give this a go actually, whats the stitching method? i've seen an automatic one used on photoshop?[/QUOTE]
It is absolutely 1000% no different than any other panorama. If you can figure out how to do a panorama, you can do a Brenizer. It's just instead of a landscape, you've got a portrait (or anything with a noticeably shallow depth of field).
There is an entire internet out there that can teach you how to stitch a panorama. Personally, I use CS5's Automate. File > Automate > Photomerge. Layout: Auto. Select all three options at the bottom (blend, vignette removal, geometric distortion correction). Use: Folder, select your folder with your images. I clean up and blend things together with an eraser at 33% opacity, 80% flow, and 50% hardness.
You're going to have to keep your focus exactly the same in each individual shot, so shoot manual focus. You need consistent exposure too, so make sure you're shooting in manual mode. Don't try to expose each individual shot perfectly, you need to keep the same exact settings throughout all of your shots. Watch out for changing lighting conditions too, again the idea is consistency. When shooting, you want to get as much coverage of the scene with slight overlap between the images, but make it a goal to do it in the least amount of pictures possible. I usually take 9 shots -left, middle right- doing it for three rows (bottom, middle, top). You can get really intricate with this and use as many pictures as you want, though it will start to eat up resources and get harder to control glitches, mismatches etc.
Went down to the airfield. What do you guys think of them? Could do with chosing something for my 52 project.
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/isaacbrownbridge/6798024109/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7146/6798024109_5e7e15dca0_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/isaacbrownbridge/6798024109/]Solitary Glide[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/isaacbrownbridge/]Isaac Brownbridge[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/isaacbrownbridge/6798020301/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7152/6798020301_1356b79449_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/isaacbrownbridge/6798020301/]Motor Glider[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/isaacbrownbridge/]Isaac Brownbridge[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/isaacbrownbridge/6798016547/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7173/6798016547_fe74b4b82d_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/isaacbrownbridge/6798016547/]Remo 180[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/isaacbrownbridge/]Isaac Brownbridge[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/isaacbrownbridge/6798013481/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7175/6798013481_665595e20a_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/isaacbrownbridge/6798013481/]The Hangar[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/isaacbrownbridge/]Isaac Brownbridge[/url], on Flickr
I'm digging the yellow in the second photo.
I understand the Brenzier technique... but how do you guys do self portraits and move the camera? Or are they not self portraits at all...
You do it so your entirety is one frame. It wouldn't be impossible to be in multiple frames, but it would take some serious effort.
[QUOTE=bopie;34484850]You do it so your entirety is one frame. It wouldn't be impossible to be in multiple frames, but it would take some serious effort.[/QUOTE]
If you're shooting wide enough or far away enough to get your whole body in the frame it's not going to have a very pronounced effect though. When I played around with it I found that 3-4 shots just for the person worked pretty well, with a 50mm 1.8 on a crop.
[QUOTE=Xera;34484948]50mm 1.8 on a [b]crop[/b][/QUOTE]
And there's your problem. The larger your sensor the less steps you have to take in doing a Brenizer - as sensor size is precisely what you're artificially mimicking.
If you were trying to self portraitize with the Brenizer method on a crop sensor, you would need to use a longer lens regardless of aperture. That will let you get your whole subject in, with a sufficently blurred out background. The 'tightness' of the telephoto lens is then alleviated (while keeping the shallow DOF) with the widening effect of the Brenizer, exactly why you do it in the first place. The longer the lens, the less aperture you need to get a shallow DOF. You would need about 6 shots taken with a ~100mm lens that has an aperture of ~4 to get the signature effect that people associate with a medium format camera.
I feel like I should crop this one or something.
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/gentledoom/6798600703/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7024/6798600703_20dd2f04c5_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/gentledoom/6798600703/]Bird[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/gentledoom/]Gentle Doom[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/gentledoom/6798597803/][img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7021/6798597803_ff0845abaf_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;34478008]It's taking a bunch of photos, and stitching them together to give them effect of a shallower depth of field as if the photo was taken without stitching.[/QUOTE]
This exactly.
I posted these images in V5 but since we are on the subject here it may help.
Final Img:
[URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/58397993@N04/6507464153/"][IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7149/6507464153_66c52e0a98_m.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/58397993@N04/6507464153/"]Brenizer Cat[/URL] by [URL="http://www.flickr.com/people/58397993@N04/"]Ivegotchicken[/URL], on Flickr
Without blending so you can see how each image fits in.
[URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/58397993@N04/6527361915/"][IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7027/6527361915_066c3aac02_m.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/58397993@N04/6527361915/"]Brenizer Cat (No Blend)[/URL] by [URL="http://www.flickr.com/people/58397993@N04/"]Ivegotchicken[/URL], on Flickr
thanks for clearing all this up guys:) going to the chocolate works where i've done all of my light painting later today so i'm gonna try some and get some brenizer shots in there!
[QUOTE=bopie;34483172]It is absolutely 1000% no different than any other panorama. If you can figure out how to do a panorama, you can do a Brenizer. It's just instead of a landscape, you've got a portrait (or anything with a noticeably shallow depth of field).
There is an entire internet out there that can teach you how to stitch a panorama. Personally, I use CS5's Automate. File > Automate > Photomerge. Layout: Auto. Select all three options at the bottom (blend, vignette removal, geometric distortion correction). Use: Folder, select your folder with your images. I clean up and blend things together with an eraser at 33% opacity, 80% flow, and 50% hardness.
You're going to have to keep your focus exactly the same in each individual shot, so shoot manual focus. You need consistent exposure too, so make sure you're shooting in manual mode. Don't try to expose each individual shot perfectly, you need to keep the same exact settings throughout all of your shots. Watch out for changing lighting conditions too, again the idea is consistency. When shooting, you want to get as much coverage of the scene with slight overlap between the images, but make it a goal to do it in the least amount of pictures possible. I usually take 9 shots -left, middle right- doing it for three rows (bottom, middle, top). You can get really intricate with this and use as many pictures as you want, though it will start to eat up resources and get harder to control glitches, mismatches etc.[/QUOTE]
When I used distortion correction, everything curved and it made me look 20st..
Was it because I was so close to the camera and that all the photos were just taken from a stationary tripod?
[editline]1st February 2012[/editline]
Also thre was more on the right but my arm went smOkey and wavy :(
i take myself [I][B]very[/B][/I] seriously.
[IMG]http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/2530/img1724u.jpg[/IMG]
you look like a tiger ready to pounce
i woud concur but then i thought I've kind of already pounced.
okay my 'serious' entry for the day, got to use the 85mm 1.2 but holy shit its cold and i had to be places and return it so I'm not overly ecstatic regarding the results but i plan to do better next time around yo
[IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7021/6802945957_577b80562b_z.jpg[/IMG]
11.365 by [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/oscarjones/6802945957/"]marley h[/URL]
[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;34497296]i take myself [I][B]very[/B][/I] seriously.
[IMG]http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/2530/img1724u.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
shouldve been wearing your reindeer antlers!
[QUOTE=Him1411;34498391]shouldve been wearing your reindeer antlers![/QUOTE]
good idea, next time i will be.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.