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

[shmne]

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]

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]

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]

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 — NYC Wedding Photographer. Problem solver, storyteller.

 

[Dominantly]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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?

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]

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]

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! “Brenizer Method” (bokehrama, etc.) instructional video, produced by B&H! » Ryan Brenizer — NYC Wedding Photographer. Problem solver, storyteller.

 

[fokker]

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]

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! “Brenizer Method” (bokehrama, etc.) instructional video, produced by B&H! » Ryan Brenizer — NYC Wedding Photographer. Problem solver, storyteller.

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

 

[Dominantly]

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.