First attempt with the Brenizer Method

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!

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....

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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?