First attempt with the Brenizer Method

[slow231]

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

 

[rknrl]

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]

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]

How wide of a lens were you using ???

I was using a 50mm 1.8g lens.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.