| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/26/2012 07:32:01 AM · #1 |
I just read a post where a photographer (Sam Hurd) did head-shots using the Brenizer Method. I was confused as to what this method was so I did a quick Google search...I'm still a bit confused. Couldn't you just take the picture you want and add blur or create bokeh (In CS6 anyways) and achieve the same results? Or is there something else about it that I'm not seeing. And I certainly don't get it with the head-shots...I mean, I think the shots Sam Hurd took are fantastic but I don't understand why you would take a panorama of shots to get that shallow DOF when you can get it anyways...UNLESS, I'm not seeing something...
Can anyone chime in? |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 07:58:25 AM · #2 |
Part of the Brenizer method is to use a long lens farther away to simulate a wide angle shot that has narrow DoF. I'm not sure what utility it would have on a headshot since they are typically framed fairly tight, and the difference in perspective would be readily obvious. It's kind of hard to tell without seeing his pictures.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2012 08:33:26 AM · #3 |
Looking at Sam's images, I'm not sure you can get that effect (accurately) in post. The progressive blurring you could add into the frame is unlikely to 'map' to the true depth pattern of the subject. I find his 'Epic Portraits' series to be really compelling.
Let's have it as a challenge! (Would need a special rule under advanced) |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 08:38:24 AM · #4 |
| His blog is an interesting read. |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 10:03:56 AM · #5 |
| It's his epic series that really confused me...they are a wonderful set of photos but I can't really see how the effect would be different had it been a single shot and edited in post...I would love a side-by-side to see the real differences. |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 11:28:22 AM · #6 |
This blog has a nice explanation of the technique and why you would do it:
//blog.buiphotos.com/2009/07/the-brenizer-method-explained-with-directions/
As for getting the shallow DOF in post-processing - it would take a huge amount of effort to get a realistic focus blur - and there's always the problem of isolating the subject from the background. It's much simpler to take several photos and feed them into an automatic panorama stitcher.
Kevin
Message edited by author 2012-04-26 11:28:45. |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 12:35:52 PM · #7 |
Adding bokeh or blur in a photorealistic way is very difficult. If you know what to look for you can spot PP blur easily. The problem occurs because you normally will use a gradient to create more blur in some direction on the canvas. But the gradient is in two dimensions while the image is in three. Take this example from a challenge a while back:
I realized that a simple gradient wasn't going to work because while the streetlight is really all the same distance from my camera, it covers probably 25% of the height of the canvas. A gradient would make it more blurred at the top than the bottom (and that's not the way a real picture would work). Because of this I masked the streetlight off so it would look to be all in the same focus. This is an easy example, but most pictures have many, many images that would each need to be dealt with separately. Quickly the task becomes overwhelming to keep realistic. This method allows the camera to do it as it would normally occur.
That's my take anyway. One question I have is why they use so many images to stitch together. 40?!? What is the gain from doing that versus say, 8? The actual pixel width of the final image isn't going to be that much larger because there is going to be so much overlap from image to image. |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 01:59:38 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...One question I have is why they use so many images to stitch together. 40?!? What is the gain from doing that versus say, 8? The actual pixel width of the final image isn't going to be that much larger because there is going to be so much overlap from image to image. |
My thoughts exactly. Unless they want to print at gargantuan dimensions while maintaining 300dpi, I can't imagine why so many images.
I think the idea of using a longer FL to *really* limit DoF, while using multiple images to give a wider view is really inventive, and I like some of the results. As with anything it either works, or it doesn't depending on the subject matter and the way it is executed. When it works, the result is beautiful.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2012 02:56:29 PM · #9 |
| Speaking of panos, can someone remind me what they call the little accessory you can put on your tripod that allows your to adjust your camera forward or back so you can rotate around the focal plane and eliminate parallax? I know you can get a full pano-head, but this is a simpler gadget. I can't recall the name so can't find them. |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 09:46:45 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Speaking of panos, can someone remind me what they call the little accessory you can put on your tripod that allows your to adjust your camera forward or back so you can rotate around the focal plane and eliminate parallax? I know you can get a full pano-head, but this is a simpler gadget. I can't recall the name so can't find them. |
Well, it can be done with a set of macro focusing rails, which of course can serve other good purposes :-) The ones that are meant for pano work, I've always called pano heads. There are more designs, good and bad, than you can shake a stick at. Here is a page that lists a lot of resources.
ETA: I just realized, the term you may have seen might be "nodal rail." Acratech makes a product that goes by this name, and I think some use the name as a general term for the item, like Kleenex, but more expensive!
Message edited by author 2012-04-26 21:52:43.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2012 01:35:58 AM · #11 |
| Thanks Fritz. I've thought long and hard about picking one up. |
|
|
|
04/27/2012 07:58:51 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Thanks Fritz. I've thought long and hard about picking one up. |
Yep, me too. I don't really need a full-blown pano head, but a simple rail would be great, especially if it could do double duty for macro.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/23/2025 03:49:45 PM EDT.
