Brenizer method surprisingly easy with XT1

[Antony]

Hi all, today I had my first crack at a Brenizer Method portrait using the X-T1 and 50-140mm f/2.8. Process was to set my aperture, shutter speed, ISO to manual, set WB (not Auto WB) and ensure my shutter speed was fast. Set Manual focus on the subject then shoot away. Images were shot in Jpeg only, small size. I set the camera to CL and shot a total of 161 images, starting with the subject and then increasing the circle around them until I had captured a large area. Naturally there was a lot of overlap, but the camera buffer did well and there was no break in the shooting.

 

I then loaded the images into a free program called Autostitch, waited about 10 minutes while it digested everything and then cropped the image to a square. Final image size was over 10000 pixels in each axis. Here's the final result, sure it's not the most exciting of images, but as a first test I am pleased with the result and given the ease of shooting and processing it I expect to do a lot more over time, particularly for my weddings.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Aswald]

Nicely done.

 

I still don't get how this method enables the subject not to have motion blur.

[Antony]

The couple only needed to stand still for about 5 seconds, and every shot individually was at 1/640 sec IIRC so there's no motion blur. The most that may happen if they move are some stitching anomolies/ghosts, but there are so many overlapping images doing it this way it seemed to work it all out. Like I said, it was my first try, but I'm delighted with how simple it was.

[Antony]

Just so folks can get an idea, here's two of the images used to create the Brenizer pano. As you can see there is an enormous amount of overlap, basically you just set the camera to CL and start moving it around in an organised pattern to ensure you get the entire area you want in the finished image.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[azmmount]

I'm not getting what it is about the X-T1 that makes this any easier than any other camera?

 

It looks interesting though. I like the result and assume the main benefit is increased resolution of the final image?

[Antony]

The buffer and the quality of the jpegs are the main reason it's easy, as due to the number of images you need to shoot JPEG to reduce processing time. As to the reason, it's not for increased resolution, but to create a depth of field that's normally only available with larger formats. It would be impossible to achieve this level of background blur, and this angle of view (eg. An apparent wide angle) through normal means.

 

Do a search on the Brenizer method for more info.

[Trenton Talbot]

I'm not getting what it is about the X-T1 that makes this any easier than any other camera?

 

It looks interesting though. I like the result and assume the main benefit is increased resolution of the final image?

 

The main benefit is an optically impossible DOF/FOV ratio, which looks somewhat like a 14mm f/0.002. But you're right, X-T1 doesn't do anything that particularly benefits this effect (which is also known as bokehrama).

[azmmount]

The buffer and the quality of the jpegs are the main reason it's easy, as due to the number of images you need to shoot JPEG to reduce processing time. As to the reason, it's not for increased resolution, but to create a depth of field that's normally only available with larger formats. It would be impossible to achieve this level of background blur, and this angle of view (eg. An apparent wide angle) through normal means.

 

That makes sense. Out of curiosity what focal length/aperture did you choose to shoot? From your tighter images I'd guess long and wide open. Also did you shoot handheld or on a tripod? If on a tripod, did you use a pano head to help with your "organized pattern"?

[RadBadTad]

Nicely done.

 

I still don't get how this method enables the subject not to have motion blur.

There isn't any motion blur because each photo in the stitch is taken at a fast shutter speed. There's no time for a blur. Then, when the program is stitching everything together, it doesn't matter much if there have been slight movements between frames, because so long as things are "pretty close" the program will line things up. So if a finger, or hand, or strand of hair have moved from shot A to shot B, only one or the other will be included, so the motion won't have ruined anything. 

[Aswald]

There isn't any motion blur because each photo in the stitch is taken at a fast shutter speed. There's no time for a blur. Then, when the program is stitching everything together, it doesn't matter much if there have been slight movements between frames, because so long as things are "pretty close" the program will line things up. So if a finger, or hand, or strand of hair have moved from shot A to shot B, only one or the other will be included, so the motion won't have ruined anything. 

 

Ok. Thanks for stepping in to clear my curiosity. I guess, I should try it one day. Been most intrigued with this method. And the results are unique.

[Antony]

I shot it at f/2.8 at 140mm, I think the results would be better with the 56mm at f/1.2, but I was concerned about distortion due the fact that I would be shooting at a bigger angle when getting the feet etc. No pano head, just handheld using CL to get plenty of overlap.

[SirMaxRu]

Why did yoy do so huge count of photos? Looks like 40 should be more than enough.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Phil]

That looks amazing. I've tried it, but my 35mm really isn't tight enough. Looking forward to trying it with the 56 when I get it.

[Antony]

Why did you do so huge count of photos? Looks like 40 should be more than enough.

 

 

I was shooting in CL in order to ensure overlap of the images, as I was shooting handheld without a panorama head. By shooting so many I ensured full coverage.

[SoulKey]

Used the technique with the Fuji 90mm f2. Works well. I will try it with the 56mm at next occasion.

 

Why many photos? It's simple. You always get a distortion in your pictures. At 200mm it is almost completely nullified of course. But with shorter focal lengths, it is not. By shooting more pictures, you get every piece of your brenizer from a center-part of a shot. That way, you don't have to fuck with distortion problems. Other than that there is also vignetting. I shoot Brenizers in RAW mode and the RAW converters are not equally capable of compensating for the lenses' flaws as is the intern JPEG engine of the X-T1. Also there is really no need to use a special program if you have Photoshop. It can merge the whole shit together, compensate for some vignetting and even distort the pictures as needed. What's important though: You need to have some textures/colors in the areas further away from the subject, because Photoshop is looking for those. If they are absent the programm doesn't get what you would like to do. For Portraits it pretty much makes no sense to let it stitch together automatically, as all melted areas are strongly melted and lack details/texture/recognizable colors.

 

 

Why did yoy do so huge count of photos? Looks like 40 should be more than enough.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[madmaxmedia]

Really nice example! I really like the look of larger formats, and this method duplicates it on smaller format cameras.

 

I have read more than once that the DOF drop-off is quicker in larger formats, which is a different phenomenon having more or less DOF. But looking at this photo, maybe the DOF drop-off has more to do with focal length of lens? Because I feel it looks very much like something shot with medium or large format.

 

It would be a fun feature to have a camera be able to do this in-camera. They can already do something similar with panoramas, here you have essentially at the end a 5 x 5 grid of photos.

 

BTW-what is CL- Continuous Low?

[Gamundi08]

Hello!
 
 
First of all, I already know that 161 pictures are too many. However, it was a good start for you if you haven't done brenizer method before. Most of the time I tend to take 18 to 30 images depend on which lens I use and beautiful environment background. In additional, I rather set single-shot mode than CL mode. Therefore, I only shot three to four frames of subject(s) in a little bit hurry and then I can relax and think while shooting carefully each frame of foreground and background. That is all.
 
By the way, you can check out my photographs in Brenizer method and I used X-T1 with different lenses. You can read more information in my description each image:
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Sample 5
 
I hope everything goes well. Cheer*

[madmaxmedia]

Those are beautiful! I love the 'fairy tale' look to the images...

 

I have a Yashica 50mm f/1.8 that I will give a whirl, I don't have any longer (but still fast) lenses to try. I have the Fuji 50-230mm, but I think that would be too slow.

 

Were most of them shot wide open/near open?

[New PK]

Nice topic, thanks for sharing us

[Tom H.]

I had the new Zack Arias workshop video on editorial shooting and he does something very similar, shooting an X-T1 with 56 wide open using a panoramic head on the tripod. Which allows you to stich several frames together. Will definitely try something similar. But I think a few shots should already be enough to get the desired effect.

[cug]

I can't imagine the 56 being that great for something like when used wide open as it doesn't have consistent sharpness across the frame until something like f/4.

[wojconner]

Did you shoot from left to right and top to bottom, with AF locked onto the couple?

[Etienne]

Which lens would you recommend to achieve the Brenizer effect between 90mm f2 and 56mm f1.2?

[Tom G Scotland]

Used the technique with the Fuji 90mm f2. Works well. I will try it with the 56mm at next occasion.

 

Why many photos? It's simple. You always get a distortion in your pictures. At 200mm it is almost completely nullified of course. But with shorter focal lengths, it is not. By shooting more pictures, you get every piece of your brenizer from a center-part of a shot. That way, you don't have to fuck with distortion problems. Other than that there is also vignetting. I shoot Brenizers in RAW mode and the RAW converters are not equally capable of compensating for the lenses' flaws as is the intern JPEG engine of the X-T1. Also there is really no need to use a special program if you have Photoshop. It can merge the whole shit together, compensate for some vignetting and even distort the pictures as needed. What's important though: You need to have some textures/colors in the areas further away from the subject, because Photoshop is looking for those. If they are absent the programm doesn't get what you would like to do. For Portraits it pretty much makes no sense to let it stitch together automatically, as all melted areas are strongly melted and lack details/texture/recognizable colors.

Why the swearing  I

Are four letter curse words allowed on this forum then

Are there no moderators  I WONT HANG ABOUT THIS FORUM IF THATS THE LANGUAGE OF POSTERS DON'T CARE WHO THEY ARE

Tom