Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 17 Jan 2012 (Tuesday) 08:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Show us your "Brenizer Method" shots!

 
robertwsimpson
Goldmember
Avatar
2,461 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Jun 2010
Location: San Mateo, CA
     
May 16, 2012 06:34 |  #376

This is pretty far from semantics... it's the basis of the calculation everyone is so excited about in this thread.

Maybe we should just post photos and not worry about figuring out the "theoretical" stuff.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
AbPho
Goldmember
Avatar
3,165 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 106
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Planet Earth
     
May 16, 2012 08:13 |  #377

frederiksenp wrote in post #14429048 (external link)
QUOTED IMAGE

Love that outfit. How does the colour version look?

dtufino wrote in post #14429199 (external link)
IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Simpleboy wrote in post #14432870 (external link)
IMAGE NOT FOUND PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i29.photobucket​.com …steenBrenizer2e​dit900.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

Great contributions.

I say we just enjoy the images that people post. Not everyone wants to / cares about posting the specifics. I know for some that info is important, but it's not required for every image posted.


I'm in Canada. Isn't that weird!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BenJohnson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,811 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
     
May 16, 2012 08:32 |  #378

robertwsimpson wrote in post #14434703 (external link)
how are you calculating the effective focal length and fstop? I don't think you can accurately calculate them using the data submitted, because it doesn't account for overlap when you stitch the photos together.

robertwsimpson wrote in post #14439383 (external link)
This is pretty far from semantics... it's the basis of the calculation everyone is so excited about in this thread.

Maybe we should just post photos and not worry about figuring out the "theoretical" stuff.

The calculator requires you to enter the resolution of a single image and the resolution of the combined image, after cropping. This completely accounts for overlap (and is the reason that posting the # of photos used is nearly meaningless).

elrey2375 wrote in post #14436355 (external link)
So we're down to semantics ...

AbPho wrote in post #14439639 (external link)
I say we just enjoy the images that people post. Not everyone wants to / cares about posting the specifics. I know for some that info is important, but it's not required for every image posted.

I would like the following two things from this thread:


  1. To see great "Brenizer Method" images (not just normal panorama's or stitched photos that are cropped back down to the resolution of one image).
  2. To understand how the great photos were created, in order to learn how create them myself.

Going along with these two things is helping others learn how to create great "Brenizer Method" images. If a few basic details are included with each photo it would make it very easy to accomplish these things.

Right now there are some great images but many include very little info, so it is impossible to understand how to re-create a similar image. There are also some people that say "I just decided to try this and I don't know if I did it right" and go on to post an image that is clearly "not doing it right". Without the necessary info it is impossible to help these photos improve.

Filling in the info only takes a minute or two and helps out everyone. If you don't want to do it, that's obviously just fine, but I think you're selling yourself, and everyone else, short.

BenJohnson wrote in post #14388418 (external link)
I propose a new template for info when posting a "Brenizer Method" image:

Camera body used:
Focal length used:
Aperture used:
Pixel height of single frame:
Pixel width of single frame:
Pixel height of cropped, final frame:
Pixel width of cropped, final frame:

Also, the above info can be put into the following calculator to give the effective focal length and aperture.

http://brettmaxwellpho​to.com/Brenizer-Method-Calculation/ (external link)


|Ben Johnson Photography (external link)|
|Gear List|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frederiksenp
Senior Member
Avatar
607 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD
     
May 16, 2012 08:34 |  #379

AbPho wrote in post #14439639 (external link)
Love that outfit. How does the colour version look?

It looks good, but because of all the color in her outfit and the color of the graffiti, it made it nearly impossible to make a separation between the background and her. Tried it a few different ways but black and white provided the separation I needed.


Baltimore, MD Photographer | Sports Photographer | Canon 6D | Canon 7D | 70-200 f2.8 | 17-40 f/4 | 40 f/2.8 | 85 f/1.2 | 50 f/1.4 | Sigma 120-300 f/2.8
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
robertwsimpson
Goldmember
Avatar
2,461 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Jun 2010
Location: San Mateo, CA
     
May 16, 2012 10:05 |  #380

BenJohnson wrote in post #14439700 (external link)
The calculator requires you to enter the resolution of a single image and the resolution of the combined image, after cropping. This completely accounts for overlap (and is the reason that posting the # of photos used is nearly meaningless).

I would like the following two things from this thread:

  1. To see great "Brenizer Method" images (not just normal panorama's or stitched photos that are cropped back down to the resolution of one image).
  2. To understand how the great photos were created, in order to learn how create them myself.

Going along with these two things is helping others learn how to create great "Brenizer Method" images. If a few basic details are included with each photo it would make it very easy to accomplish these things.

Right now there are some great images but many include very little info, so it is impossible to understand how to re-create a similar image. There are also some people that say "I just decided to try this and I don't know if I did it right" and go on to post an image that is clearly "not doing it right". Without the necessary info it is impossible to help these photos improve.

Filling in the info only takes a minute or two and helps out everyone. If you don't want to do it, that's obviously just fine, but I think you're selling yourself, and everyone else, short.

I gave this some more thought, and I do see that the overlap argument is moot. What would throw this off though is the cropping. After stitching the images together, if you take a tighter crop, the calculator would not be correct, since it would be thinking there was more overlap than there was. My point is not to argue semantics but rather to say that you can not accurately calculate fstop or focal length for these photos because they are heavily edited and really created in a virtual environment. Why not just enjoy the photos for what they are... cool looking.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RaZe42
Senior Member
Avatar
518 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Finland
     
May 16, 2012 13:57 |  #381

Why do you assume that the stitched photos would be cropped again after using the calculator? Even if it were one would simply have to enter the new height/width values in the calculator to get the new equivalent focal length and aperture.


Gear: Canon 5D Mk II | Olympus 21/3.5 | Zeiss Distagon 35/2 | Sigma 50/1.4 ASPH | Samyang 85/1.4 ASPH | Canon 100/2.8 L Macro
My modest Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 276
Joined Nov 2011
     
May 16, 2012 16:34 |  #382

To be honest, I'm not really interested in the technical side of it. I understand it, but it's just not interesting to me personally. I would rather just enjoy the cool looking photos. I'm not interested in recreating someone else's shot.


http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BenJohnson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,811 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
     
May 17, 2012 08:27 |  #383

robertwsimpson wrote in post #14440146 (external link)
I gave this some more thought, and I do see that the overlap argument is moot. What would throw this off though is the cropping. After stitching the images together, if you take a tighter crop, the calculator would not be correct, since it would be thinking there was more overlap than there was. My point is not to argue semantics but rather to say that you can not accurately calculate fstop or focal length for these photos because they are heavily edited and really created in a virtual environment. Why not just enjoy the photos for what they are... cool looking.

No, that is incorrect. You enter the final resolution of the image after stitching AND cropping. This accounts for every additional pixel that was used. YES, you can accurately calculate the "effective" aperture and focal length for these. It is a simple mathematical calculations.

RaZe42 wrote in post #14441282 (external link)
Why do you assume that the stitched photos would be cropped again after using the calculator? Even if it were one would simply have to enter the new height/width values in the calculator to get the new equivalent focal length and aperture.

Correct.


|Ben Johnson Photography (external link)|
|Gear List|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yagit80
Goldmember
Avatar
1,257 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2009
Location: MANILA & DOWN UNDER
     
May 18, 2012 04:37 |  #384

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7237/7220417120_f6e54673c9_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/38424577@N05/7​220417120/  (external link)

5D2
85L @f/1.2
iso 50

flickriver (external link)
What Did You Blog Today? (external link)
Where's Tyler? (external link)
BOTTOM GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drocpsu
Senior Member
472 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2007
Location: New Hampshire
     
May 18, 2012 17:11 |  #385

So it seems that longer (but not too long), fast lenses are ideal for this, but people have tried a bunch of different lenses. It seems like it might be a bit short, but would the nifty fifty on a crop body work alright to try this out? I'd love to give it a try, but that would be my only potential suitable lens option.


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/drocpsu (external link)
Canon T1i | 18-55 IS | 55-250 IS | 50mm f/1.8 II | Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
| Slik & Giottos tripod

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
daveharlow
Member
Avatar
210 posts
Likes: 6
Joined May 2007
Location: Essex - UK
     
May 20, 2012 11:35 |  #386

Still trying it out with a 24-70L @ f2.8. You deff need a longer lens for these type of shots.

IMAGE: http://www.davejay.co.uk/images/stumpzPOTN.jpg

7D | 17-55 f2.8 IS |Dog Schidt Optiks ff58 (Helios 44-2)| 430EXII
---------------
DaveJay Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Courterman08
Senior Member
655 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Lima, OH
     
May 20, 2012 12:47 |  #387

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7213/7234700756_48defdfc7d_c.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7103/7234857814_895457e200_c.jpg

Zach Courter
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drocpsu
Senior Member
472 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2007
Location: New Hampshire
     
May 20, 2012 14:00 |  #388

daveharlow wrote in post #14459094 (external link)
Still trying it out with a 24-70L @ f2.8. You deff need a longer lens for these type of shots.

QUOTED IMAGE

nice photo! How many shots is this comprised of?


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/drocpsu (external link)
Canon T1i | 18-55 IS | 55-250 IS | 50mm f/1.8 II | Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
| Slik & Giottos tripod

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobos
Member
Avatar
147 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
     
May 20, 2012 21:02 |  #389

drocpsu wrote in post #14452303 (external link)
It seems like it might be a bit short, but would the nifty fifty on a crop body work alright to try this out?

Yeah that works, I only use my 50mm for it. Too short of a lens could cause distortion in the corners and depending on the lens, more vignetting.


Flickr (external link)
Facebook Page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BenJohnson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,811 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
     
May 21, 2012 08:13 |  #390

drocpsu wrote in post #14452303 (external link)
So it seems that longer (but not too long), fast lenses are ideal for this, but people have tried a bunch of different lenses. It seems like it might be a bit short, but would the nifty fifty on a crop body work alright to try this out? I'd love to give it a try, but that would be my only potential suitable lens option.

bobos wrote in post #14460895 (external link)
Yeah that works, I only use my 50mm for it. Too short of a lens could cause distortion in the corners and depending on the lens, more vignetting.

Nifty Fifty works OK, but as already mentioned, if you try to do too large of a stitch it essentially because an UWA lens and gets a lot of perspective distortion. Also, the Nifty Fifty has considerable vignetting wide open, so it may throw off the stitching.

daveharlow wrote in post #14459094 (external link)
Still trying it out with a 24-70L @ f2.8. You deff need a longer lens for these type of shots.

The 24-70mm @ 70mm and f/2.8 is a bit longer, but the fact that the aperture is only f/2.8 leaves you with a not-as-impressive image. Depending on how many frames you stitch it will end up looking like a 50mm f/2 or a 35mm f/1.4. Both are easily attainable with lenses that actually exist.

These don't look Brenizer-y at all.

drocpsu wrote in post #14459588 (external link)
nice photo! How many shots is this comprised of?

If the following info was included, these questions would not be needed:

Camera body used:
Focal length used:
Aperture used:
Pixel height of single frame:
Pixel width of single frame:
Pixel height of cropped, final frame:
Pixel width of cropped, final frame:

The above info can be put into the following calculator to give the effective focal length and aperture.

http://brettmaxwellpho​to.com/Brenizer-Method-Calculation/ (external link)


|Ben Johnson Photography (external link)|
|Gear List|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

505,112 views & 147 likes for this thread
Show us your "Brenizer Method" shots!
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mahadmalik
776 guests, 321 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.