It's 2am: 23rd edition... D800 or 5dmkIII

*sigh* wrote in post #13789386
Yeah, so wouldn't his 85L be better for that compared to say a 50mm 1.4? I guess it depends on how much space you have and what kind of DOF you are looking for.

Yeah, you're supposed to use a longer lens.

vipergts831 wrote in post #13789350
You just need to step back further and take more shots of the scene itself. This is an example of how wide you should go. I just dont have the luxury in the space i was shooting.

I know but the DOF wouldn't be as good then cause my lens just makes it longer when on a crop. Doesn't change the DOF so when stitching together images because I would have to take more steps back the FOV wouldn't be as wide if I were closer and the bokeh wouldn't be as creamy then so I would have just a wide shot with OK bokeh. I just know that if I had FF I would have better results as opposed to a crop.

*sigh* wrote in post #13789366
Yeah... is the point of the Brenizer method to use a longer FL to get the really narrow DOF?

Mavic Avenge?, nice.

Or I guess they are Avenir's.. the mavic website calls them avenge, everywhere else it's avenir. Strange.

yes Avenirs... they are really comfortable not the Sidi's I wanted but these arent to bad im not looking for weight loss in my shoes just yet so they will suffice for a season or 2.... plus I added a set of Look Keo's

Jill-of-all-Trades wrote in post #13789400
Yeah, you're supposed to use a longer lens.

I mean longer lenses are better, but if you can manage to make the shot work from a foot away with lets say a 35mm lens you will definitely have better results as opposed to an 85mm lens even on crop standing 20 feet back.

danny. been meaning to ask you how your trip went. looks like it was fantastic (puting aside the car repairs). ill ask in detail another time. gotta head out.

laxlife1234 wrote in post #13789432
I mean longer lenses are better, but if you can manage to make the shot work from a foot away with lets say a 35mm lens you will definitely have better results as opposed to an 85mm lens even on crop standing 20 feet back.

But if you're a foot away on a 24mm, you won't even be close to getting the same affect as an 85mm 20 feet back, at least not in terms of DOF which is the whole point of the Benizer method.

I mean from what I've read, the purpose of the method is to get very narrow DOF's with a wide FOV. Like Benizer on his blog has shots where the shot is equivalent of a 50mm at F .4

You won't get that when you are shooting with a 24mm, unless you moved the camera for every shot, but that leads to a different set of issues.

DTBaan wrote in post #13789434
danny. been meaning to ask you how your trip went. looks like it was fantastic (puting aside the car repairs). ill ask in detail another time. gotta head out.

ok take it easy man!

*sigh* wrote in post #13789438
But if you're a foot away on a 24mm, you won't even be close to getting the same affect as an 85mm 20 feet back, at least not in terms of DOF which is the whole point of the Benizer method.

I mean from what I've read, the purpose of the method is to get very narrow DOF's with a wide FOV. Like Benizer on his blog has shots where the shot is equivalent of a 50mm at F .4

You won't get that when you are shooting with a 24mm, unless you moved the camera for every shot, but that leads to a different set of issues.

Oh 24 is pointless if you are going to try that cause the point of the method is to make a longer telephoto lens to look like a super wide angle lens lol!

But I have tried it with my 35L and it doesn't work nearly as well as the 85L. Plus with my 35 you need to get a hell of a lot closer to get good DOF and when you try rotating it it tends to distort things and photoshop has a hard time deciphering what is what then.

And when you move the camera for each shot then you wont get any image trust me I have tried! It moves objects and pictures are unable to align then.

*sigh* wrote in post #13789366
Yeah... is the point of the Brenizer method to use a longer FL to get the really narrow DOF?

Mavics, nice.

You want to use a focal length that gives you the most natural look. 85mm is used for portraits because of this. Minimized distortion and a fast version for DOF. Have the subject in front of a background that will bokeh well and you can exaggerate the DOF.

This is a good example:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/carpeicthus/2​991118269/

laxlife1234 wrote in post #13789474
Oh 24 is pointless if you are going to try that cause the point of the method is to make a longer telephoto lens to look like a super wide angle lens lol!

But I have tried it with my 35L and it doesn't work nearly as well as the 85L. Plus with my 35 you need to get a hell of a lot closer to get good DOF and when you try rotating it it tends to distort things and photoshop has a hard time deciphering what is what then.

And when you move the camera for each shot then you wont get any image trust me I have tried! It moves objects and pictures are unable to align then.

Yeah ok... so we're in agreement, just talking past one another a bit.

vipergts831 wrote in post #13789480
You want to use a focal length that gives you the most natural look. 85mm is used for portraits because of this. Minimized distortion and a fast version for DOF. Have the subject in front of a background that will bokeh well and you can exaggerate the DOF. That is what the brenizer method does.

This is a good example:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/carpeicthus/2​991118269/
The World Fades Away… by Ryan Brenizer, on Flickr

Gotcha.

The other part to the method is that you do have to move the camera around when you shoot. You will eventually crop it down but the further you are the less distortion has a play in the areas you want. The closer you are the greater the chance of distortion playing a role.

vipergts831 wrote in post #13789491
The other part to the method is that you do have to move the camera around when you shoot. You will eventually crop it down but the further you are the less distortion has a play in the areas you want. The closer you are the greater the chance of distortion playing a role.

so this is the method where you take many photos a stitch them together?

vipergts831 wrote in post #13789491
The other part to the method is that you do have to move the camera around when you shoot. You will eventually crop it down but the further you are the less distortion has a play in the areas you want. The closer you are the greater the chance of distortion playing a role.

So you do physically move the positioning of the camera?

SUB1IM388 wrote in post #13789493
so this is the method where you take many photos a stitch them together?

Yup Yup.

*sigh* wrote in post #13789496
So you do physically move the positioning of the camera?

Correct. You have to move the camera physically around to capture the whole scene. Remember that image i posted before? Here is what it looks like after merging about 25 shots. Then you crop it:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

vipergts831 wrote in post #13789503
Correct. You have to move the camera physically around to capture the whole scene. Remember that image i posted before? Here is what it looks like after merging about 25 shots. Then you crop it:

How much do you actually move it?

I can't imagine you would want to move it much, or else the POV is going to be messed up as it will be different from one part of the picture to another.

I figured you would just get the camera setup on a tripod and then aim it differently so the POV is the same. Although I guess since you are trying to replicate a wider FOV, that changes things a bit too... I think I'm just confusing myself more.