My Wedding Shot ~The Ryan Brenzer Method

this can be done in one shot - using a digital medium format cam.

Like the technique or not, I think it's very cool that Pham is always willing to teach us on techniques that he uses.
I for one like the technique.

Thanks Pham.

yeah, THANKS PHAM! )

i am not saying that all of you have to use this method,

it is pretty much like photoshop.. you can get the effect you want by many different ways..
here i chose to do it because of my own personal reason i gave and some of them are clear in the advantages - the 1000 pix version you are seeing here just doesn't give final file justice..

@ Misha, not all of us have a digital back that takes 39 Mega pixels, nor have seen one live yet alone even looked up a medium format bodies.. but your shot will still require 2 shots and photoshopping..

this method is a solution for all normal camera bodies who want to end up with a large file that is sharp and has low noise when the original source is ISO 3200 or higher..

plus this method will give you much more control of light and light painting..

i am not showing you the full capabilities on the creative ways this method can be used. but i can only imagine what type of light painting you can do with this method..

@ Derek, the ISO i shot at was 1600, but if i shot at 3200 or 6400, the finished noise from a stiched photo of 9 or more will be the same as a normal shot taken at about 400 or so.. just allows you to stretch out your game..

i took the subject photo at the same as the other surrounding photos at the 1600 iso.. i didn't switch the settings at all.. all as the same as the first shot, but the only difference is after the first shot.. the focus went from auto to manual.. panning around was hand held -- pretty simple..

maybe ryan hicks aka skills should start a thread for examples of photos taken using this method..
he has some good ones..

phamster

i know i know... I don't have that either. just excersising possiblilities

nickbunyun wrote in post #9652433
wouldnt it be easier to photoshop a lightstand and flash out ? rather than all that ?
i mean nice job.. uve done it.. but just sayin`

The reason you want to do something like is to create a thin DOF while getting a wide shot.

For instance you can shoot an image like this with an 85L at 1.2 and get a panoramic shot of your scene. Capturing everything yet still retaining your focus spot and thin dof on your subject.

As explained above; get your AF to focus on your subject, turn to manual focus and start popping off shots. Stitch later in post.

This is one i shot with a 50mm @ f/1.8 on a 40d.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Thanks now I have learned something new today. so if I were shooting high iso if I do multiple shots and stitch them it will cut down the noise? I hope i'm understanding this any way. Thanks

ann

UndacovA.Fotography wrote in post #9653245
Great shot,
But what I cant understand is why people DONT get the whole reason why it is shot and processed this way, it has been explained so simply by phamster, what is there not to get.

Again great work as usual.

Mainly because most of us here are not professionals and don't fully understand all of the logistics behind doing a shot of this magnitude. I understand MOST of what was explained by the Phamster but some of the finer points of creating a shot like this escape me. The whole idea of stitching shots together and making them look seamless is incredible if you ask me. Pham is an innovator in the field of photography and his results speak for themselves and I am glad that he is willing to share his techniques and pic with the rest of us!

skill wrote in post #9654860
The reason you want to do something like is to create a thin DOF while getting a wide shot.

For instance you can shoot an image like this with an 85L at 1.2 and get a panoramic shot of your scene. Capturing everything yet still retaining your focus spot and thin dof on your subject.

As explained above; get your AF to focus on your subject, turn to manual focus and start popping off shots. Stitch later in post.

ann-mom wrote in post #9654991
Thanks now I have learned something new today. so if I were shooting high iso if I do multiple shots and stitch them it will cut down the noise? I hope i'm understanding this any way. Thanks

ann

Point-n-shoot-n wrote in post #9655240
Mainly because most of us here are not professionals and don't fully understand all of the logistics behind doing a shot of this magnitude. I understand MOST of what was explained by the Phamster but some of the finer points of creating a shot like this escape me. The whole idea of stitching shots together and making them look seamless is incredible if you ask me. Pham is an innovator in the field of photography and his results speak for themselves and I am glad that he is willing to share his techniques and pic with the rest of us!

...?

Point-n-shoot-n wrote in post #9655240
Mainly because most of us here are not professionals and don't fully understand all of the logistics behind doing a shot of this magnitude. I understand MOST of what was explained by the Phamster but some of the finer points of creating a shot like this escape me. The whole idea of stitching shots together and making them look seamless is incredible if you ask me. Pham is an innovator in the field of photography and his results speak for themselves and I am glad that he is willing to share his techniques and pic with the rest of us!

Im far from a professional, even far from amature, but I still get it. Its not rocket science.

bad ass! thanks for the tutorial phamster.

travelin man wrote in post #9653730
Like the technique or not, I think it's very cool that Pham is always willing to teach us on techniques that he uses.
I for one like the technique.

Thanks Pham.

+1 Thanks Pham

im NOT trying to be a know-it-all, because i dont know it all but this kind of 'project' is primarily used for high ISO shots.

what pham is trying to show us is that if he was shooting with high iso, there would be a lot of noise and artifacts on this shot. also this technique is used for "minimal" lighting to work as if it there was a grandiose of lighting setup for him. im talking about 1 or two lights to make it seem like there was a full wall of light behind him to light up this dark street.

sure, some people has said that this can be done in shot with the use of an UWA lens BUT by doing so, the couple wont be lighted as much. if they were, you can see the lighting (boom) equipment in the shot, but by stitching shots together, the couple and the BG will be well lit.

i dunno, ive done this out of instinct before. so i can see where pham is coming from.

the only thing thats off from this shot comes from the second shot/stictched image. the stoplight is green but the light bounced off the car (gray pontiac g5) is red!

Panda_stunter wrote in post #9656981
im NOT trying to be a know-it-all, because i dont know it all but this kind of 'project' is primarily used for high ISO shots.

what pham is trying to show us is that if he was shooting with high iso, there would be a lot of noise and artifacts on this shot. also this technique is used for "minimal" lighting to work as if it there was a grandiose of lighting setup for him. im talking about 1 or two lights to make it seem like there was a full wall of light behind him to light up this dark street.

sure, some people has said that this can be done in shot with the use of an UWA lens BUT by doing so, the couple wont be lighted as much. if they were, you can see the lighting (boom) equipment in the shot, but by stitching shots together, the couple and the BG will be well lit.

i dunno, ive done this out of instinct before. so i can see where pham is coming from.

the only thing thats off from this shot comes from the second shot/stictched image. the stoplight is green but the light bounced off the car (gray pontiac g5) is red!

about the pontiac G5.. the only thing i can think of

it is the the other red light that is on (camera left stop light..)

i had cropped that out and you didn't see it..

or it was that the main lights above the subjects head that was once green and then turned red when i took the panning shots around.. don't know.. all happened too quickly.. LOL..