[BruceBanner]

Lucky you....I must be doing something wrong....they have not been stitching properly

Interesting, I have not had an issue with ICE thus far, even with a few 30+ brenizer attempts. If that's the case I suspect that perhaps you are not overlapping enough, the technique is said to want a good 30% overlap, which to my mind means just slightly bumping across when panning for the shot etc.

[CharLac]

Interesting, I have not had an issue with ICE thus far, even with a few 30+ brenizer attempts. If that's the case I suspect that perhaps you are not overlapping enough, the technique is said to want a good 30% overlap, which to my mind means just slightly bumping across when panning for the shot etc.

You are probably correct....my first attempts had that issue...which is why I tried the simple one row stitch which worked. Try try again I always say Thanks for the help

[BruceBanner]

You are probably correct....my first attempts had that issue...which is why I tried the simple one row stitch which worked. Try try again I always say Thanks for the help

Try doing the panorama in portrait mode rather than holding the camera in regular landscape fashion. You might (with just two rows) capture plenty of height to the shot.

[CharLac]

Try doing the panorama in portrait mode rather than holding the camera in regular landscape fashion. You might (with just two rows) capture plenty of height to the shot.

Yeah, you or someone else mentioned this before so that's what I have been doing. Thanks!

[Jonathan Mac]

I've very occasionally had problems stitching with ICE, especially early on. I can think of two possible reasons for this - the first is that there isn't sufficient overlap between shots for the program to see that they should be stitched together, so that can be remedied by making sure you have more. Generally a minimum of 30% overlap is recommended. The other is that out of focus areas by their nature lack the details that the stitching program uses to know which images to stitch together, so I suspect some failures I've had were because they contained only out of focus areas which the program couldn't stitch together.

[Minimonster]

Good advice everyone, thanks. I'll give it all a try next time. It all makes perfect sense when I think about it!

[BruceBanner]

Eric's House;


Thought I'd try a mild Brenizer shot here, with the tree on the far right as the focus point.
Hmm... it's only a small stitch, 4-5 images in portrait mode going right to left, I don't feel the effect is that pronounced.
However, at f2.8 with the Takumar 135mm/2.5 I feels the image still holds a nice sharp DoF.

[BruceBanner]

My first 'successful' Brenzier shot, one that I would feel comfortable to give to a client;



Just a single row, perhaps 7-9 shots? Portrait orientation.

[baro-nite]

Successful indeed, and a good demonstration that it's not about the sheer quantity of exposures, it's much more about the composition and, especially, lighting.

[BruceBanner]

Successful indeed, and a good demonstration that it's not about the sheer quantity of exposures, it's much more about the composition and, especially, lighting.

Thanks, and indeed I think your point holds up when compared to this next shot (and it's cropped variants), which arguably has less 'brenizer feel' despite comprising of literally 10x as many shots.
What I believe constitutes to a good Brenizer effect is to have a good amount of distance from the subject to their nearest background items. The reason it works well (with such few shots) with my daughter is because there is little behind her except grass and eventually a wall, but they are yards away. The shot below was taken with the same lens and aperture as before, the Takumar 135/2.5 @ f2.8

-------------------------

Eric

It is our neighbour Eric's last day on this street, tomorrow he moves to Canberra to be close to his sister and extended family.
Eric has lived in his home (pictured behind) for over 40yrs, he is known all around town and is held in high regard.
He will surely be missed.

I took this Brenizer shot to try and capture him and his house in all it's glory. It's a mammoth stitch of 67 jpgs, and LR even refused to open it (had to shrink it in PS). (It's original file size was 450mb, it stands at 90mb now and 150megapixels roughly).

The images to follow are crops of the same stitched shot, they illustrate how much detail is in the final image.
I am personally studying the Brenizer method, finding that sweet spot where the Medium Format look starts to appear, I believe you can go too large (such as this shot) and lose the effect, but closer crops have that 3D effect more.

In future I shall try the technique where the subject is comprised of stitching rather than a still from one frame.




16:9 crop


Portrait crop

[baro-nite]

What I believe constitutes to a good Brenizer effect is to have a good amount of distance from the subject to their nearest background items.

I think the middle of these disproves that. It is essential to have a fairly continuous range from foreground to background, and composition and lighting that helps isolate the subject, and you've done that here. And actually the original (uncropped) would work well also, if reproduced large enough.

[CharLac]

My first 'successful' Brenzier shot, one that I would feel comfortable to give to a client;



Just a single row, perhaps 7-9 shots? Portrait orientation.

I think my failing has been having too much sky in the background so far; the stitching software cannot figure things out. I am going to try another with a busier background.

Do you hand hold your shots or use a tripod?

[BruceBanner]

I think my failing has been having too much sky in the background so far; the stitching software cannot figure things out. I am going to try another with a busier background.

Do you hand hold your shots or use a tripod?

Handheld.

Someone suggested the idea of using a 'rail' to do the shot, and if it would work better or turn out different. Interesting idea but I have no rail to test that theory out...

---------- Post added 05-15-18 at 06:17 AM ----------

I think the middle of these disproves that. It is essential to have a fairly continuous range from foreground to background, and composition and lighting that helps isolate the subject, and you've done that here. And actually the original (uncropped) would work well also, if reproduced large enough.

Yeah agreed. I didn't say this didn't have the look and feel of a brenizer, but in my mind it's not as strong an effect as the single row shots on the grass with my daughter (which had 10 times less frames used). Distance from the subject, lens, aperture etc all these things determine the outcome, but I'm left pondering if that depth of field 3d look is best when there is a greater distance between the subject and objects near their proximity. For example, if she was standing a meter or so out from a wall... would the same degree of power in the brenizer shot exist or not? I don't know, but I'm hazarding a guess that it's not as prolific. (must try tho).

[BruceBanner]

Campbell Rhododendron Gardens

[BruceBanner]

I been doing quite a few Brenizer shots in Av mode, often the aperture and ISO remain constant, the shutter speed varies whilst panning around. What's the general advice regarding this, should we bail out of any mode other than Manual for the shot? I have to say I quite like the exposures of the shots using Av mode thus far... perhaps it's more to do with the dynamic nature of the scene. If it's subtle changes Av mode is fine, if it's strong changes from bright to dark manual might be best other wise the stitching could look odd?