[er1kksen]

Bruce, these are great. Very practical application of the technique, with the results being excellent portraits on their own, rather than more or less just a showcase of the effect.

I just rediscovered a nonhuman portrait I made some time ago, before I knew what a "brenizer" was but had worked out the concept nonetheless. The one glitch was that I forgot to lock the exposure, so even after some adjustment (I think it was about 20 frames) I was not able to equalize the exposure and you can see the stitch lines- but the more I looked at the result, the more I kind of liked it. K-x with M 50mm f1.7

[BruceBanner]

My first successful Brenizer composite, taken last night in the cold. It's nothing special as a photo but I'm happy to have (mostly) figured out the process now after a couple of false starts.


Theatrical Shop, West Des Moines

58 shots, K-01 with Tokina RMC 135/2.8 at f/4, combined with Hugin

It's hard to say what constitutes a 'successful' Brenizer shot, for me it has to have that uber 3d punch somewhere in the shot and not just a successful stitch job. Not critiquing your shot here at all, I am guilty of doing many a brenizer shot and feeling that the results ended up flat, much like my most recent effort here;



134mp shot here, taken at f1.8 with the FA77, it's quite a nice panorama but I'm not really feeling the brenizer vibe, not like for example some of my only 3 stitched portrait shots a few posts back! If I can offer any advice I think shooting wide open is typically a key component, you took yours at f4, try the widest aperture next time (of any lens really). I think also try and pick a single object out and be relatively close to it (unlike here with my shot, the centre chimp is too far away really). I think the brenizer is most successful when you feel yourself really panning around, like shooting quite far away from the subject matter indeed. If you feel (like I did with this zoo pic) that you didn't pan around that much despite taking 30-40 shots, it's probably going to fall a little flat (especially if the focus object is pretty far away as well).

Bruce, these are great. Very practical application of the technique, with the results being excellent portraits on their own, rather than more or less just a showcase of the effect.

I just rediscovered a nonhuman portrait I made some time ago, before I knew what a "brenizer" was but had worked out the concept nonetheless. The one glitch was that I forgot to lock the exposure, so even after some adjustment (I think it was about 20 frames) I was not able to equalize the exposure and you can see the stitch lines- but the more I looked at the result, the more I kind of liked it. K-x with M 50mm f1.7

Thank you for the kind words. I am just experimenting really, exploring the idea of just taking portrait shots with 1-2 extra frames to assist with composition. If I rely on my centre point AF for a shot it's the most accurate AF point, but the framing is not so great, so adding an additional frame afterwards is my thought process to giving a better shot, even if it lacks the brenizer vibe.

I quite like your little accident here, I especially like how the stitching lines appear very rectangular! I would like to know more because I quite fancy trying a deliberate attempt of a more drastic nature of this kinda shot, which software gave you such rigid 'rectangular frame' stitching? It's almost like it's not overlapping but just put together like a jigsaw! Cool indeed!

[Sluggo]

It's hard to say what constitutes a 'successful' Brenizer shot, for me it has to have that uber 3d punch somewhere in the shot and not just a successful stitch job.

I would have hoped that what I wrote above the picture made it pretty clear where I was setting the bar for a first "success" in this.

[BruceBanner]

I would have hoped that what I wrote above the picture made it pretty clear where I was setting the bar for a first "success" in this.

You did great, I look forward to your future submissions. Have you got an idea of what you might try next? What where the things that constituted to a 'couple of false starts'?

I set up one of my User Modes to shoot in Jpg only, no AWB but instead a fixed WB chosen at the time (typically I leave it at 5000k but adjust before taking the shots). I use back button focus and make sure that the regular shutter button does no focusing at all, so I get the focus then start snapping away with the shutter button.

[Sluggo]

False starts = not getting nearly enough shots, not working from a consistent point (tripod sure does help eh), and in one case leaving auto exposure on. Then there's the matter of getting my head around the software, but that part is coming around. Probably next try will be with the A*85, wide open or nearly so, maybe on full frame. I imagine it should be better for this in every way than the old Tokina 135 I used here at f/4. No need to start with such a narrow field of view especially with something that needs to be stopped down to look good.

Still, the main thing right now is just motivating myself to get out and find a good subject in this arctic weather.... :-/

[BruceBanner]

False starts = not getting nearly enough shots, not working from a consistent point (tripod sure does help eh), and in one case leaving auto exposure on. Then there's the matter of getting my head around the software, but that part is coming around. Probably next try will be with the A*85, wide open or nearly so, maybe on full frame. I imagine it should be better for this in every way than the old Tokina 135 I used here at f/4. No need to start with such a narrow field of view especially with something that needs to be stopped down to look good.

Still, the main thing right now is just motivating myself to get out and find a good subject in this arctic weather.... :-/

I've actually not tried a tripod yet, might give that a whirl. I think the A* 85 on FF will be great, amazing you have that lens, it's apparently gorgeous! Find a snowman, make him your subject ahahah

Software wise I use Microsofts ICE, I find it does the job pretty good and quickly each time. Sometimes I use PS for the stitching too.

[er1kksen]

I quite like your little accident here, I especially like how the stitching lines appear very rectangular! I would like to know more because I quite fancy trying a deliberate attempt of a more drastic nature of this kinda shot, which software gave you such rigid 'rectangular frame' stitching? It's almost like it's not overlapping but just put together like a jigsaw! Cool indeed!

I believe for this one the software was just Photoshop CS4 or CS5... it was some time ago. Was on an even older laptop, too, I remember having to set the process up and then go make some coffee, eat something, tidy up the house, maybe read a book for a bit and then finally come back and see that the little green processing bar was almost full and cross my fingers it wouldn't crash at the last minute. If I knew more about how any why it turned out as it did I'd love to tell you, but to the best of my recollection the automated photomerge did as it pleased.

Sluggo, for a winter subject (I may be biased BUT) trees are great. Not a very dramatic example, but this one I actually shot with the 18-55 kit lens, I think two vertical rows of shots at the long end wide open! Was looking for enough subject isolation to really emphasize the exposed pattern of fungal growth that had been exposed by the bark falling off this dead tree, and I knew I couldn't get the desired effect with a single shot. Again, before I had heard of "Brenizer," but it was the same general idea. If I had done it with the 50mm f1.7 I think it would have been much more effective, but viewed large (which is how I would print it) it gives a good impression of depth and emphasis to the resulting image.

[BruceBanner]

I believe for this one the software was just Photoshop CS4 or CS5... it was some time ago. Was on an even older laptop, too, I remember having to set the process up and then go make some coffee, eat something, tidy up the house, maybe read a book for a bit and then finally come back and see that the little green processing bar was almost full and cross my fingers it wouldn't crash at the last minute. If I knew more about how any why it turned out as it did I'd love to tell you, but to the best of my recollection the automated photomerge did as it pleased.

Sluggo, for a winter subject (I may be biased BUT) trees are great. Not a very dramatic example, but this one I actually shot with the 18-55 kit lens, I think two vertical rows of shots at the long end wide open! Was looking for enough subject isolation to really emphasize the exposed pattern of fungal growth that had been exposed by the bark falling off this dead tree, and I knew I couldn't get the desired effect with a single shot. Again, before I had heard of "Brenizer," but it was the same general idea. If I had done it with the 50mm f1.7 I think it would have been much more effective, but viewed large (which is how I would print it) it gives a good impression of depth and emphasis to the resulting image.

When I use photoshop today it's handled pretty fast, I noticed it finishes showing the layers and the stitching marks which are squiggly and not straight edged like yours. You 'flatten image' to remove the squiggly lines and places where it seems obviously stitched, kinda blends it in and then Save As. I don't know how CS4/5 did it back then but if you didn't flatten the image before saving/exporting that may have added to the cool 'obvious individual frame' look, and back then it's stitching ability was perhaps not advanced and the 'straight line individual frame' thing was how it coped.
Interesting, perhaps there is a way to tell it when doing the photomerge to keep to the still frames as much as possible. I shall investigate!

Here's a couple of Brenizer from my daughter's 9th b'day bash just recently;

[OzzRod]

A landscape Brenizer using the DFA24-70 lens at 45mm. Stopped down slightly to f3.2 (just my preference). Only four frames hand-held and processed in Photoshop Elements 13 (Mac).

[Sluggo]

Yesterday was warm enough to invite walking, and I grabbed a couple of pano sets with the A*85. Wasn't sure how well this could work with the subject off a bit in the distance, but I was happy with it in the end -


a quiet place for lunch


Another set got torpedoed by long prairie grass stalks blowing around in the foreground -- too tall to fix by masking because they went way past the overlap areas, too many to fix by cloning. So rather than post the broken result, I just highlighted the edges of the component photos for amusement and resolved to come back on a calmer day. I wonder if it would have worked to do each shot twice and combine each pair in 'darken only' mode to make the moving bits disappear entirely. Probably not, because the movement still wouldn't be consistent in adjacent shots. :shrug:


fun with hugin

[BruceBanner]

Yesterday was warm enough to invite walking, and I grabbed a couple of pano sets with the A*85. Wasn't sure how well this could work with the subject off a bit in the distance, but I was happy with it in the end -


a quiet place for lunch


Another set got torpedoed by long prairie grass stalks blowing around in the foreground -- too tall to fix by masking because they went way past the overlap areas, too many to fix by cloning. So rather than post the broken result, I just highlighted the edges of the component photos for amusement and resolved to come back on a calmer day. I wonder if it would have worked to do each shot twice and combine each pair in 'darken only' mode to make the moving bits disappear entirely. Probably not, because the movement still wouldn't be consistent in adjacent shots. :shrug:


fun with hugin

Excellent results on both accounts if you ask me!

I really like the fun with hugin one. So I take it that was the program you used for stitching and it gives you the option to highlight the edge components etc? I'll have to try this. I would like to replicate in PS as well. I'm wondering if you could for example have each segment being different such as tones, color vs b&w, stuff like that. Like... as it is I think it could pass off as looking like an amateur mistake, but if driving the effect a little more hardcore it could come off as being very deliberate and arty (if you know what I mean). I think there's potential here to making some interesting panoramas. Or like a Jigsaw effect (if we could manipulate the stitch lines to being like jigsaw pieces etc, add texture to the shot etc, could be well cool!).

[Sluggo]

I really like the fun with hugin one. So I take it that was the program you used for stitching and it gives you the option to highlight the edge components etc?

Thanks. Alas no, hugin only goes so far as to provide the intermediate images (and not by default, you have to check a box, which I keep forgetting). What I did was load those up in GIMP as layers and make little solid color outlines around them there.

edited to add - the jigsaw idea is pretty amusing.

[Fenwoodian]

.
I've formed a group in Flickr to showcase the best Brenizer photos on Flickr (just click below).

Also, here's a link to an active Facebook group on Brenizer - moderated by my friend, the famous Edd Noble himself.

[BruceBanner]

.
I've formed a group in Flickr to showcase the best Brenizer photos on Flickr (just click below).

Also, here's a link to an active Facebook group on Brenizer - moderated by my friend, the famous Edd Noble himself.

Ah yeah I've see Ed Noble's worked in that flickr group and I tend to put my stuff up there when I've done one. He's good. I didn't realise there is a fb group about it too, cool!

[CharLac]

Yesterday was warm enough to invite walking, and I grabbed a couple of pano sets with the A*85. Wasn't sure how well this could work with the subject off a bit in the distance, but I was happy with it in the end -


a quiet place for lunch


Another set got torpedoed by long prairie grass stalks blowing around in the foreground -- too tall to fix by masking because they went way past the overlap areas, too many to fix by cloning. So rather than post the broken result, I just highlighted the edges of the component photos for amusement and resolved to come back on a calmer day. I wonder if it would have worked to do each shot twice and combine each pair in 'darken only' mode to make the moving bits disappear entirely. Probably not, because the movement still wouldn't be consistent in adjacent shots. :shrug:


fun with hugin

I really like that first one...IMHO, it really showcases what the Brenizer Method is all about. Well done