[Alizarine]

I came across the Brenizer method while reading about panorama's. It makes for a wonderful effect, however it sure takes up a lot of memory.
Well Photoshop comes with a some tools to recreate OOF areas, and I'm curious as to how effective one method is versus the other.

Barring resolution benefits of Brenizer, (since e.g. a 12-image stitch can make a 72-MP image from a 6MP camera) can a graphic artist, with enough skill, match the effect produced by the Brenizer method? Because both are post-exposure processes, anyway. I tried googling but couldn't find an image.

This is because I find the Brenizer a little too time- and memory-consuming than just introducing some levels of bokeh through selective area blurring. Has anyone tried using Photoshop's blur tools for such an effect? Or is the Brenizer that difficult to replicate?

[MikeD]

I came across the Brenizer method while reading about panorama's. It makes for a wonderful effect, however it sure takes up a lot of memory.
Well Photoshop comes with a some tools to recreate OOF areas, and I'm curious as to how effective one method is versus the other.

Barring resolution benefits of Brenizer, (since e.g. a 12-image stitch can make a 72-MP image from a 6MP camera) can a graphic artist, with enough skill, match the effect produced by the Brenizer method? Because both are post-exposure processes, anyway. I tried googling but couldn't find an image.

This is because I find the Brenizer a little too time- and memory-consuming than just introducing some levels of bokeh through selective area blurring. Has anyone tried using Photoshop's blur tools for such an effect? Or is the Brenizer that difficult to replicate?

I have tried photoshops blur and it works ok. don't know anything about the Brenizer method. Topaz has a program called lens effects which works very well. Also if you use ACR you can use the brush tool and reduce clarity and sharpness to soften a background better than the blur tool at least in my experience.

[CarlJF]

I have tried the Brenizer method and, although it works, it's not that easy to achieve. Getting tens of shots perfectly aligned without having perspective or distortion problems is much more easier said than done. It's certainly fun and instructive to give it a try, but not something I would consider using on a routine basis or for sitiuation where I mus get the shot. BTW, Brenizer is not only about getting a blurred background, but also to have a wide-angle coverage without the perspective distortion usually associated with the use of an UWA.

Software blur works well as long as you don't have a complex background or foreground with lot of things coming in or out of the z-axis. The more linear it is, the easier it is to apply the blur in a natural way. But, although you can blur the background of a portrait taken with a UWA, there's no much you can do about the ugly perspective of the portrait. It will not look at all like a Brenizer made from shots covering the same angle but taken with a large apertue telephoto.

[bar_foo]

Has anyone tried using Photoshop's blur tools for such an effect? Or is the Brenizer that difficult to replicate?

It would be almost impossible to match the Brenizer method exactly since its bokeh comes from real OOF areas and the degree of blur will be proportional to the distance from the focal plane: things just in front of or behind the plane of focus will be ever so slightly blurred, things further away will be more blurred, etc. Recreating that manually would be an insane amount of work if there's a lot of spatial depth, especially if the image has many layers, not just a simple receding background.

Likewise, bright areas and light sources will have the "halo" that results from a wide-open aperture (think of how a point light source like a bulb looks when it's completely OOF). To capture the same scene with a single shot, you have to zoom out, so you'll be using a lens with a smaller aperture, meaning that the halos around highlights will be less pronounced. As far as I know there's no way to simulate that in PP.

And the other thing about the Brenizer method you can't simulate, of course, is the increased resolution.

[mikeSF]

there are other ways to get a similar effect if you are comfortable making masks. This is 2 shots at f/6.3. First I focused on the wagon, then i shot a second pic focusing just in front of the wagon to put some separation between subject and the somewhat busy school house behind. This one is subtle, but hopefully you are able to see the concept and it only involves 2 shots plus a masked layer.

Wagonette

[baro-nite]

although you can blur the background of a portrait taken with a UWA, there's no much you can do about the ugly perspective of the portrait. It will not look at all like a Brenizer made from shots covering the same angle but taken with a large apertue telephoto.

Not so; using an UWA lens doesn't create perspective distortion; standing too close to the subject does. If you were to try this out, using the same camera position each time, you'd get a similar perspective. Differences would be due to factors such as barrel distortion in the UWA, and which stitching algorithm you chose (spherical, rectilinear, other). Software stitching effectively creates a wider-angle lens from the multiple shots.

To the OP, in most situations, memory is cheap. By all means try to simulate the effect with software blur and see if you like it, but as pointed out it may not be very convincing if the in-focus subject is not well isolated.

---------- Post added 2016-01-09 at 01:14 PM ----------

Edit: Mike's technique looks good, too. One could combine the two shots using focus-stacking software, if the masking proves fussy. Either way there is the potential problem of halos around the subject, caused by the fact that the subject "spreads" in the out-of-focus image and covers some of the background. But Mike's example looks very clean. I'm going to have to give this a try.

[CarlJF]

Not so; using an UWA lens doesn't create perspective distortion; standing too close to the subject does. If you were to try this out, using the same camera position each time, you'd get a similar perspective. Differences would be due to factors such as barrel distortion in the UWA, and which stitching algorithm you chose (spherical, rectilinear, other). Software stitching effectively creates a wider-angle lens from the multiple shots.

My post was probably isn't clear enough, but this is exactly what I meant to say. If you take a UWA shot near the subject and compared it with one taken from much farther with a telephoto covering the same angle by the Breziner method, the UWA portrait would not look as good as the one made with the Breziner method. Not because of the lens itself, but because you were not working from the same distances relative to the subject, the perspectives will be differents.

---------- Post added 01-09-16 at 02:58 PM ----------

Edit: Mike's technique looks good, too. One could combine the two shots using focus-stacking software, if the masking proves fussy. Either way there is the potential problem of halos around the subject, caused by the fact that the subject "spreads" in the out-of-focus image and covers some of the background. But Mike's example looks very clean. I'm going to have to give this a try.

+1

Mike's shot looks quite good. It certainly is something that is worth trying. In the worst of case, one still have the first in focus shot to work with. Nothing to lose to take a few more slightly out of focus.

[mikeSF]

...

[/COLOR]Edit: Mike's technique looks good, too. One could combine the two shots using focus-stacking software, if the masking proves fussy. Either way there is the potential problem of halos around the subject, caused by the fact that the subject "spreads" in the out-of-focus image and covers some of the background. But Mike's example looks very clean. I'm going to have to give this a try.

...

Mike's shot looks quite good. It certainly is something that is worth trying. In the worst of case, one still have the first in focus shot to work with. Nothing to lose to take a few more slightly out of focus.

yes, my technique works best with a clean subject. I recall the spokes, spindles and fringe were tricky to mask. I have other examples, hang tight...

---------- Post added 01-09-2016 at 01:53 PM ----------

Here's another example using 2 shots, one in focus and one front focused. This was an easy blend:

There's a Red House over yonder...

---------- Post added 01-09-2016 at 01:56 PM ----------

a little too much here, but same 2 shot technique.

Sakashta Opera Custom 7

[CarlJF]

yes, my technique works best with a clean subject. I recall the spokes, spindles and fringe were tricky to mask. I have other examples, hang tight...

---------- Post added 01-09-2016 at 01:53 PM ----------

Here's another example using 2 shots, one in focus and one front focused. This was an easy blend:

When you do your second shot, I guess you just switch to MF and defocus until the background looks like you wish ? I also guess you absolutely need a tripod for best results ?

[mikeSF]

Yes, I generally use manual focus or quick shift on the lens. If shooting handheld, just do this quickly and you can still get a reasonable result

[Alex645]

From my experience with Adobe Photoshop, given the time and effort and experience, more can be done than one can imagine or was even intended to do. I was in attendance at a NAPP Convention in Orlando and at one of the presentations by an author of one of the top Photoshop books, he demonstrated a combination of techniques to create an effect. A member of the audience was stunned, and asked him to repeat the process/demo. That audience member was one of the architects that wrote the code for Adobe and was amazed that his baby could do such a thing.

Ryan Brenizer's process is unique and although you could simulate it with Photoshop, no it wouldn't be identical, and yes, it would probably take just as much time and effort. However for much less time, effort, and memory, the effect can be emulated with Photoshop, albeit it is a different method and will give slightly different results. It's sort of like asking, is there a better way to get the old SX-70 smeared emulsion polaroid effect with the smudge tool on PS? More or less, yes. But Brenizer wouldn't do it that way because it's not the same.

[Alizarine]

yes, my technique works best with a clean subject. I recall the spokes, spindles and fringe were tricky to mask. I have other examples, hang tight...

---------- Post added 01-09-2016 at 01:53 PM ----------

Here's another example using 2 shots, one in focus and one front focused. This was an easy blend:

There's a Red House over yonder...

---------- Post added 01-09-2016 at 01:56 PM ----------

a little too much here, but same 2 shot technique.

Sakashta Opera Custom 7

Thanks for those great samples! Yes that was what I was looking for. So the technique is in masking... but I do agree it's tricky depending on the subject. Of course, Brenizer's look has a signature appeal to it, but this one has, too.