[magic.pill]

Are you sure this wasn't a two or three shot stitch taken with something a bit more commonly used for portraits, like an 85 f1.something? Seems like a tripod and an empty airport terminal are required to replicate the original picture.

@pres589: I have no clue at all, that is why I ask, haha.


So if I understood you correctly, your premise is that the portrait was taken in a studio and the background was taken in an airport. And the airport picture is a stitch taken from 3 picutres. And that the portrait was inserted into a stiched wide background?

[biz-engineer]

Agree. Though the results are so far appart. I dont think a full frame will have THAT big of a difference.

Sure, it'll not have more than 1.4x effect, with the same lens. Maybe, the example photographs you posted here above was shot with a 85 1.4 lens wide open. Although I would tend to feel like it was shot with a long focal length because the background is fairly narrow.

[magic.pill]

Sure, it'll not have more than 1.4x effect, with the same lens. Maybe, the example photographs you posted here above was shot with a 85 1.4 lens wide open. Although I would tend to feel like it was shot with a long focal length because the background is fairly narrow.

What makes you so sure it was exactly 85mm ?

[biz-engineer]

What makes you so sure it was exactly 85mm ?

I am not sure at all. I suspect 85mm could have been used, because 85mm is a very often used kind of lens for portraits with full frame and also apsc cameras.

[pres589]

@pres589: I have no clue at all, that is why I ask, haha.


So if I understood you correctly, your premise is that the portrait was taken in a studio and the background was taken in an airport. And the airport picture is a stitch taken from 3 picutres. And that the portrait was inserted into a stiched wide background?

No, I think the subject was in the airport terminal, I don't think there's anything overly complicated like that going on. I think the guy was in the terminal looking building and the background was real, he was really there, etc etc.

[BrianR]

There are large areas of duplicated elements to his left and right but with slightly different blur? Looks like a strange stitching job to me.

[magic.pill]

No, I think the subject was in the airport terminal, I don't think there's anything overly complicated like that going on. I think the guy was in the terminal looking building and the background was real, he was really there, etc etc.

@pres589 : ah, now I understand what you mean. The issue with the "one shot" version is that the angle of the background is so wide that I dont understand how the photogropher had possible fit the subject (half-body shot to be precise) AND such a wide blurred background in one picture.

By the way. This picture is taken from McKinsey website. Its surely done by a hired professional, who comes out for a day and takes pictures of several consultants at the same day. I think they would not go to an airport. The most possible location is the McKinsey offices. (But they are rarely so huge that it would look like an airport to alow such a wide shot )

[magic.pill]

@all. For those who cared to read up to this point. YES it seems to be a big stiching work. I found what seems to be the original picutre, where the subject was taken out of. If you look closely, you an see that they avoided to integrate the hair into the bigger picture by taking biger junks of the original image into the final result.

Thanks everybody for the discussion.

[08amczb]

Gray background shot is the most easily separated because it does not colorize the edges.
For me the DoF looks more then what a 85mm lens produce at F1.4 (shoulder to shoulder), but I don't have any FF camera.

[magic.pill]

Honestly guys, I think they even photoshoped the left part of the arm on the final picture. Because that part of the arm is missing in the original shot. :-)

[Des]

I wonder whether you might have misunderstood the responses that you got earlier.

The suggestion raised by @08amczb was that the image might have been shot with a plain background and merged in photoshop or some other program with another image of the blurry background. This doesn't involve stitching (joining images together).

But @08amczb suggested trying a Brenizer method stitched panorama instead. That involves a completely different technique. You take a series of images of a scene with a wide aperture lens for short depth of field. The images are generally shot from the same position, but cover a wide field of view. The subject is in focus and everything else isn't. You then stitch the images together with software (Microsoft Image Composite Editor is a good free program for doing this.) The effect can be quite striking.

It seems to me that a Brenizer method panorama might be the easiest way to get the effect you want.

[clackers]

Yep, the shot's a composite. Graphic designers rely on it, and it solves a lot of problems.

You can have your flash and assistant inside the frame very close to the subject and remove them afterwards, for instance. Passers-by and photobombers, ugly cars and signage in the background? Remove them, too.

Ugly background? Take a photo of your subject at f8, then the background at f1.4 focused to one metre, voila, blur (F-Stoppers call this cinematic portraits or some such)!